The Slippery Slope

[maxiep]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

Criminalizing policy is something done with tinpot dictatorships, not a representative democracy. Of course, he's trying to innure himself from blame if we're attacked again. If an attack happens under his watch, he'll blame it on the previous administration and the anger in the Muslim world about our interrogation techniques.

This decision is shameful. Even leaving the door open to this possibility is chilling. Who is ever going to give honest advice ever again to the President? From here on out, it's all about CYA.

 

[MARIS61]

Laws were broken, people died and are still dying, criminals need to be prosecuted.

What's your beef?

 

[maxiep]

For those that want more background on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?fta=y

 

[maxiep]

Laws were broken, people died and are still dying, criminals need to be prosecuted.

What's your beef?

Okay, which laws did the legal advisors break? They gave their considered legal opinion and are now being threatened with prosecution.

Allow me to give you another example in your own silly field as a real estate externality. Let's say you offered advice to one of your clients a certain financing structure they could get, but that they couldn't really afford if times became tough. Seven years later, their house was foreclosed upon. Since you gave them advice on how to afford the home, should the banks come after you? If you knew this was possible, would you ever offer advice again?

 

[maxiep]

Nice to see they're taking a step back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/us/politics/24cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

We'll see how long President Obama can resist the urge for bloodletting from the Left.

 

[maxiep]

And here is the crux of the issue, spelled out by President Obama's official mouthpiece, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&hp

Mr. Obama and his allies need to discredit the techniques he has banned. Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision to rein in C.I.A. interrogators.

 

[MARIS61]

Okay, which laws did the legal advisors break? They gave their considered legal opinion and are now being threatened with prosecution.

Allow me to give you another example in your own silly field as a real estate externality. Let's say you offered advice to one of your clients a certain financing structure they could get, but that they couldn't really afford if times became tough. Seven years later, their house was foreclosed upon. Since you gave them advice on how to afford the home, should the banks come after you? If you knew this was possible, would you ever offer advice again?

I would never offer advice on financing in the first place. I know the basics but I am far from a financial expert.

Anyone who consults a Realtor for financial advice is no wiser than someone who has their landscaper perform a kidney transplant. And by the same token, anyone who takes advice on Real Estate from their financial advisor is just as naive.

For one thing, in Oregon it is illegal for me offer financial advice and for another it is against the Realtor's Code of Ethics. I would most certainly lose my license and face criminal charges. As always, I would urge my client to consult with a financial expert on those matters.

There is much evidence that the country was lied to about WMD's and the likelyhood of various terrorism activities in order to promote a war for Halliburton to profit from. If these lies were told, that is treason. If the President's lawyers and advisors lied to him about what is legal and illegal, that is treason. If the President was in on the lies to the country, that is treason.

We have courts to make these decisions and that's the difference between us and tinpot dictatorships.

If no laws were broken, no harm no foul.

 

[maxiep]

I would never offer advice on financing in the first place. I know the basics but I am far from a financial expert.

Anyone who consults a Realtor for financial advice is no wiser than someone who has their landscaper perform a kidney transplant. And by the same token, anyone who takes advice on Real Estate from their financial advisor is just as naive.

For one thing, in Oregon it is illegal for me offer financial advice and for another it is against the Realtor's Code of Ethics. I would most certainly lose my license and face criminal charges. As always, I would urge my client to consult with a financial expert on those matters.

There is much evidence that the country was lied to about WMD's and the likelyhood of various terrorism activities in order to promote a war for Halliburton to profit from. If these lies were told, that is treason. If the President's lawyers and advisors lied to him about what is legal and illegal, that is treason. If the President was in on the lies to the country, that is treason.

We have courts to make these decisions and that's the difference between us and tinpot dictatorships.

If no laws were broken, no harm no foul.

Again, it's the lawyers who gave the Bush Administration legal advice that are threatened with prosecution, not the people that executed the policy. But I guess you'll use any tangent to spout your irrationality for all to see.

Oh, and thanks for admitting you know little about finance. Anyone who has read your posts on economics would have already have arrived at that conclusion, but a little self-awareness from you is always refreshing.

 

[boatsandstars]

And here is the crux of the issue, spelled out by President Obama's official mouthpiece, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&hp

that's a retarded statement to make. you are ignorant. truly.

 

[maxiep]

that's a retarded statement to make. you are ignorant. truly.

Thanks for your opinion. Do you believe the Sulzberger family treats the Obama Administration with the same level of scrutiny that they did with the Bush Administration?

 

[MARIS61]

Thanks for your opinion. Do you believe the Sulzberger family treats the Obama Administration with the same level of scrutiny that they did with the Bush Administration?

I would guess quite a bit more scruting simply because it's easier now.

They needed a subpeopna to get any answers from the Bush/Cheney Syndicate.

 

[MARIS61]

Again, it's the lawyers who gave the Bush Administration legal advice that are threatened with prosecution, not the people that executed the policy. But I guess you'll use any tangent to spout your irrationality for all to see.

Oh, and thanks for admitting you know little about finance. Anyone who has read your posts on economics would have already have arrived at that conclusion, but a little self-awareness from you is always refreshing.

You're the one who went waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic into financing for no apparent reason. We were talking about presidential advisors who lied to advance personal agendas.

And I never said I know little about financing.

I said I know the basics, but since I am not an expert I would not advise others if asked.

From reading your posts I certainly hope you follow my example and also refrain from advising others.

BTW, I am unaware of ANY posts I have ever made on economics on this or any other board.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

Criminalizing policy is something done with tinpot dictatorships, not a representative democracy. Of course, he's trying to innure himself from blame if we're attacked again. If an attack happens under his watch, he'll blame it on the previous administration and the anger in the Muslim world about our interrogation techniques.

This decision is shameful. Even leaving the door open to this possibility is chilling. Who is ever going to give honest advice ever again to the President? From here on out, it's all about CYA.

That assumption is what has you upset over this. What if the lawyers were unethical and purposefully streched their legal analysis to fit what actions want to be taken.

Lawyers can and should be held accountable for their legal opinions. Many of us rely on lawyers to make some of our most improtant decisions . . . if that lawyer has a different agenda than giving sound legal advise, like telling clients what they want to hear in spite of the law. . . that is a problem.

 

[crandc]

There is no slippery slope. That is just the current talking point. It would be nice if maxiep, AgentDrazenPetrovich, Shooter/Talkhard, etc could just once come up with something original, instead of copying/pasting the current talking point, but that would require thought, wouldn't it?

It has been said to the point of cliche that the United States is "a nation of laws, not men/women".

Torture is illegal. Has been for a long time. There are no exceptions and no extenuating circumstances.

In a nation of laws, in a civilized nation, if there is reason to believe a serious crime has been committed it must be investigated. There is no other option if you wish to remain a nation of laws. Locally that means police detectives, nationally a special prosecutor or other agency. If there is evidence of a serious crime it must be prosecuted. If the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt there must be conviction.

In a nation of laws there is supposed to be a price to pay for breaking laws. If exceptions are made, it becomes a nation of men/women, not laws. A nation where some are exempt from the law. That is the only slippery slope here.

People can be jailed in some communities for skipping school, or wearing pants that hang down and expose their underwear, or privately smoking a harmless plant.

I think torture is more serious than those crimes.

I always get pissed off when some athlete (or anyone) gets accused of rape and it gets referred to as a "mistake". Turning the ball over is a mistake; rape is a crime.

Whether or not to withdraw from Iraq is policy. Torture is not policy, it is a crime.

 

[maxiep]

There is no slippery slope. That is just the current talking point. It would be nice if maxiep, AgentDrazenPetrovich, Shooter/Talkhard, etc could just once come up with something original, instead of copying/pasting the current talking point, but that would require thought, wouldn't it?

It has been said to the point of cliche that the United States is "a nation of laws, not men/women".

Torture is illegal. Has been for a long time. There are no exceptions and no extenuating circumstances.

