Bybee may have to face the music after all

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Whether or not he broke the law is entirely separate from whether or not he should face consequences for his actions. He was a coward and failed to do his job as he swore to do when he became a lawyer. He should be disbarred. He should be impeached.

I disagree with the memo he wrote, but if he failed to violate the law, how can he be disbarred or impeached?

Because you don't like his moral ethics?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Whether or not he broke the law is entirely separate from whether or not he should face consequences for his actions. He was a coward and failed to do his job as he swore to do when he became a lawyer. He should be disbarred. He should be impeached.

On what basis?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I disagree with the memo he wrote, but if he failed to violate the law, how can he be disbarred or impeached?

Because you don't like his moral ethics?

Are you suggesting the only standard for disbarment or impeachment is criminal conduct?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

On what basis?

He advocated a position that was clearly contrary to law and public policy. He began with the conclusion and backed his way into a "legal" justification for that position when his obligation was to tell his employer what the law actually said and to follow it. He placed the interests of his employer before the interests of the country and its laws. Those are not the signs of a capable counsel, those are the signs of a coward. He certainly should not have been rewarded with a federal judgeship for his unethical conduct.

Who knows how many have suffered at the hands of those operating under the imprimatur of authority granted to them by Mr. Bybee.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He advocated a position that was clearly contrary to law and public policy. He began with the conclusion and backed his way into a "legal" justification for that position when his obligation was to tell his employer what the law actually said and to follow it. He placed the interests of his employer before the interests of the country and its laws. Those are not the signs of a capable counsel, those are the signs of a coward. He certainly should not have been rewarded with a federal judgeship for his unethical conduct.

Who knows how many have suffered at the hands of those operating under the imprimatur of authority granted to them by Mr. Bybee.

If it was so "clearly" contrary, then there wouldn't be a debate about it.

I think impeaching a judge for political expediency is dangerous ground to be breaking. If I recall, that's what usually gets the Democrats all riled up when the situation is reversed. Heck, they even got mad when Bush allegedly fired some of his OWN lawyers for political purposes.

[MikeWaters]

If Bybee had an ounce of regret, he would resign.

If Bybee had an ounce of regret, he would apologize.

Sometimes, when what you do is heinous enough, the only way the mind can grapple with it is to justify it.

See: Khmer Rouge.

[Tex]

Dick Cheney said over the weekend that if the Obama admin is going to take the (unwise, IMO) move to release interrogation memos, they ought to release the whole story, including the good that came of them.

Now the NYTimes has obtained memo from Obama's national intelligence director--an admiral--saying that the techniques "produce[d] significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists." The interestingly part is, the memo was released last week with the rest, but with those statements deleted from the text.

The admiral's spokeswoman called it "normal editing." Right. More like the further politicizing of national security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

[MikeWaters]

Can't Cheney die already? How long is the man going to poison the country?

Let's torture every criminal suspect we arrest. I'll bet we get some useful information in a few cases.

The logical fallacy is that the information could not have been obtained in any other way.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If it was so "clearly" contrary, then there wouldn't be a debate about it.

I think impeaching a judge for political expediency is dangerous ground to be breaking. If I recall, that's what usually gets the Democrats all riled up when the situation is reversed. Heck, they even got mad when Bush allegedly fired some of his OWN lawyers for political purposes.

It IS clearly contrary. The fact that there is a debate doesn't speak to the lack of clarity but to the degree to which people are willing to go when they are scared and threatened.

This is hardly an issue of political expediency, despite your best efforts to make it so.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Dick Cheney said over the weekend that if the Obama admin is going to take the (unwise, IMO) move to release interrogation memos, they ought to release the whole story, including the good that came of them.

Now the NYTimes has obtained memo from Obama's national intelligence director--an admiral--saying that the techniques "produce[d] significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists." The interestingly part is, the memo was released last week with the rest, but with those statements deleted from the text.

The admiral's spokeswoman called it "normal editing." Right. More like the further politicizing of national security.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/

What is his point? If it works it must be legal? Are you really on board with this line of reasoning, Tex? Seriously? Even assuming the truth of his statement?