stuckincincy Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 .."But Obama said Tuesday it would fall to Attorney General Eric Holder to decide whether to prosecute lawyers who wrote the advice."... http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/21/o...emos042109.html Wow...that has serious ramifications for people's rights vs. an overarching State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 And good luck getty any lawyer to write a legal opinion ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 And good luck getty any lawyer to write a legal opinion ever again. You can barely get a lawyer to put anything on paper NOW, let alone if this thing goes through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 And good luck getty any lawyer to write a legal opinion ever again. Why? Are they going to stop paying lawyers to do that or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Why? Are they going to stop paying lawyers to do that or something? Man, you are slow on the uptake aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Why? Are they going to stop paying lawyers to do that or something? You truly are a bonafide bonehead. Go clean your room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Why? Are they going to stop paying lawyers to do that or something? When you start convicting lawyers for opinions, then you basically are for cutting out free speech. It's an opinion, everyone is allowed them, judge "judge", lawyers just give their view. You really need to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 When you start convicting lawyers for opinions, then you basically are for cutting out free speech. It's an opinion, everyone is allowed them, judge "judge", lawyers just give their view. You really need to stop. Just to play devil's advocate, in this case the lawyers didn't just give opinions, they gave opinions that were acted on. I still think it's bull sh--...but it is not the same as writing an amicus brief for the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Just to play devil's advocate, in this case the lawyers didn't just give opinions, they gave opinions that were acted on. I still think it's bull sh--...but it is not the same as writing an amicus brief for the court. But the lawyers didn't act on them. They only presented them. And yes, this is bullschhitt. But it keeps people from paying attention to the real problems, like the laundering of taxpayer money as payoffs/donations to the current administration from the very companies who received bailout money from the administration. I mean, who really cares about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 When you start convicting lawyers for opinions, then you basically are for cutting out free speech. It's an opinion, everyone is allowed them, judge "judge", lawyers just give their view. Well thanks for being the only one to see my point. That's a plus. Anyways, do find a quote from Obama where he said prosecute lawyers for legal advice. Barack Obama said "With respect to those who formulate those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws" So go on believing articles that take quotes of context if you wish. But a "legal decision" is not the same as an opinion. Also, as far as getting prosecuted for just having an opinion you may want to read the definition of conspiracy. http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc1802000/18.2-22.html You really need to stop. Stop what? All I was saying is that even if these lawyer are arrested, tortured, hung, and eaten by cannibals just for having an opinion, more will come along and give more legal advice. Money makes people do that kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Anyways, do find a quote from Obama where he said prosecute lawyers for legal advice. Barack Obama said "With respect to those who formulate those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws" Part of the criticism comes from Obama, yet again, changing his mind under pressure from the four-fingered hand using him as an ass-puppet. His Chief of Staff ON MONDAY said Obama would not pursue prosecution. (AP) President Barack Obama does not intend to prosecute Bush administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation of suspected terrorists, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday. Link here. Two days later, suddenly it's not for him to really decide whether he should or not? This president has a spine made of jello. The more he opens his mouth, the less credibility he has. THAT is a part of the problem. But you keep quoting Obama. It's ton's of good fun. I'm sure he appreciates your allegiance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Part of the criticism comes from Obama, yet again, changing his mind under pressure from the four-fingered hand using him as an ass-puppet. His Chief of Staff ON MONDAY said Obama would not pursue prosecution. Link here. Two days later, suddenly it's not for him to really decide whether he should or not? This president has a spine made of jello. The more he opens his mouth, the less credibility he has. THAT is a part of the problem. But you keep quoting Obama. It's ton's of good fun. I'm sure he appreciates your allegiance. That is a pretty horrible bit of back-tracking. That's also not a very pretty precedent, either...prosecuting officials from the previous administration over policies you don't agree with? Unless you can prove that the policies themselves were formulated illegally (which is certainly possible)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Stop what? All I was saying is that even if these lawyer are arrested, tortured, hung, and eaten by cannibals just for having an opinion, more will come along and give more