In a nation of laws, in a civilized nation, if there is reason to believe a serious crime has been committed it must be investigated. There is no other option if you wish to remain a nation of laws. Locally that means police detectives, nationally a special prosecutor or other agency. If there is evidence of a serious crime it must be prosecuted. If the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt there must be conviction.

In a nation of laws there is supposed to be a price to pay for breaking laws. If exceptions are made, it becomes a nation of men/women, not laws. A nation where some are exempt from the law. That is the only slippery slope here.

People can be jailed in some communities for skipping school, or wearing pants that hang down and expose their underwear, or privately smoking a harmless plant.

I think torture is more serious than those crimes.

I always get pissed off when some athlete (or anyone) gets accused of rape and it gets referred to as a "mistake". Turning the ball over is a mistake; rape is a crime.

Whether or not to withdraw from Iraq is policy. Torture is not policy, it is a crime.

Do you believe waterboarding to be torture? Do you believe sleep deprivation to be torture? Do you believe making someone stay in a room that's too cold or too hot to be torture? Definitions are important. I don't happen to believe they are torture.

Also, we waterboarded two subjects who had information critical to stopping an attack on Los Angeles. Those are the only two ever waterboarded. I'm interested to know how many lives you are willing to exchange to not waterboard these high ranking members of Al Qaeda. Please, give me a number. 500 people? 1,000? 5,000? How many innocent American lives are you willing to sacrifice so that someone in our custody never feels discomfort? Theory is great, but eventually, you have to make a call as to where the rubber meets the road.

You can go ahead and dismiss my argument as a "talking point", but it really demonstrates that you have no answer to the charge of proscecuting policy advisors for advice they give. Do you want members of the Obama Administration being sued and investigated for advice they gave the President? They may or may not go to prison, but they will spend years and their life savings defending themselves against those charges. I know that I want the best possible people in government service giving advice to my President. Exactly who do you think is going to join an Administration if they know there's a strong likelihood they'll be investigated, sued and or charged with a crime by the next Administration that disagrees with their views.

 

[maxiep]

That assumption is what has you upset over this. What if the lawyers were unethical and purposefully streched their legal analysis to fit what actions want to be taken.

Lawyers can and should be held accountable for their legal opinions. Many of us rely on lawyers to make some of our most improtant decisions . . . if that lawyer has a different agenda than giving sound legal advise, like telling clients what they want to hear in spite of the law. . . that is a problem.

Your point isn't correct. My issue is that policy differences are being criminalized. What happens when the next Republican administration comes into power? Are they going to sue President Obama's advisors for their links to ACORN and improper distribution of Federal funds simply because they disagree with President Obama's policies?

Presidents need to get unfiltered advice. If you criminalize policy, you are going to force the person asked for it to either not join the Administration, not give advice or give advice that puts his own well being ahead of the country's.

 

[maxiep]

We have courts to make these decisions and that's the difference between us and tinpot dictatorships.

If no laws were broken, no harm no foul.

You've never heard of a witch hunt? Does Ken Starr ring a bell? Bill Clinton was lying about getting a blow job and people's lives were ruined because of it. The issue isn't whether or not a person is guilty, the goal is destroying your political opponents by smearing them in the courts and forcing them to spend their life savings to defend themselves.

I'm reminded of Ray Donovan, who was sentenced by the court of public opinion before he ever went to trial. When he was acquitted, he merely responded, "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"

President Clinton called this tactic "the politics of personal destruction". It's a disincentive to serve your country and diminishes our democracy.

 

[barfo]

One difference here is that the Clinton witchhunt actually happened, whereas the Bush legal advisor witchhunt hasn't actually happened.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

One difference here is that the Clinton witchhunt actually happened, whereas the Bush legal advisor witchhunt hasn't actually happened.

barfo

And you think that President Obama leaving the door open when he had an opportunity to close it is good for the country?

 

[barfo]

And you think that President Obama leaving the door open when he had an opportunity to close it is good for the country?

I think it is irrelevant.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I think it is irrelevant.

barfo

On that point, we disagree. Barack Obama taught con law as an adjunct at a damned fine law school. Are you telling me he doesn't understand the significance of this issue? Heading down this path directly impacts his presidency. Who is going to give him straightforward advice on tricky subjects? Yet, he's so cowed by the left that wants their piece of flesh for eight years of the Bush Administration that he can't tell them "no".

 

[barfo]

On that point, we disagree. Barack Obama taught con law as an adjunct at a damned fine law school. Are you telling me he doesn't understand the significance of this issue?

No, I'm telling you I don't understand the significance of this issue.

Heading down this path directly impacts his presidency.

Yes, and if/when he heads down that path, it will be worth discussing. And the moment, he's simply said that is a path that could be headed down. Like nuclear war with Russia, or putting a methane tax on farts.

Who is going to give him straightforward advice on tricky subjects? Yet, he's so cowed by the left that wants their piece of flesh for eight years of the Bush Administration that he can't tell them "no".

I don't see much evidence of that, myself. He's done a bunch of things already that have disappointed the left.

barfo

 

[Dumpy]

Okay, which laws did the legal advisors break? They gave their considered legal opinion and are now being threatened with prosecution.

That's not how things work(ed?). Most likely, these memos were not the independent work of government employees based on a hypothetical situation. The drafters of these memos--who, by the way, were not low-level attorney-advisors, but high-ranking officials--were most likely told in advance what conclusion they had to reach to justify certain activity that violated international law (which may have already occurred, in my view). The way it works is that the top guys in the agency need to insulate themselves from the decision, so they call a trusted deputy into their office, and tell him or her what to write. Everything is communicated orally, so there is no paper trail. If the deputies push back, they are removed from the "inner circle" of the decision-making process. They want to be a good soldier--and have a future--so they comply, even though they know they are writing bullshit. Trust me on this. Why do you think that at least one of these attorneys is now a federal judge? How and why do you think that happened?

What I find most surprising is that the deputy attorney general wrote these memos himself, which indicates that he was unable to find someone below him to do the dirty work. He wants to insulate himself, too--the further down the chain you can go, the more it will look like the memo was drafted by an independent advisor with no agenda; I suspect that there are others that refused to comply (or maybe Bybee and the others declined to involve anyone else because he knew what they were getting into). The real issue here is who told them to draft those memos the way that they did. But unfortunately, we'll probably never find out, so they have to be threatened with legal action in the hope that their divulge the truth.

And, by the way, the attorneys that drafted these memos probably violated the attorney rules of ethics, in addition to the government rules of conduct.

 

[crandc]

Water boarding has been legally defined as torture since the Spanish Inquisition. The United States has prosecuted others for this practice.

Short answer, yes. Maxiep's belief is irrelevant. These practices are legally defined as torture both in the US and by international treaty that the US has signed.

As for the story on the LA plot, please, read the news, not the talking points. That talking point has been debunked for a very long time. The so called plot, which seems to have been nothing but talk, was discovered well before the torture memos and the capture of the two so called suspects.

As to how many people to kill because I oppose torture: The US military and the FBI, hardly liberal bastions, have refused to participate in torture because 1) it is illegal 2) according to these experts it does not work. A person will say anything, true or not, will say what they know their captor wants to hear, to make the torture stop.

The US was determined to get information about Iraq's illegal weapons and ties to 9/11. The memos show they were frustrated by their inability to get such admissions from prisoners. They literally tortured harder. But there were no illegal weapons and no ties to 9/11. Yet I'd bet someone finally said so just to stop torture.

My question: how many are you willing to torture and kill in the name of "defending freedom"?

If you ask a woman for sex and she refuses, and then you get a bunch of your buddies, beat her to a pulp until she submits, you can say it "worked".

