A Torturous Compromise

[PixelPusher]

We have the luxury of having this torture debate now because there was no second 9/11, and it was not for want of trying. Had there been, a vast majority of Americans would have told the government (and still will): “Do whatever it takes.”

So we're one more major terrorist attack from flushing our luxurious Bill of Rights down the toilet completely? We should just be happy that the Executive Branch gets to temporarily skirt around it in emergencies...but when does the "emergency" of the threat of terrorism end?

[Winehole23]

So we're one more major terrorist attack from scapping our luxurious Bill of Rights down the toilet completely?

Probably. Look what happened after 9/11. The American people don't have the sense God gave a goose.

We should just be happy that the Executive Branch gets to temporarily skirt around it in emergencies...

Oh I'm still pissed about that, but yeah, we should be so lucky.

...but when does the "emergency" of the threat of terrorism end?

The sovereign decides the state of the exception (to normal cons utional order.)

Apparently, SpursTalk conservatives want a Marxist tyrant who wants to destroy "The Heart of America" -- to have the power to torture and detain at whim, for as long as he wants.

[DarrinS]

I only respect another person's opinion when it comports with my own and I resort to name calling when I run out of ideas.

ok

[DarrinS]

So we're one more major terrorist attack from flushing our luxurious Bill of Rights down the toilet completely? We should just be happy that the Executive Branch gets to temporarily skirt around it in emergencies...but when does the "emergency" of the threat of terrorism end?

There's a balance between national security and civil liberties. The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

In a 1997 interview with John O'Neill (video here) -> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...erview_hi.html

he describes this concept of "ordered liberty"

[Winehole23]

You're a security freak. Me, a liberty freak.

Being humane to prisoners isn't a gun to your head, unless you think reality is a TV show.

[ChumpDumper]

Did O'Neill torture anyone?

[Winehole23]

I only respect another person's opinion when it comports with my own and I resort to name calling when I run out of ideas.

I respect people who can make their own case, in their own words. It's really more that your case sucks than that I disagree. You can't even carry your own brief most of the time.

Also, smugness doesn't pair too well with parroting flawed sources you didn't bother to read to begin with.

[LnGrrrR]

Then, by all means, let's have Nuremberg-style trials for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. I think it would be a great idea, don't you?

I dont' see why not. Republicans should love it too. If Bush goes free, they can say they were right all along, and he was vindicated by the law.

[DarrinS]

I dont' see why not. Republicans should love it too. If Bush goes free, they can say they were right all along, and he was vindicated by the law.

You guys still don't get that I don't care if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld fry. I just think it's potentially a very big political mistake by this admin.

[Winehole23]

You guys still don't get that I don't care if Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld fry. I just think it's potentially a very big political mistake by this admin.

I think Obama would like to shut it all down, but he can't. He doesn't control the DOJ or the US Congress.

[DarrinS]

I think Obama would like to shut it all down, but he can't. He doesn't control the DOJ or the US Congress.

That box got opened and I don't think you can shut it now.

[Winehole23]

Like CD said, the Obama tack seems to be a steady dribble of selective declassification. Maybe AG Holder will defer to his boss, though he is not really supposed to. Congress probably will do whatever it wants.

[ChumpDumper]

Bush/Cheney/Rummy can plead ignorance of the law and throw Yoo and Bybee under the bus. I think we'll get the latter two in front of a congressional panel and de-pant them publicly, but that would be about it.

[DarrinS]

Like CD said, the Obama tack seems to be a steady dribble of selective declassification. Maybe AG Holder will defer to his boss, though he is not really supposed to. Congress probably will do whatever it wants.

The Dem-controlled congress can anything they want. But do they REALLY want to do this? My bet is that a couple of high ranking Dems with dirt on their hands will put on the brakes.

[Winehole23]

The Dem-controlled congress can anything they want. But do they REALLY want to do this? My bet is that a couple of high ranking Dems with dirt on their hands will put on the brakes.

Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me that much, but I'm inclined to think they will investigate.

[ChumpDumper]

Heh, I didn't know how right I was. Turns out the Bush administration was already scheduling the bus route for Bybee and Yoo -- though some members are now backtracking since they are out of power.

Former Bush administration officials are launching a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to urge Justice Department leaders to soften an ethics report criticizing lawyers who blessed harsh detainee interrogation tactics, according to two sources familiar with the efforts.

In recent days, attorneys for the subjects of the ethics probe have encouraged senior Bush administration appointees to write and phone Justice Department officials, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

A draft report of more than 200 pages, prepared in January before Bush's departure, recommends disciplinary action by state bar associations, rather than criminal prosecution, against two former department attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel who might have committed misconduct in preparing and signing the so-called torture memos. State bar associations have the power to suspend a lawyer's license to practice or impose other penalties.

The memos offered support for waterboarding, slamming prisoners against a wall and other techniques that critics have likened to torture. The do ents were drafted between 2002 and 2005.

The sweeping investigation, now in its fifth year, could shed new light on the origins of the memos. Investigators rely in part on e-mail exchanges between Justice Department lawyers and lawyers at the CIA who sought advice about the legality of interrogation practices that have since been abandoned by the Obama administration.

Two of the authors, Jay S. Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge in Nevada, and John C. Yoo, now a law professor in Southern California, faced a deadline of yesterday to respond to investigators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050502219.html

These guys are boned, and from what I've seen, deservedly so.

[LnGrrrR]

I think the innocent politicians on the Dem side want to do this. So that's like... 3 people.

[Winehole23]

The patsies have been identified. What GWB did to the CIA will now happen to his OLC. The puppetmasters will say: we relied on bad advice

[Winehole23]

It seems Bush made a lot of bad hires. The excuse that they relied on crap advice is getting a little tired.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow.

Who would have expected crickets from the board Republicans after they discovered the Bush administration admitted its lawyers ed up?

[DarrinS]

Wow.

Who would have expected crickets from the board Republicans after they discovered the Bush administration admitted its lawyers ed up?

Bush was a bad president and he appointed a lot of incompetent people. But, that's not really enough, is it? We need some ing heads to roll. Am I right?

[Winehole23]

The NYT peek at the DOJ memo recommends against prosecution but leaves open the possibility of referral to the legal Bar for disciplinary sanctions.

It seems a rather minimal punishment to me for crafting a policy that had no legal basis, was tantamount to a war crime under our own law, and brought our country into universal disrepute, but that said, it also seems completely appropriate to disbar Bybee and Yoo.

Shouldn't incompetent lawyers be disbarred?

[Winehole23]

We need some ing heads to roll. Am I right?

Beheading would be an more edifying spectacle for officialdom, no doubt, but it is contrary to our foundational do ent and repugnant to enlightened modernity.

We don't do cruel and unusual, right?

[Winehole23]

So instead we'll have Congressional show trials and paroxysms of public shame, sans any legal consequence.

[DarrinS]

Beheading would be an more edifying spectacle for officialdom, no doubt, but it is contrary to our foundational do ent and repugnant to enlightened modernity.

We don't do cruel and unusual, right?

Damn. I wasn't even going there, WH.