Jay Bybee speaks: "I WAS RIGHT ABOUT TORTURE"

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Of course not. Which is why I explained my reasoning.



Totally absurd. Again, setting aside the fact that murder is far more clearly defined than torture, I still don't see the "conspiracy" here. Were Bybee to have written a memo that stupid, he should be fired, not prosecuted. Give me a break.

If you don't see the conspiracy here, you won't see it anywhere. Give me a break.

Again, I'm no lawyer, but the commentary I've read suggests that a prosecutor would have to prove he knowingly advocated illegal behavior. It is impossible to come to that conclusion (based on the info we have) without a tinfoil hat. In fact, the whole point of the memo was to legally justify it.

Torturing people is illegal, and we already know that Bybee knew torture was illegal (he says so in the memo). So did he know that waterboarding was torture? Based on the fact that he has privately been telling close friends that he was uncomfortable issuing the opinion but did so because he believed it wasn't going to be relied upon (he was told the administration wanted a wide variety of opinions discussing many possible ways torture could be viewed and his assignment was to write an opinion that could justify the legal use of torture), he could be in hot water, especially since I understand there to be at least one email from him on this topic to a close friend from January of 2007.

No prosecutor is going to touch this. Moreover, the American people are not interested in seeing it happen either. This is a lose-lose for Obama, politically and legally.

Irrelevant to whether he committed a crime.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I wonder what it would feel like, to be in a stake meeting, and hear Bybee's name called during a sustaining. What it would feel like to stand up, raise your right arm, and loudly say, "I am opposed." Ah, just dreams.....

Personally, I'd love to be in the room when you try to convince the presiding authority that you aren't a complete nut after citing your reasons.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Political differences?" That is how you view the subject of torture now? Just another political difference?

The debate about waterboarding (which is really what this is) is most definitely a political one.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Irrelevant to whether he committed a crime.

What is clear is that Tex knows the avoidance of the issue is what is political. And craven.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you don't see the conspiracy here, you won't see it anywhere. Give me a break.

Seeing non-existent conspiracy is what your tinfoil hat does for you. Wear it with pride.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Torturing people is illegal, and we already know that Bybee knew torture was illegal (he says so in the memo). So did he know that waterboarding was torture? Based on the fact that he has privately been telling close friends that he was uncomfortable issuing the opinion but did so because he believed it wasn't going to be relied upon (he was told the administration wanted a wide variety of opinions discussing many possible ways torture could be viewed and his assignment was to write an opinion that could justify the legal use of torture), he could be in hot water, especially since I understand there to be at least one email from him on this topic to a close friend from January of 2007.

We shall see. I think it's an exceptionally shaky case.

In any case, as Waters (unintentionally) points out, this is all just a "Get Bush" witchhunt by proxy. It's just that you folks are too cowardly to actually try to indict a former president.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Seeing non-existent conspiracy is what your tinfoil hat does for you. Wear it with pride.



We shall see. I think it's an exceptionally shaky case.

In any case, as Waters (unintentionally) points out, this is all just a "Get Bush" witchhunt by proxy. It's just that you folks are too cowardly to actually try to indict a former president.

I'm not. Indict Bush. If he broke the law, indict him. If you don't want to see him indicted (and he broke the law), then pardon him.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Seeing non-existent conspiracy is what your tinfoil hat does for you. Wear it with pride.



We shall see. I think it's an exceptionally shaky case.

In any case, as Waters (unintentionally) points out, this is all just a "Get Bush" witchhunt by proxy. It's just that you folks are too cowardly to actually try to indict a former president.

Although Tex would have the world believe this is just a political issue, today's Washington Post has the following to say:

"A draft report of more than 200 pages, prepared in January before Bush's departure, recommends disciplinary action by state bar associations 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."

When was the report prepared? In January. While Bush was president. It recommeneded disciplinary action by state bar associations against two former department attorney's who prepared the torture memos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

At least someone in the Justice Department is still interested in justice.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Although Tex would have the world believe this is just a political issue, today's Washington Post has the following to say:

"A draft report of more than 200 pages, prepared in January before Bush's departure, recommends disciplinary action by state bar associations 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."

When was the report prepared? In January. While Bush was president. It recommeneded disciplinary action by state bar associations against two former department attorney's who prepared the torture memos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

At least someone in the Justice Department is still interested in justice.

But Obama is not.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Although Tex would have the world believe this is just a political issue, today's Washington Post has the following to say:

"A draft report of more than 200 pages, prepared in January before Bush's departure, recommends disciplinary action by state bar associations 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."

When was the report prepared? In January. While Bush was president. It recommeneded disciplinary action by state bar associations against two former department attorney's who prepared the torture memos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

At least someone in the Justice Department is still interested in justice.

So since the report was prepared a few days before Bush left office, that makes it non-political?

Heh.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

So since the report was prepared a few days before Bush left office, that makes it non-political?

Heh.

It is a 200 page document. Are you under the impression they typed it up the night before Obama arrived and conducted all inquiries that day?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is a 200 page document. Are you under the impression they typed it up the night before Obama arrived and conducted all inquiries that day?

Do you believe everyone in the Justice Department is Republican? They had two months between the election and inauguration (even more since the writing was on the wall about who was going to win the election) to have this report compiled and ready for Obama's witch hunt as soon as he was in power to do anything about it.