AndyBoyd 0
Andy9o8 3
QuoteWow, this thread really blew up over the weekend after I added my 2 cents. I won't wade into the debate on whether waterboarding is torture, or whether the U.S. ought to be torturing people. My problem is with the conduct of these Justice Department attorneys. DOJ attorneys were and are charged with the extremely serious responsibility of giving the President the best possible legal advice they can, but in this situation, they bent and twisted the law in order to fulfill a political purpose. In other words, they used the law to give the President and his administration the legal leeway to do what the administration already wanted to do. These attorneys completely and utterly failed to do their jobs, which is to give the President sound and objective legal advice. And for that, they were rewarded with presitgious positions at Berkeley and the 9th Circuit. No matter what your stance is on torture, that is absolutely appalling.
Yes. Really.
QuoteWow, this thread really blew up over the weekend after I added my 2 cents. I won't wade into the debate on whether waterboarding is torture, or whether the U.S. ought to be torturing people. My problem is with the conduct of these Justice Department attorneys. DOJ attorneys were and are charged with the extremely serious responsibility of giving the President the best possible legal advice they can, but in this situation, they bent and twisted the law in order to fulfill a political purpose. In other words, they used the law to give the President and his administration the legal leeway to do what the administration already wanted to do. These attorneys completely and utterly failed to do their jobs, which is to give the President sound and objective legal advice. And for that, they were rewarded with presitgious positions at Berkeley and the 9th Circuit. No matter what your stance is on torture, that is absolutely appalling.
I don't see it this way. Lawyers make opinions that are overturned by the Supremes all the time. In San Francisco, the city government often knowingly does unconstitutional acts, which eventually get shut down by the state Supreme Court (gay marriages, handgun ban). Do we move to disbar the city AG or impeach the mayor for this political decisions?
These attorneys gave the Bush Administration the justification they needed to proceed. The Court then said, "nope." That's how it works.
This entire exercise now is political retaliation, a tit for tat process that has been going on since the first Bush Administration, or slightly earlier to Bork. Nailing the lawyers because you're pissed at Bush is a bit petty. It's time to move on.
billvon 3,173
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>This entire exercise now is political retaliation . . .
Given that they were cleared, I'd think this was a poor example of that.
Given that they were cleared, I'd think this was a poor example of that.
Quote>This entire exercise now is political retaliation . . .
Given that they were cleared, I'd think this was a poor example of that.
Hardly - their opposers are still trying to get Yoo fired from Boalt.
AndyBoyd 0
QuoteQuoteWow, this thread really blew up over the weekend after I added my 2 cents. I won't wade into the debate on whether waterboarding is torture, or whether the U.S. ought to be torturing people. My problem is with the conduct of these Justice Department attorneys. DOJ attorneys were and are charged with the extremely serious responsibility of giving the President the best possible legal advice they can, but in this situation, they bent and twisted the law in order to fulfill a political purpose. In other words, they used the law to give the President and his administration the legal leeway to do what the administration already wanted to do. These attorneys completely and utterly failed to do their jobs, which is to give the President sound and objective legal advice. And for that, they were rewarded with presitgious positions at Berkeley and the 9th Circuit. No matter what your stance is on torture, that is absolutely appalling.
I don't see it this way. Lawyers make opinions that are overturned by the Supremes all the time. In San Francisco, the city government often knowingly does unconstitutional acts, which eventually get shut down by the state Supreme Court (gay marriages, handgun ban). Do we move to disbar the city AG or impeach the mayor for this political decisions?
These attorneys gave the Bush Administration the justification they needed to proceed. The Court then said, "nope." That's how it works.
This entire exercise now is political retaliation, a tit for tat process that has been going on since the first Bush Administration, or slightly earlier to Bork. Nailing the lawyers because you're pissed at Bush is a bit petty. It's time to move on.
Allow me to correct a few misunderstandings. First, the Supreme Court reviews the decisions of other judges, usually those of federal appellate courts, but sometimes the Supreme Court reviews state Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court does not review the "opinions" that "lawyers make." Second, DOJ attorneys have significantly different responsibilities than city council members or city mayors. Third, states have attorneys general, not cities. Fourth, and most importantly, the legal memorandums written by these DOJ attorneys were not reviewed by the Supreme Court. This was an internal investigation by the DOJ itself.
You are of course free to disagree with my views. Lots of people do. But you are making arguments about things that you clearly do not fully understand.
Quote
You are of course free to disagree with my views. Lots of people do. But you are making arguments about things that you clearly do not fully understand.
I view this from a political science perspective.
you're viewing this as a lawyer who didn't agree with their policy. And I dare say with more emotion.
AndyBoyd 0
QuoteQuote
You are of course free to disagree with my views. Lots of people do. But you are making arguments about things that you clearly do not fully understand.
I view this from a political science perspective.
you're viewing this as a lawyer who didn't agree with their policy. And I dare say with more emotion.
Is the "political science" perspective the one where you have all your facts wrong?
QuoteQuoteQuote
You are of course free to disagree with my views. Lots of people do. But you are making arguments about things that you clearly do not fully understand.
I view this from a political science perspective.
you're viewing this as a lawyer who didn't agree with their policy. And I dare say with more emotion.
Is the "political science" perspective the one where you have all your facts wrong?
more of that emotion showing.
I didn't support the practice, nor the Patriot Act or a host of other things that came in the climate of the decade, but I don't see any point or validity in trying to railroad these two.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites