The only difference between this and an actual witch hunt is that there's no such thing as magic.

*Tinkerbell drops dead*

/ooops, my bad

keiverarrow: *Tinkerbell drops dead*

Dead chicks can't say no

I laughed, subby.

Does Obama way more than a duck?

"If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive."

No, we're criminalizing making up the law when the laws on the books don't let you do what you want.

McCain's a friggin' armchair POW.

waterboarding: Torture when the Chinese used it, Japan used it, Pol Pot used it, etc. etc.

But it is "an enhanced interrogation technique" when we use it.

And the righties wonder where this whole "America is arrogant" stuff comes from...

McCain can whine all he wants. Obama won't be the one going after Bush admin officials. It will be the rest of the world.

This Is Bold Text: Every time I see that I wonder in exactly which respect I should be most offended.

Diogenes: This Is Bold Text: Every time I see that I wonder in exactly which respect I should be most offended.

He's a fatty.

This Is Bold Text

Wow. Just, Wow.

Diogenes: This Is Bold Text: Every time I see that I wonder in exactly which respect I should be most offended.

Which Fark Independent do you think that is?

Uchiha_Cycliste: Diogenes: This Is Bold Text: Every time I see that I wonder in exactly which respect I should be most offended.

He's a fatty.

LOL. Great. Now I have an ever greater dilemma.

mediablitz: waterboarding: Torture when the Chinese used it, Japan used it, Pol Pot used it, etc. etc.

Perfected during the Inquisition. The US military courts hanged 8 Japanese for torture after WWII, specifically for waterboarding. If it's been recognized as torture through the ages, it should be now. Those in the Bush administration who are responsible at the highest levels should be held accountable.

Pol Pot agrees

The term "witch hunt" is really only applicable when there is either no real reason to try to find the people in question or they do not exist. Neither of these situations exist here so the phrase seems somewhat misapplied.

oldernell: mediablitz: waterboarding: Torture when the Chinese used it, Japan used it, Pol Pot used it, etc. etc.

Perfected during the Inquisition. The US military courts hanged 8 Japanese for torture after WWII, specifically for waterboarding. If it's been recognized as torture through the ages, it should be now. Those in the Bush administration who are responsible at the highest levels should be held accountable.

but it's not torture when a crack legal team sends out a memo with their opinion that it's not!

Hey McCain. STFU old man.

McCain seems a little worried that there's no Presidential pardons forthcoming.

But obama robbing the tax payers for the next 30 years isn't torture?
He's already taken lives of American citizens who saw no way out but to commit suicide.

ToxicMunkee: but it's not torture when a crack legal team sends out a memo with their opinion that it's not!

Hey McCain. STFU old man.

You are completely missing the point. Where in this article did McCain say it wasn't torture?

necropoultryac: He's already taken lives of American citizens who saw no way out but to commit suicide.

Careful. You'll pull something reaching so hard like that.

necropoultryac: But obama robbing the tax payers for the next 30 years isn't torture?
He's already taken lives of American citizens who saw no way out but to commit suicide.

[golf clap]

Jolly good show. Jolly good. Excellent placement of lure. Good retrieval rate.

necropoultryac: He's already taken lives of American citizens who saw no way out but to commit suicide.

You mean like this girl?

Since John McCain knows from personal experience that torture doesn't work for gaining information because he lied when tortured, he must support torture just for the fun of torturing people.

gustakooka: ToxicMunkee: but it's not torture when a crack legal team sends out a memo with their opinion that it's not!

Hey McCain. STFU old man.

You are completely missing the point. Where in this article did McCain say it wasn't torture?

I'm not missing the point, McCain is missing the point.

McCain, if you love torture so much why don't you marry it???

Bill Clinton really should have just asked a lawyer in the White House to write a memo saying he could lie under oath. That would have stopped his impeachment, I'm sure.

This Is Bold Text: *image*

That guy seems like a well adjusted fella. Probably a blast at parties.

darkyn: The term "witch hunt" is really only applicable when there is either no real reason to try to find the people in question or they do not exist. Neither of these situations exist here so the phrase seems somewhat misapplied.

It's sort of the opposite of a witch hunt. They are looking for certain behavior which they think should be punished, then looking for the people who did it, rather than looking for a person they want punished, then declaring something they did illegal.

Headso: McCain, if you love torture so much

Please cite.

"If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive," McCain said during an interview on CBS's "Early Show."

Hate Bush/McCain all you want, but McCain is dead ass right when he says that.

DamnYankees: Bill Clinton really should have just asked a lawyer in the White House to write a memo saying he could lie under oath. That would have stopped his impeachment, I'm sure.

This may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

DamnYankees: Bill Clinton really should have just asked a lawyer in the White House to write a memo saying he could lie under oath. That would have stopped his impeachment, I'm sure.

Well that is a terrible analogy. To make your scenario relate, the lawyer would have to be at risk for criminal proceedings for the advice he gave.

"Look, I didn't agree, as you said, with the techniques - and I'd be glad to continue that debate with people. But to criminalize their legal counsel, unless you can prove that they intentionally violated existing laws or ethics, then this is going to turn into a witch hunt," he said.

God thing he wasn't a judge at Nuremberg.

Yeah... I went there.

KaponoFor3: "If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive," McCain said during an interview on CBS's "Early Show."

Hate Bush/McCain all you want, but McCain is dead ass right when he says that.

I dunno, I feel that if a legal opinion is blatantly incorrect and leads to violation of what we consider basic human rights then people need to be held accountable. Being a lawyer shouldn't make you immune to the law.

KaponoFor3: If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive," McCain said during an interview on CBS's "Early Show."

Hate Bush/McCain all you want, but McCain is dead ass right when he says that.

He'd be right if he weren't so wrong. It does not constitute criminalizing legal advice. It ciminalizes telling your attorneys to give you permission to commit a crime, after you've already committed the crime.

The only chilling effect it should have is on using lawyers to euphamize the law to let you do whatever the hell you want, justice and facts be damned.

ToxicMunkee: KaponoFor3: "If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive," McCain said during an interview on CBS's "Early Show."

Hate Bush/McCain all you want, but McCain is dead ass right when he says that.

I dunno, I feel that if a legal opinion is blatantly incorrect and leads to violation of what we consider basic human rights then people need to be held accountable. Being a lawyer shouldn't make you immune to the law.

Immune to the law? Immune to what law? What law did the legal council break?

I am asking seriously, because I do not know.

KaponoFor3: This may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

What's wrong with the analogy?

gustakooka: Well that is a terrible analogy. To make your scenario relate, the lawyer would have to be at risk for criminal proceedings for the advice he gave.

Shouldn't he be?

DamnYankees: Bill Clinton really should have just asked a lawyer in the White House to write a memo saying he could lie under oath. That would have stopped his impeachment, I'm sure.

Probably not, since only the dimmest, most ignorant graduate of the worst law school in the country (who isn't already on the bench somewhere) would actually advise a client like that. There's a difference between an arguable, good faith interpretation of the law and outright stupidity. (I reserve judgment on the torture memos until such time as I review the memos, the facts, and the applicable law. They may be outright stupidity. Or not.)

Nabb1: Probably not, since only the dimmest, most ignorant graduate of the worst law school in the country (who isn't already on the bench somewhere) would actually advise a client like that. There's a difference between an arguable, good faith interpretation of the law and outright stupidity. (I reserve judgment on the torture memos until such time as I review the memos, the facts, and the applicable law. They may be outright stupidity. Or not.)

I don't see why it would be harder to come up with a justification to lie under oath than a justification for torture.

KaponoFor3: Hate Bush/McCain all you want, but McCain is dead ass right when he says that.

If I tell you it's legal to stab your wife, you are not entitled to rely on that.

gustakooka: What law did the legal council break?

I am asking seriously, because I do not know.

Deliberately and knowingly giving incorrect legal advice, for a crminal act already committed. It's conspiracy.

At minimum they should lose their licenses to practice. It's like a doctor violating the Hippocratic oath.

DamnYankees: KaponoFor3: This may be the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

What's wrong with the analogy?

gustakooka: Well that is a terrible analogy. To make your scenario relate, the lawyer would have to be at risk for criminal proceedings for the advice he gave.

Shouldn't he be?

What does Bill Clinton not being impeached have to do with it? Why did you bring Bill Clinton into the analogy?

KaponoFor3: "If you criminalize legal advice, which is basically what they're going to do, then it has a terribly chilling effect on any kind of advice and counsel that the president might receive," McCain said during an interview on CBS's "Early Show."

Hate Bush/McCain all you want, but McCain is dead ass right when he says that.

Why would we not want to have a chilling affect on lawyers giving advice which might be illegal? Seems like that's exactly the kind of thing we want them thinking long and hard about.

DamnYankees: What's wrong with the analogy?

I'll do this slow so you can follow:

Bill Clinton really should have just asked a lawyer in the White House to write a memo saying he could lie under oath. That would have stopped his impeachment, I'm sure.

See that bolded part? You were saying that if his lawyer gave shiatty legal advice, which you clearly believe the Bush admin lawyers to have done, then Clinton wouldn't have been impeached. The equal to that in the Bush scenario is if Bush himself were under fire for the carrying out the legal opinions. He's not, and this whole thread is discussing whether or not the attorneys should be found liable.

It's a terrible, terrible analogy and I think you will recognize that if you honestly step back and look at it.

Diogenes: He'd be right if he weren't so wrong. It does not constitute criminalizing legal advice. It ciminalizes telling your attorneys to give you permission to commit a crime, after you've already committed the crime.

The only time that attorneys can be busted for giving bad legal advice is when they willingly and knowingly give assistance that helps with the assistance of a crime -- i.e., they know that what they are doing is criminal.

Good luck proving scienter of these attorneys. Unless there is some smoking gun documents that come out (one that showed, say, the attorneys wanted to come out and say no waterboarding but they were ordered by Rice and Cheney to say its legal), then there is nothing that will come of this.

gustakooka: What does Bill Clinton not being impeached have to do with it? Why did you bring Bill Clinton into the analogy?

Because its a basic argument of punishing a president for breaking the law. The exact same people who think we should just let this torture stuff "go" are the same people who wanted to, and did, impeach the previous president for breaking the law.

gustakooka: DamnYankees: Bill Clinton really should have just asked a lawyer in the White House to write a memo saying he could lie under oath. That would have stopped his impeachment, I'm sure.

Well that is a terrible analogy. To make your scenario relate, the lawyer would have to be at risk for criminal proceedings for the advice he gave. President Clinton would have had to commit heinous crimes against humanity.

FTFY

Incidentally, if anyone believes that the administration truly "relied" on those legal opinions, such that they based their conduct on a legitimate and good faith belief in the strength and validity of those opinions, I have a bridge to sell you.

DamnYankees: I don't see why it would be harder to come up with a justification to lie under oath than a justification for torture.

Of course YOU don't, we've already established that you already believe lying under oath is OK.

kronicfeld: If I tell you it's legal to stab your wife, you are not entitled to rely on that.

That's cause you don't have a legitimate, good faith basis in believing that is valid legal advice. The critical distinction is what Nabb1 referenced above.

Diogenes: Deliberately and knowingly giving incorrect legal advice, for a crminal act already committed. It's conspiracy.

The problem is that you need to be able to prove that they deliberately and knowingly gave wrong legal advice. Good luck proving it.