I see no reason why people who are engaging in illegal acts *shouldn't* be worried about being held to account. That's the entire point of the rule of law and the legal system. What the hell kind of attorney is Gonzales? (No, no need to answer. That was rhetorical.)

Gonzales added that he finds the very discussion "extremely discouraging," because intelligence officials who may be engaging in "controversial" interrogation techniques are now worried they might be investigated.

I too, find it extremely troubling that intelligence officals who are using torture techniques developed by the Khmer Rouge, the Inquisition, and the WWII era Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crimes are worried they might be prosecuted. Imagine, they might even become so worried that they stop doing those things! Surely that can't be our intent!

How about the flip side of it: how about the intelligence officials who AREN'T using torture techniques. Don't you think their morale could use a little boosting too? Don't you think they're seriously pissed off that their name is being besmirched by the jerks who just left DC?

It's unfortunate that the DEA has made "blanket pronouncements" regarding a number of substances and chemicals. I find it damages my morale and any discussion of prosecution is very discouraging. Folks like myself who may be engaging in "controversial" relaxation techniques are now worried they might be investigated.

In such case I have paid legal counsel to sign off on revised interpretations of the laws regarding controlled substances and have secreted these opinions in a safe deposit box. So, yeah, it's legal but you can't tell anyone.

Fredo may feel secure regarding torture prosecutions, but what about the US Attorneys scandal?

I'm sure glad bank robbery isn't illegal. If that ever happens, I would be SO discouraged.

(What are you looking at?)

I think we could apply some bi-partisanship and give Gonzo and a hand. Gonzo needs a job and Blago needs a lawyer. Aside from the convenience of such an arrangement, something about it just seems right.

Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice. - Gonzales

So now it's coming back to you? And you're switching to the Pinochet defense?

My advice to Holder - Aim High!

Last Wednesday, at an exhibit at The Presidio in San Francisco on the American occupation of The Philippines, I saw a photograph of American soldiers waterboarding a Filipino soldier (yes, Filipino, not Spanish) taken around 1900. Broke my heart to see that we've been doing this for a hundred years. Mr. Gonzales, you are a stupid, heartless man, not a very good lawyer, and someone else who should just shut up!

"...because it might undermine "morale" among some intelligence officials and lawyers."

How many officials and lawyers are we talking about? I thought it was just a few isolated incidents. We should suspend our entire system of justice for a handful of people who were stupid enough to follow illegal orders (see Nuremburg Trials)?

Just spotted outside of the Justice Department was a giant pile of dog shit .. and right in the middle of it someone stuck a little flag with Gonzales face on it .......

I think we could apply some bi-partisanship and give Gonzo and a hand. Gonzo needs a job and Blago needs a lawyer. Aside from the convenience of such an arrangement, something about it just seems right. -JoeW

Yes, I think we found the new super couple --Blagonzo.

Oh, the tabloids will eat this up ;-P

For indirect insight into what went wrong at the White House and why, see http://www.alternet.org/rights/122234/ about a man who was Bush's therapist (called disguised in fictional trappings) and how alcoholism affected governance, etc. (quick take, no time for me to peruse.)

Gonzales added that he finds the very discussion "extremely discouraging," because intelligence officials who may be engaging in "controversial" interrogation techniques are now worried they might be investigated.

Look, if what they did wasn't illegal, then they have no reason to be worried. If what they did was illegal, then they damn well should be worried. So what's the problem?

Why are you even bothering quoting Gonzales? The only two phrases he knows about is, "You got it, Boss!", and "Yes, Master!". Everything else coming out of his mouth is just chaff.

Yeah, the Phillipines: America's first (?) Vietnam/Iraq, with much of the same attitudes, actions, and results. The dittohead types of the day (was there a Rush equivalent?) said the same kinds of trash, the soldiers did similar things, government disimulated or defended the indefensible etc.

"Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice."

Right---and the persecutions, imprisonment, abuse, torture, and murder of countless political prisoners during the nightmare of the Third Reich were "authorized" and "supported by legal opinions" then, too....

I would initially aim low---why not prosecute all of them for their lies before congress. It is pretty obvious and undeniable--low hanging fruit.

Fredo feels secure. Well Fredo's also a fuckin idiot. You could look it up.

"I don't think that there's going to be a prosecution, quite frankly." Gonzales said. "Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice."

That may be a defense, within the US legal system, for some of the underlings if they are prosecuted (an assurance from those responsible for enforcement of a law that an act is legal that is reasonably relied on is, IIRC, the one "ignorance of the law" defense that can apply to criminal acts, though its not universally applicable, and I'm not at all sure that it would apply to this particular offense in any case), but the fact of such authorization cannot protect those who gave the authorizations.

Maybe we could compromise and start the prosecutions with John Yoo and the rest of the gang who wrote memos authorizing conduct which clearly violated international law. If that works out, we could move up the food chain to Gonzalez, Cheney, Addington and the rest of the leaders before even thinking about moving on to the people who followed their orders.

Bad advice from legal counsel isn't a very good defense, especially when the legal counsel was hired specifically to give that counsel and to be immune from punishment for giving it.

Maybe the front-line people should be immunized, so they won't have to worry. But, the people who gave the orders should've known better.

I suspect one way the Bushies were trying to ensure they only had loyal people to work with was to require everyone to do something extreme. Drug gangs have been known to require a potential new member to have sex with someone in the gang with HIV AIDS. If they agree they're in. If CIA refused to torture, then Bush would know they're not loyal to him. He preferred they be loyal to him personally, not to the country.

That's one reason I think ex-military might be allowed back into service. If they left because Bush was asking them to do illegal things, then they had to leave. But, that doesn't mean we have to stick with a military composed of only people loyal to Dubya. What a mess that would be. In fact we should be wary of those folks.

The front-liners shouldn't have to worry. They should know their leaders will obey the laws. It's awful that it hasn't been the case in recent years.

Look, Gonzo. The people who do interrogations (well, at least) for various unnamed agencies and the military are smart folks. Idiots don't make good investigators or interrogators. If they are worried about being prosecuted, it's because they know full well they are doing something wrong. That's why they had you issue all those ridiculous opinions, hoping for legal cover. Unless, of course, you are telling us that they are, in fact, not that smart, which would cast some serious aspersions on our miltary and intelligence agencies. Which is it, Gonzo?

I, like most people who have spent a decent amount of time in DC doing international stuff, know some CIA folks, as well as a fair number of military intelligence people and officers, and they are, as a general rule, pretty damn brilliant and competant. They may be misguided, but they can rarely be described as stupid. They're educated, they've read the constitution and the geneva conventions. But when faced with a lifetime of breaking big rocks into smaller rocks in scenic Leavenworth for something they were directly ordered to do, they're going to point up the food chain. This is what Gonzo and co are afraid of, that the 'little people' won't take their punishment like Lynndie England did and let it die.

Re:Gonzo

Can a congressional committee force a witness who has claimed massive memory loss to have a neurological exam to test his memory?

That may be a defense, within the US legal system, for some of the underlings if they are prosecuted (an assurance from those responsible for enforcement of a law that an act is legal that is reasonably relied on is, IIRC, the one "ignorance of the law" defense that can apply to criminal acts, though its not universally applicable, and I'm not at all sure that it would apply to this particular offense in any case), but the fact of such authorization cannot protect those who gave the authorizations.

Moreover, the Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, makes clear that:

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm