![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
MASSACRING CIVILIANS? THERE’S AN APP FOR THAT, MR PRESIDENT
ITEM: John Yoo – the chief author of the Bush administration's "torture memo" – told Justice Department investigators that the president's war-making authority gave Bush the constitutional power to order a village to be "massacred," according to a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility.
The OPR report concluded that Yoo should be referred to his state bar association for possible disciplinary proceedings. Senior DOJ lawyer, David Margolis overruled the report and concluded Yoo and his boss at the time, Jay Bybee, were guilty of only "poor judgment."
Make of that what you will.
I guess we’re all supposed to feel grateful that Bush ultimately rejected (or at least never opted to use) that particular wartime power (as far as we know), though he certainly rejected the authority of the Geneva Convention that frowns on both torture and civilian massacres – at least inasmuch as it applied to his policies.
Also, considering just how many civilians US forces have managed to kill "accidentally", it might have been a relief to know that he could have actually done such things on purpose if he wanted and still gotten away with them legally.
Or not. You’ll never know.
Which is why this is one of those things where it’s the thought that counts.
I’m not the first person to point this out, but what all of this basically boils down to – and what a decent chunk of the American voting populace has already endorsed (as long as it’s their political party doing it, mind) – is a presidential administration asking DOJ lawyers to come up with legal justifications for things that are illegal but might come in handy in the War On Terrors. Which in turn indicates that they knew full well that these things were illegal in the first place. Otherwise they wouldn’t be asking for loopholes.
The catch, as usual, is this: You can’t prosecute the lawyers because they’re just providing an interpretation of law. And you can't prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld because hey, their lawyers said it was okay, and as far as they knew, it was. Plausible deniability and all. Which is why Cheney goes on national television every other weekend and brags about torturing people.
Sure, there’s a lot of holes in that argument. But hey, it worked – no one’s ever going to go to jail or lose their law license for it either way, so who cares about yr stupid logical thought processes, hippie? In law, winning is everything. That’s why Ollie North can go around claiming he never broke a single law during his Iran/Contra shenanigans as if it were true.
The irony, of course, is that these are the same people who don’t want Muslim terrorists to go on trial in civilian courts in part because they might have a better chance of being acquitted.
“Why, their lawyers could resort to all sorts of shifty word games and technicalities to get their client off no matter how guilty they are. And I ought to know.”
Yes indeedy-do.
Above the law,
This is dF
The OPR report concluded that Yoo should be referred to his state bar association for possible disciplinary proceedings. Senior DOJ lawyer, David Margolis overruled the report and concluded Yoo and his boss at the time, Jay Bybee, were guilty of only "poor judgment."
Make of that what you will.
I guess we’re all supposed to feel grateful that Bush ultimately rejected (or at least never opted to use) that particular wartime power (as far as we know), though he certainly rejected the authority of the Geneva Convention that frowns on both torture and civilian massacres – at least inasmuch as it applied to his policies.
Also, considering just how many civilians US forces have managed to kill "accidentally", it might have been a relief to know that he could have actually done such things on purpose if he wanted and still gotten away with them legally.
Or not. You’ll never know.
Which is why this is one of those things where it’s the thought that counts.
I’m not the first person to point this out, but what all of this basically boils down to – and what a decent chunk of the American voting populace has already endorsed (as long as it’s their political party doing it, mind) – is a presidential administration asking DOJ lawyers to come up with legal justifications for things that are illegal but might come in handy in the War On Terrors. Which in turn indicates that they knew full well that these things were illegal in the first place. Otherwise they wouldn’t be asking for loopholes.
The catch, as usual, is this: You can’t prosecute the lawyers because they’re just providing an interpretation of law. And you can't prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld because hey, their lawyers said it was okay, and as far as they knew, it was. Plausible deniability and all. Which is why Cheney goes on national television every other weekend and brags about torturing people.
Sure, there’s a lot of holes in that argument. But hey, it worked – no one’s ever going to go to jail or lose their law license for it either way, so who cares about yr stupid logical thought processes, hippie? In law, winning is everything. That’s why Ollie North can go around claiming he never broke a single law during his Iran/Contra shenanigans as if it were true.
The irony, of course, is that these are the same people who don’t want Muslim terrorists to go on trial in civilian courts in part because they might have a better chance of being acquitted.
“Why, their lawyers could resort to all sorts of shifty word games and technicalities to get their client off no matter how guilty they are. And I ought to know.”
Yes indeedy-do.
Above the law,
This is dF