A.
It raises the question, shouldn't prosecution for torture go
after the lawyers who wrote the opinion for it? Just because
they're giving advice, does that somehow let them off the
hook?
B.
What--you gonna send every lawyer to jail who loses a case
because their legal arguments didn't work?
C.
No, just the ones who give faulty advice.
E.
The ones who encourage Presidents to violate the law and the
Geneva Convention.
C.
And encourage illegal torture.
B.
Those laws and treaties have gray areas. It's a lawyer's job
to argue to his client's advantage, and the ultimate job of
the court to apply the law to a specific case. It would be
difficult to prove--
D.
What if the President turns state's witness and tells a
different story about the lawyers? Wouldn't that be fun?
E.
(to B.)
Gray areas? What are you talking about? Objections to the
policy were ignored. The lawyers who complained were demoted
or transferred. Water boarding was once prosecuted by the
United States. If someone writes a memo saying it's now
legal, isn't that a crime?
B.
It may be immoral, but it's not a crime.
F.
Well, I for one would like to find that out at trial. I
think a damned good case can be made against them. The Bar
Association ought to take a whack at this. I'd like to see
them at trial. They're innocent until proven guilty. I'd
like to see a good lawyer prove them guilty.
B.
And you practice law in what jurisdiction?
F.
There are lawyers who could write out a case against them
easily. Just as easily as they wrote a case for torture.
D.
Lawyers can write up any kind of case at all.
F.
And isn't that the point here?
G.
Please tell me what crime they committed? Malpractice,
maybe. But that's not a crime.
F.
They have to be investigated as part of a bigger case.
Valtin, that psychiatrist wasn't afraid to call out fellow
psychiatrists as well as the APA, who, as a result of his and
others' activism, have had to confront their complicity in
this. I'm interested in why you aren't angry, and instead
more worried about the protections afforded lawyers. Valtin
knows the protections to psychiatrists, yet had no trouble
condemning those who participated in torture. So yes, the
lawyers who wrote the opinion should be in the cross-hairs.
I don't know if charging them with a crime is even the point
so much as having what they did become part of a full and
thorough investigation. When I think of all our professions-
doctors, lawyers, accountants--all of whom have such
supposedly strict codes of ethics. And yet look what's
happened. They're not professions any more--they're all
businesses!
It raises the question, shouldn't prosecution for torture go
after the lawyers who wrote the opinion for it? Just because
they're giving advice, does that somehow let them off the
hook?
B.
What--you gonna send every lawyer to jail who loses a case
because their legal arguments didn't work?
C.
No, just the ones who give faulty advice.
E.
The ones who encourage Presidents to violate the law and the
Geneva Convention.
And encourage illegal torture.
B.
Those laws and treaties have gray areas. It's a lawyer's job
to argue to his client's advantage, and the ultimate job of
the court to apply the law to a specific case. It would be
difficult to prove--
D.
What if the President turns state's witness and tells a
different story about the lawyers? Wouldn't that be fun?
E.
(to B.)
Gray areas? What are you talking about? Objections to the
policy were ignored. The lawyers who complained were demoted
or transferred. Water boarding was once prosecuted by the
United States. If someone writes a memo saying it's now
legal, isn't that a crime?
B.
It may be immoral, but it's not a crime.
F.
Well, I for one would like to find that out at trial. I
think a damned good case can be made against them. The Bar
Association ought to take a whack at this. I'd like to see
them at trial. They're innocent until proven guilty. I'd
like to see a good lawyer prove them guilty.
B.
And you practice law in what jurisdiction?
F.
There are lawyers who could write out a case against them
easily. Just as easily as they wrote a case for torture.
D.
Lawyers can write up any kind of case at all.
F.
And isn't that the point here?
G.
Please tell me what crime they committed? Malpractice,
maybe. But that's not a crime.
F.
They have to be investigated as part of a bigger case.
Valtin, that psychiatrist wasn't afraid to call out fellow
psychiatrists as well as the APA, who, as a result of his and
others' activism, have had to confront their complicity in
this. I'm interested in why you aren't angry, and instead
more worried about the protections afforded lawyers. Valtin
knows the protections to psychiatrists, yet had no trouble
condemning those who participated in torture. So yes, the
lawyers who wrote the opinion should be in the cross-hairs.
I don't know if charging them with a crime is even the point
so much as having what they did become part of a full and
thorough investigation. When I think of all our professions-
doctors, lawyers, accountants--all of whom have such
supposedly strict codes of ethics. And yet look what's
happened. They're not professions any more--they're all
businesses!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