legal advice. Money makes people do that kind of thing. Which has nothing to do with the main issue that the next slew of lawyers and any professionals who could come under politically-induced indictments will not be as willing to provide advice in critical situations. You know, just what a POTUS needs, a bunch of advisers who won't advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Which has nothing to do with the main issue that the next slew of lawyers and any professionals who could come under politically-induced indictments will not be as willing to provide advice in critical situations. You know, just what a POTUS needs, a bunch of advisers who won't advise. Again, as devil's advocate...there are statutes describing torture as illegal that predate the advice given. So it could turn out that said advice is, in fact, against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 That is a pretty horrible bit of back-tracking. That's also not a very pretty precedent, either...prosecuting officials from the previous administration over policies you don't agree with? Unless you can prove that the policies themselves were formulated illegally (which is certainly possible)... It's a horrible precedent, and I would argue that if they DO follow through with this, it will cause more harm than it will every produce any good. But again, they are doing this for a reason: so everyone focuses on these "memos" and no one pays attention to other things of greater importance, such as the fact that we STILL don't know what we're going to do with North Korea, or Iran. Or the fact that millions of taxpayer dollars are being laundered through the bailout companies to the Obama administration for favors. Or that unemployment numbers remain high despite the fact that the stimulus bill was supposed to fund the "shovel-ready" jobs which apparently have not been filled. Or the utter stupidity of telling cabinet members to cut $100M in 90 days...a number so embarrassing, it is actually SMALLER than the daily amount of interest paid on the stimulus bill. And look, I know that some of these things take time, but many were presented with a sense of urgency (we're losing half a million jobs a month if we don't do something), and people are going to start getting antsy if they don't see results soon. But hey...let's go after the last administration and talk about waterboarding. That will keep everyone occupied until we can come up with some other moronic shiny toy to hold in front of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Again, as devil's advocate...there are statutes describing torture as illegal that predate the advice given. So it could turn out that said advice is, in fact, against the law. And I don't recall anything in the declassified memos that spoke of torture. The memos did discuss the legal limits of aggressive interrogations. Waterboarding was still in the legal camp when the memos were written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Part of the criticism comes from Obama, yet again, changing his mind under pressure from the four-fingered hand using him as an ass-puppet. Obama has smoked pot before, in past years he's said clearly that marijuana needs to be legalized. Last month he just laughed off pot legalization as a joke. So if you ask me, he's doing his best to stay politically correct on these things. I'm sure citizen Obama would love to toss Bush and Cheney in the slammer and throw away the key. President Obama, however is well aware that this will cause strife and division in the country he is in charge of. I doubt he is interested in seeing things fall apart over this. He's trying to be careful about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Which has nothing to do with the main issue that the next slew of lawyers and any professionals who could come under politically-induced indictments will not be as willing to provide advice in critical situations. You know, just what a POTUS needs, a bunch of advisers who won't advise. My situation was hypothetical, and unrealistic. If you didn't notice the lawyers were being fed to cannibals. I guess you can argue with it if you want. I hope you win that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Obama has smoked pot before, in past years he's said clearly that marijuana needs to be legalized. Last month he just laughed off pot legalization as a joke. So if you ask me, he's doing his best to stay politically correct on these things. I'm sure citizen Obama would love to toss Bush and Cheney in the slammer and throw away the key. President Obama, however is well aware that this will cause strife and division in the country he is in charge of. I doubt he is interested in seeing things fall apart over this. He's trying to be careful about this. I appreciate your allegiance, but make no mistake: Obama is doing whatever the hell the four-fingered hand up his ass is making this puppet do. That's why you see him flip-flopping all the time. I think his intent is there, but his power is virtually nil. That's why he's flying all over the place, gripping-and-grinning and making his speeches, but basically doing absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I appreciate your allegiance, but make no mistake: Obama is doing whatever the hell the four-fingered hand up his ass is making this puppet do. That's why you see him flip-flopping all the time. I think his intent is there, but his power is virtually nil. That's why he's flying all over the place, gripping-and-grinning and making his speeches, but basically doing absolutely nothing. Who is this four fingered hand you keep talking about? Do you have names? Why four the way? No love for the thumb by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts