um, jeff, wayno...

I;m just curious - what do you two, and any other lawyers of your acquaintance
that have offered opinions, think of the situation with the government lawyers
and the opinions, potential prosecution(s)?

I was pretty stunned that Obama, as a lawyer, would even discuss such. Even if
there was _CLEAR_ evidence that there was some conspiracy between the lawyers,
the field agents, the Bush administration, etc. to commit what all knew to be
torture, I still can't believe he would discuss it prior to prosecution.

IMO, this is bordering on the same kind of **** that made Bill Clinton an utter
failure as POTUS - screwing around with the legal system for personal gain (or
to avoid personal responsibility). The fact that one lawyer (Obama) has dumped
it on another lawyer (Holder) to determine whether other lawyers could/should be
prosecuted for offering legal opinions (and there is talk from some in the
administration and Congress about how one, now a Federal Judge, could be
impeached for offering that opinion) is mind-boggling.

I can't imagine any knowledgeable, experienced, ethical lawyer being comfortable
with this. And here's something I've yet to hear anyone discuss: I heard a
layperson say that the thing for government lawyers to do is to be careful of
offering opinions that might lead to such things - that it would give future
government lawyers pause for thought before they said it was OK to "torture"
people. Even assuming that these lawyers OK'd "torture" (they didn't) or that
future lawyers might need such persuasion, that might sound good to some, but to
a lawyer, that sounds incredibly dangerous to the legal system itself. If a
lawyer must consider, when offering an opinion, a potential ex post facto
prosecution for offering that opinion, the system is ****ed.


TC,
R

i think you've covered my take on it. i doubt there is any chance of
such a prosecution of lawyers giving advice, or impeachment of the
judge. as i understand obama's position, he says there shouldn't be any
prosecutions of the field agents who followed the legal advice given
(though bad legal advice is not a defense in any court i'm familiar
with), but holder has ultimate say on it all, especially with upper
level advisors. obama can pardon, but he doesn't decide who gets
prosecuted as far as i know. i say prosecute all of those who violated
the law...field agents, lawyers, vice presidents. i don't think lawyers
giving stupid legal opinions violate the law...hell, we'd all be in
jail. (yeah, i know...set up line)

i had a remarkable law professor, hugh sowards, who did a lot of high
end corporate and securities work. he reminded me of peter o'toole.
great delivery...anyway, he once said lawyers aren't employed to tell
clients what they can't do, but to find the law and legal justifications
that will allow them to accomplish what they want to do. granted, he
wasn't talking about illegal acts, and it was in a big business context,
but i always thought it an interesting comment.

of course, it's all cheney's fault. g

jeff

wrote:
I;m just curious - what do you two, and any other lawyers of your acquaintance
that have offered opinions, think of the situation with the government lawyers
and the opinions, potential prosecution(s)?

I was pretty stunned that Obama, as a lawyer, would even discuss such. Even if
there was _CLEAR_ evidence that there was some conspiracy between the lawyers,
the field agents, the Bush administration, etc. to commit what all knew to be
torture, I still can't believe he would discuss it prior to prosecution.

IMO, this is bordering on the same kind of **** that made Bill Clinton an utter
failure as POTUS - screwing around with the legal system for personal gain (or
to avoid personal responsibility). The fact that one lawyer (Obama) has dumped
it on another lawyer (Holder) to determine whether other lawyers could/should be
prosecuted for offering legal opinions (and there is talk from some in the
administration and Congress about how one, now a Federal Judge, could be
impeached for offering that opinion) is mind-boggling.

I can't imagine any knowledgeable, experienced, ethical lawyer being comfortable
with this. And here's something I've yet to hear anyone discuss: I heard a
layperson say that the thing for government lawyers to do is to be careful of
offering opinions that might lead to such things - that it would give future
government lawyers pause for thought before they said it was OK to "torture"
people. Even assuming that these lawyers OK'd "torture" (they didn't) or that
future lawyers might need such persuasion, that might sound good to some, but to
a lawyer, that sounds incredibly dangerous to the legal system itself. If a
lawyer must consider, when offering an opinion, a potential ex post facto
prosecution for offering that opinion, the system is ****ed.


TC,
R

On Apr 22, 7:59*pm, jeff wrote:
i think you've covered my take on it. *i doubt there is any chance of
such a prosecution of lawyers giving advice, or impeachment of the
judge. as i understand obama's position, he says there shouldn't be any
prosecutions of the field agents who followed the legal advice given
(though bad legal advice is not a defense in any court i'm familiar
with), but holder has ultimate say on it all, especially with upper
level advisors. obama can pardon, but he doesn't decide who gets
prosecuted as far as i know. i say prosecute all of those who violated
the law...field agents, lawyers, vice presidents. *i don't think lawyers
giving stupid legal opinions violate the law...hell, we'd all be in
jail. (yeah, i know...set up line)

i had a remarkable law professor, hugh sowards, who did a lot of high
end corporate and securities work. he reminded me of peter o'toole.
great delivery...anyway, he once said lawyers aren't employed to tell
clients what they can't do, but to find the law and legal justifications
that will allow them to accomplish what they want to do. granted, he
wasn't talking about illegal acts, and it was in a big business context,
but i always thought it an interesting comment.

of course, it's all cheney's fault. g

jeff



wrote:
I;m just curious - what do you two, and any other lawyers of your acquaintance
that have offered opinions, think of the situation with the government lawyers
and the opinions, potential prosecution(s)?

I was pretty stunned that Obama, as a lawyer, would even discuss such. *Even if
there was _CLEAR_ evidence that there was some conspiracy between the lawyers,
the field agents, the Bush administration, etc. to commit what all knew to be
torture, I still can't believe he would discuss it prior to prosecution..

IMO, this is bordering on the same kind of **** that made Bill Clinton an utter
failure as POTUS - screwing around with the legal system for personal gain (or
to avoid personal responsibility). *The fact that one lawyer (Obama) has dumped
it on another lawyer (Holder) to determine whether other lawyers could/should be
prosecuted for offering legal opinions (and there is talk from some in the
administration and Congress about how one, now a Federal Judge, could be
impeached for offering that opinion) is mind-boggling.

I can't imagine any knowledgeable, experienced, ethical lawyer being comfortable
with this. *And here's something I've yet to hear anyone discuss: *I heard a
layperson say that the thing for government lawyers to do is to be careful of
offering opinions that might lead to such things - that it would give future
government lawyers pause for thought before they said it was OK to "torture"
people. *Even assuming that these lawyers OK'd "torture" (they didn't) or that
future lawyers might need such persuasion, that might sound good to some, but to
a lawyer, that sounds incredibly dangerous to the legal system itself. *If a
lawyer must consider, when offering an opinion, a potential ex post facto
prosecution for offering that opinion, the system is ****ed.

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i don't know anything about this, and don't give a damn.

hth

yfitons
wayno

wrote:
snip
i don't know anything about this, and don't give a damn.

About this or everything in general? Just askin'. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

On 22-Apr-2009, " wrote:

i don't know anything about this, and don't give a damn.

hth

yfitons
wayno

A very apt comment and a good timely post esp on a fishing ng


Thanks
Fred

On Apr 22, 4:59*pm, jeff wrote:

It is illegal for lawyers to advise clients to violate the law.
Torture is against US law. I also remind you that we executed Japanese
interogators for waterboarding American prisoners. No one, not even
the President is above or beyond the law.

Dave

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:12:51 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Apr 22, 7:59*pm, jeff wrote:
i think you've covered my take on it. *i doubt there is any chance of
such a prosecution of lawyers giving advice, or impeachment of the
judge. as i understand obama's position, he says there shouldn't be any
prosecutions of the field agents who followed the legal advice given
(though bad legal advice is not a defense in any court i'm familiar
with), but holder has ultimate say on it all, especially with upper
level advisors. obama can pardon, but he doesn't decide who gets
prosecuted as far as i know. i say prosecute all of those who violated
the law...field agents, lawyers, vice presidents. *i don't think lawyers
giving stupid legal opinions violate the law...hell, we'd all be in
jail. (yeah, i know...set up line)

i had a remarkable law professor, hugh sowards, who did a lot of high
end corporate and securities work. he reminded me of peter o'toole.
great delivery...anyway, he once said lawyers aren't employed to tell
clients what they can't do, but to find the law and legal justifications
that will allow them to accomplish what they want to do. granted, he
wasn't talking about illegal acts, and it was in a big business context,
but i always thought it an interesting comment.

of course, it's all cheney's fault. g

jeff



wrote:
I;m just curious - what do you two, and any other lawyers of your acquaintance
that have offered opinions, think of the situation with the government lawyers
and the opinions, potential prosecution(s)?

I was pretty stunned that Obama, as a lawyer, would even discuss such. *Even if
there was _CLEAR_ evidence that there was some conspiracy between the lawyers,
the field agents, the Bush administration, etc. to commit what all knew to be
torture, I still can't believe he would discuss it prior to prosecution.

IMO, this is bordering on the same kind of **** that made Bill Clinton an utter
failure as POTUS - screwing around with the legal system for personal gain (or
to avoid personal responsibility). *The fact that one lawyer (Obama) has dumped
it on another lawyer (Holder) to determine whether other lawyers could/should be
prosecuted for offering legal opinions (and there is talk from some in the
administration and Congress about how one, now a Federal Judge, could be
impeached for offering that opinion) is mind-boggling.

I can't imagine any knowledgeable, experienced, ethical lawyer being comfortable
with this. *And here's something I've yet to hear anyone discuss: *I heard a
layperson say that the thing for government lawyers to do is to be careful of
offering opinions that might lead to such things - that it would give future
government lawyers pause for thought before they said it was OK to "torture"
people. *Even assuming that these lawyers OK'd "torture" (they didn't) or that
future lawyers might need such persuasion, that might sound good to some, but to
a lawyer, that sounds incredibly dangerous to the legal system itself. *If a
lawyer must consider, when offering an opinion, a potential ex post facto
prosecution for offering that opinion, the system is ****ed.

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

i don't know anything about this, and don't give a damn.

Oh, great...first Daffy Duck, and now, Foghorn Leghorn...

hth

Um, no, not really...

yfitons
wayno

YFCOTGC,
R

DaveS wrote:
On Apr 22, 4:59 pm, jeff wrote:

It is illegal for lawyers to advise clients to violate the law.
Torture is against US law. I also remind you that we executed Japanese
interogators for waterboarding American prisoners. No one, not even
the President is above or beyond the law.

Dave

it is not illegal for lawyers to have or to give an *opinion* about the
meaning or interpretation of a law - even a woefully stupid or wrong
opinion. ...which is what i said: "i say prosecute **all** of those who
violated the law...field agents, **lawyers**, vice presidents.
[BUT]i don't think lawyers giving stupid legal **opinions** violate the
law."

it is unethical and a violation of professional responsibility for a
lawyer to advise a client to violate the law, or an order of a court,
and can be considered criminal contempt as well as grounds for
disbarment. absent conduct meeting legal criteria for a showing of a
conspiracy, aiding/abetting, or acting in concert in the crime, i'm not
sure the simple act of giving advice that ultimately leads to another
party's commission of a crime constitutes a crime in and of itself. are
you saying there is a specific state or federal criminal statute?

jeff

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 00:11:25 -0700 (PDT), DaveS wrote:

On Apr 22, 4:59*pm, jeff wrote:

It is illegal for lawyers to advise clients to violate the law.

Not exactly. It is unethical IF they advise them to violate a specific law,
order, etc. but it is perfectly ethical (and legal) for them to offer an opinion
as to what the law says or whether proposed conduct or action is or is not
covered by existing laws, etc.

Torture is against US law.

Yes, it is, but the laws (including the GC) don't list specific acts such as
"waterboarding," "uncomfortable positions," etc. Essentially, the laws give
results that may not be goals, i.e., one cannot intentionally cause great
physical pain or death. But OTOH, it might be perfectly legal to question a
claustrophobic in a standard interrogation room, notwithstanding that they are
:uncomfortable" in such a room (certainly, you would not suggest it is "torture"
to imprison such a person in a standard prison, based upon their argument that
they should not be imprisoned at all because of the claustrophobia).

I also remind you that we executed Japanese interogators for waterboarding
American prisoners.

No, "we" didn't, regardless of who "we" is. No one, Japanese or otherwise, was
convicted based even partially, much less solely, on the type of waterboarding
as allegedly practiced under this program, nor could they have been because the
type of water "torture" as practiced by the Japanese was nothing like what was
allegedly practiced in this case. About the only commonality was that it
involved water and sometimes a wooden board. The Japanese held people upside
down and submerged their heads under water, forced water down their throats to
the point of stomach distention while beating them, etc., etc. AND several
admitted to doing it simply to punish rather than obtain information.

No one, not even the President is above or beyond the law.

Um, which one...the President, I mean? Obama has already said that those who
allegedly carried out the "torture" will not be prosecuted. Therefore, he
ratified the "we were only following orders" defense. Moreover, if you (and
others) truly believe what you claim to believe, you must also believe that
Obama is actively obstructing justice by exempting potential defendants.

HTH,
R

Dave

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:59:06 -0400, jeff wrote:

i think you've covered my take on it. i doubt there is any chance of
such a prosecution of lawyers giving advice, or impeachment of the
judge. as i understand obama's position, he says there shouldn't be any
prosecutions of the field agents who followed the legal advice given
(though bad legal advice is not a defense in any court i'm familiar
with), but holder has ultimate say on it all, especially with upper
level advisors. obama can pardon, but he doesn't decide who gets
prosecuted as far as i know. i say prosecute all of those who violated
the law...field agents, lawyers, vice presidents. i don't think lawyers
giving stupid legal opinions violate the law...hell, we'd all be in
jail. (yeah, i know...set up line)

i had a remarkable law professor, hugh sowards, who did a lot of high
end corporate and securities work. he reminded me of peter o'toole.
great delivery...anyway, he once said lawyers aren't employed to tell
clients what they can't do, but to find the law and legal justifications
that will allow them to accomplish what they want to do. granted, he
wasn't talking about illegal acts, and it was in a big business context,
but i always thought it an interesting comment.

of course, it's all cheney's fault. g

jeff

One thing about all of this that is particularly troubling to me is the whole
idea of "cafeteria plan"-ing the law in and by the media and public. Obama and
Hillary, both bar members, have stated that, generally, those "following legal
advice" that they allege may have be criminal won't be prosecuted. I suspect,
but do not know or have direct info on, that Obama popped off on the campaign
trail about moving forward, not backward, no prosecutions, etc., etc. and once
elected, has been hounded by, um, leftwingnuts to exact their revenge, based
upon their blind hatred, on the Bush administration. And unfortunately, he
tossed them a bone without really thinking about the potential consequences. And
now, his people (Emmanuel, Axelrod, Holder, Gibbs, etc.) are being forced to
deal with his rhetoric. I further suspect that the lawyer in him, Holder, etc.
realizes the position he's in, so hopefully, they'll find a way to back off from
all of this, but unfortunately, the media may not cooperate.

The WashPost email this morning, for it's "Slate" website, led with the headline
"Was Powell Kept Out of Torture Loop?" The story itself never mentioned
"torture loop," and furthermore, briefly mentioned, in a strange, concessionary
tone, that Rumsfeld as well may not have been "consulted." Moreover, it never
directly said that either man didn't know about any of it, only that the State
and Defense departments may not have been "formally" consulted. Frankly, it
reads sorta like an opening argument draft/notes in the defense of Powell, which
is yet another thing Obama failed to realize when he popped off - that if you're
going to have some Nuremberg Part Duex quasi-showtrial over this thing, it's
going to be dicey for a whole lot of people, some, even many, unquestionably
"innocent" (or at least "not guilty") from a legal standpoint.

The sad thing about all of this is that I really don't think Obama wanted to go
down this road (although some, like Emmanuel, would likely love to be able to
selectively and politically prosecute various Republicans), but wound up heading
down it because of, yet again, his lack of experience and savvy, and frankly, to
some extent, his hubris in believing his own hype. I'd say that if this thing
goes too much further, it could wind up being a central thing to his Presidency
and it won't be pretty for anyone.

TC,
R