The Slippery Slope

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044375842145565.html

Criminalizing policy is something done with tinpot dictatorships, not a representative democracy. Of course, he's trying to innure himself from blame if we're attacked again. If an attack happens under his watch, he'll blame it on the previous administration and the anger in the Muslim world about our interrogation techniques.

This decision is shameful. Even leaving the door open to this possibility is chilling. Who is ever going to give honest advice ever again to the President? From here on out, it's all about CYA.

 

Laws were broken, people died and are still dying, criminals need to be prosecuted.

What's your beef?

 

For those that want more background on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?fta=y

 

Okay, which laws did the legal advisors break? They gave their considered legal opinion and are now being threatened with prosecution.

Allow me to give you another example in your own silly field as a real estate externality. Let's say you offered advice to one of your clients a certain financing structure they could get, but that they couldn't really afford if times became tough. Seven years later, their house was foreclosed upon. Since you gave them advice on how to afford the home, should the banks come after you? If you knew this was possible, would you ever offer advice again?

 

Nice to see they're taking a step back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/us/politics/24cong.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

We'll see how long President Obama can resist the urge for bloodletting from the Left.

 

And here is the crux of the issue, spelled out by President Obama's official mouthpiece, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&hp

 

I would never offer advice on financing in the first place. I know the basics but I am far from a financial expert.

Anyone who consults a Realtor for financial advice is no wiser than someone who has their landscaper perform a kidney transplant. And by the same token, anyone who takes advice on Real Estate from their financial advisor is just as naive.

For one thing, in Oregon it is illegal for me offer financial advice and for another it is against the Realtor's Code of Ethics. I would most certainly lose my license and face criminal charges. As always, I would urge my client to consult with a financial expert on those matters.

There is much evidence that the country was lied to about WMD's and the likelyhood of various terrorism activities in order to promote a war for Halliburton to profit from. If these lies were told, that is treason. If the President's lawyers and advisors lied to him about what is legal and illegal, that is treason. If the President was in on the lies to the country, that is treason.

We have courts to make these decisions and that's the difference between us and tinpot dictatorships.

If no laws were broken, no harm no foul.

 

Again, it's the lawyers who gave the Bush Administration legal advice that are threatened with prosecution, not the people that executed the policy. But I guess you'll use any tangent to spout your irrationality for all to see.

Oh, and thanks for admitting you know little about finance. Anyone who has read your posts on economics would have already have arrived at that conclusion, but a little self-awareness from you is always refreshing.

 

that's a retarded statement to make. you are ignorant. truly.

 

Thanks for your opinion. Do you believe the Sulzberger family treats the Obama Administration with the same level of scrutiny that they did with the Bush Administration?

 

I would guess quite a bit more scruting simply because it's easier now.

They needed a subpeopna to get any answers from the Bush/Cheney Syndicate.

 

You're the one who went waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic into financing for no apparent reason. We were talking about presidential advisors who lied to advance personal agendas.

And I never said I know little about financing.

I said I know the basics, but since I am not an expert I would not advise others if asked.

From reading your posts I certainly hope you follow my example and also refrain from advising others.

BTW, I am unaware of ANY posts I have ever made on economics on this or any other board.

 

That assumption is what has you upset over this. What if the lawyers were unethical and purposefully streched their legal analysis to fit what actions want to be taken.

Lawyers can and should be held accountable for their legal opinions. Many of us rely on lawyers to make some of our most improtant decisions . . . if that lawyer has a different agenda than giving sound legal advise, like telling clients what they want to hear in spite of the law. . . that is a problem.

 

There is no slippery slope. That is just the current talking point. It would be nice if maxiep, AgentDrazenPetrovich, Shooter/Talkhard, etc could just once come up with something original, instead of copying/pasting the current talking point, but that would require thought, wouldn't it?

It has been said to the point of cliche that the United States is "a nation of laws, not men/women".

Torture is illegal. Has been for a long time. There are no exceptions and no extenuating circumstances.

In a nation of laws, in a civilized nation, if there is reason to believe a serious crime has been committed it must be investigated. There is no other option if you wish to remain a nation of laws. Locally that means police detectives, nationally a special prosecutor or other agency. If there is evidence of a serious crime it must be prosecuted. If the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt there must be conviction.

In a nation of laws there is supposed to be a price to pay for breaking laws. If exceptions are made, it becomes a nation of men/women, not laws. A nation where some are exempt from the law. That is the only slippery slope here.

People can be jailed in some communities for skipping school, or wearing pants that hang down and expose their underwear, or privately smoking a harmless plant.

I think torture is more serious than those crimes.

I always get pissed off when some athlete (or anyone) gets accused of rape and it gets referred to as a "mistake". Turning the ball over is a mistake; rape is a crime.

Whether or not to withdraw from Iraq is policy. Torture is not policy, it is a crime.

 

Do you believe waterboarding to be torture? Do you believe sleep deprivation to be torture? Do you believe making someone stay in a room that's too cold or too hot to be torture? Definitions are important. I don't happen to believe they are torture.

Also, we waterboarded two subjects who had information critical to stopping an attack on Los Angeles. Those are the only two ever waterboarded. I'm interested to know how many lives you are willing to exchange to not waterboard these high ranking members of Al Qaeda. Please, give me a number. 500 people? 1,000? 5,000? How many innocent American lives are you willing to sacrifice so that someone in our custody never feels discomfort? Theory is great, but eventually, you have to make a call as to where the rubber meets the road.

You can go ahead and dismiss my argument as a "talking point", but it really demonstrates that you have no answer to the charge of proscecuting policy advisors for advice they give. Do you want members of the Obama Administration being sued and investigated for advice they gave the President? They may or may not go to prison, but they will spend years and their life savings defending themselves against those charges. I know that I want the best possible people in government service giving advice to my President. Exactly who do you think is going to join an Administration if they know there's a strong likelihood they'll be investigated, sued and or charged with a crime by the next Administration that disagrees with their views.

 

Your point isn't correct. My issue is that policy differences are being criminalized. What happens when the next Republican administration comes into power? Are they going to sue President Obama's advisors for their links to ACORN and improper distribution of Federal funds simply because they disagree with President Obama's policies?

Presidents need to get unfiltered advice. If you criminalize policy, you are going to force the person asked for it to either not join the Administration, not give advice or give advice that puts his own well being ahead of the country's.

 

You've never heard of a witch hunt? Does Ken Starr ring a bell? Bill Clinton was lying about getting a blow job and people's lives were ruined because of it. The issue isn't whether or not a person is guilty, the goal is destroying your political opponents by smearing them in the courts and forcing them to spend their life savings to defend themselves.

I'm reminded of Ray Donovan, who was sentenced by the court of public opinion before he ever went to trial. When he was acquitted, he merely responded, "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"

President Clinton called this tactic "the politics of personal destruction". It's a disincentive to serve your country and diminishes our democracy.

 

And you think that President Obama leaving the door open when he had an opportunity to close it is good for the country?