 

[maxiep]

That's not how things work(ed?). Most likely, these memos were not the independent work of government employees based on a hypothetical situation. The drafters of these memos--who, by the way, were not low-level attorney-advisors, but high-ranking officials--were most likely told in advance what conclusion they had to reach to justify certain activity that violated international law (which may have already occurred, in my view). The way it works is that the top guys in the agency need to insulate themselves from the decision, so they call a trusted deputy into their office, and tell him or her what to write. Everything is communicated orally, so there is no paper trail. If the deputies push back, they are removed from the "inner circle" of the decision-making process. They want to be a good soldier--and have a future--so they comply, even though they know they are writing bullshit. Trust me on this. Why do you think that at least one of these attorneys is now a federal judge? How and why do you think that happened?

What I find most surprising is that the deputy attorney general wrote these memos himself, which indicates that he was unable to find someone below him to do the dirty work. He wants to insulate himself, too--the further down the chain you can go, the more it will look like the memo was drafted by an independent advisor with no agenda; I suspect that there are others that refused to comply (or maybe Bybee and the others declined to involve anyone else because he knew what they were getting into). The real issue here is who told them to draft those memos the way that they did. But unfortunately, we'll probably never find out, so they have to be threatened with legal action in the hope that their divulge the truth.

And, by the way, the attorneys that drafted these memos probably violated the attorney rules of ethics, in addition to the government rules of conduct.

That's a dump truck load of suppositions you brought to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion .

 

[maxiep]

Water boarding has been legally defined as torture since the Spanish Inquisition. The United States has prosecuted others for this practice.

Please show me the precise clauses where waterboarding is specifically mentioned as "torture". I'm fluent in Spanish, so if you have anything Torquemada wrote, feel free to post the original text. As for the Japanese, they waterboarded with salt water, which lead to death. Our waterboarding had strict standards. Not for any longer than two minutes at a time, only so many attempts in a day, etc., etc.

Short answer, yes. Maxiep's belief is irrelevant. These practices are legally defined as torture both in the US and by international treaty that the US has signed.

Again, please show me the exact clauses where those practices are defined as "torture". And those clauses need to be written before September 11, 2001.

As for the story on the LA plot, please, read the news, not the talking points. That talking point has been debunked for a very long time. The so called plot, which seems to have been nothing but talk, was discovered well before the torture memos and the capture of the two so called suspects.

On September 10, 2001, the plot to fly airliners into building in NY and DC were nothing more than "talk".

As to how many people to kill because I oppose torture: The US military and the FBI, hardly liberal bastions, have refused to participate in torture because 1) it is illegal 2) according to these experts it does not work. A person will say anything, true or not, will say what they know their captor wants to hear, to make the torture stop.

So, you have no answer. Typical. You keep on skating around the question.

The US was determined to get information about Iraq's illegal weapons and ties to 9/11. The memos show they were frustrated by their inability to get such admissions from prisoners. They literally tortured harder. But there were no illegal weapons and no ties to 9/11. Yet I'd bet someone finally said so just to stop torture.

Ah, so the conspiracy theory goes. Thank you for showing us all what you truly believe. Stop presenting your crackpot theories as fact.

My question: how many are you willing to torture and kill in the name of "defending freedom"?

I'm not willing to torture. But I don't define the methods we've used as torture. As for killing terrorists and those that choose to raise arms and fight against us on the field of battle, I'm willing to kill them all.

There, I answered your question directly. Now answer mine: How many innocent American lives are you willing to expend by having terrorist plots succeed in this country to ensure that terrorists aren't made to feel uncomfortable?

If you ask a woman for sex and she refuses, and then you get a bunch of your buddies, beat her to a pulp until she submits, you can say it "worked".

What the fuck does this craziness have to do with the price of tea in China? Seriously, what happened to you that made you hate men so much?

 

[Dumpy]

That's a dump truck load of suppositions you brought to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion .

I think it is best if I don't comment further.

 

[maxiep]

I think it is best if I don't comment further.

Given your previous post, I agree.

 

[Dumpy]

Given your previous post, I agree.

lol!

 

[maxiep]

lol!

I hope you took my posts in the good humor in which they were meant.