That link to the earlier legal discussion here was excellent and the date was before I found this site. Thanks.

I look forward to these same legal scholars pursuing the obvious and numerous ‘crimes’ of the Bush Administration after Obama takes office. I say this not as a vindictive Democrat seeking ‘blood’, but rather, as a registered Republican who seeks justice; first as a citizen who treasures our U.S. Constitution, and secondly as a conservative who wants others to know that Bush does not speak for many Republicans such as I represent.

Check out:
JT’s blog post /2008/04/02/torture-memo-released-yoo-argues-self-defense-in-cases-of-interrogation-deathes-or-injuries/

and

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/10/95033/2181/104/493151

‘Signed By Bush, ALLOWING TORTURE, Memo Shows Bush NOT ‘Insulated’

Here’s the central point:

As detailed in the recent ABC News story on how top White House officials in the National Security Council discussed specific details of torture, the Bush Administration torture policy was determined by the NSC.

What ABC didn’t mention is that Bush is the head of the National Security Counsel and the 2002 NSC decision memo in question, shown at the bottom of this post, signed by George W. Bush, establishes that Bush was in 2002 indeed doing his job as acting head and final decision maker of the National Security Council.

An April 11 AP News study claims Bush was “insulated” from the torture decision making process but existing documents, such as showcased in this post, rebut that claim and indicate Bush was in the torture loop, the top “decider”…’

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/04/02/

from JT’s: torture-memo-released-yoo-argues-self-defense-in-cases-of-interrogation-deathes-or-injuries/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/10/95033/2181/104/493151

‘ Signed By Bush, ALLOWING TORTURE, Memo Shows Bush NOT ‘Insulated’

Here’s the central point:

As detailed in the recent ABC News story on how top White House officials in the National Security Council discussed specific details of torture, the Bush Administration torture policy was determined by the NSC.

What ABC didn’t mention is that Bush is the head of the National Security Counsel and the 2002 NSC decision memo in question, shown at the bottom of this post, signed by George W. Bush, establishes that Bush was in 2002 indeed doing his job as acting head and final decision maker of the National Security Council.

An April 11 AP News study claims Bush was “insulated” from the torture decision making process but existing documents, such as showcased in this post, rebut that claim and indicate Bush was in the torture loop, the top “decider”…’

JT and I covered this back in April-long before Cohn.

You could have been quoting me, because I have been
particularly vocal on this point! Thanks…

Don’t miss PZ’s ’08 TED Conference lecture…

http://www.lucifereffect.com/movie.htm

About the Movie

Currently, the only authorized full-length film on the Stanford Prison Experiment is Quiet Rage (to watch the trailer, click on the image to the right). Recently, however, Maverick Films has contracted to make a feature-length movie based on the experiment. Stanford University has granted permission to use the school’s name and image, contingent upon the final script conveying the facts and events as they actually happened.

The director and co-script writer (along with Tim Talbott) is Christopher McQuarrie, Oscar winner for his remarkable script of The Usual Suspects.

The producers are Christopher McQuarrie, Brent Emery, Mark Morgan, and Guy Oseary.

Casting is currently underway in Los Angeles and New York by veteran casting director Lynn Kressel (Bad Boys, Don Juan Demarco, Spider Man, Way of the Gun).

I thought her argument about the supreme court ruling invalidating pardons was quite interesting. I hope it prevails.

Thanks for that link. Ms.Cohn’s interpretation certainly fits my “bias” regarding the need to prosecute Bush/Cheney et al. Cohn recapped the issue perfectly. Some excerpts:

“Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.”

“Why is Cheney so sanguine about admitting he is a war criminal? Because he’s confident that either President Bush will preemptively pardon him or President-elect Obama won’t prosecute him. Both of those courses of action would be illegal.”

“First, a president cannot immunize himself or his subordinates for committing crimes that he himself authorized.”

“There is precedent in our law for holding lawyers criminally liable for participating in a common plan to violate the law.”

“Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told Rachel Maddow that you cannot legalize what’s illegal by having a lawyer write an opinion.”

“Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild”

He’ll probably try that!

Here’s an interesting article on Cheney’s admission to war crimes from Alternet:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/114325/why_was_cheney_so_quick_to_admit_he%27s_a_war_criminal/

Now, I aint no professional nor in anyway qualified in the tutelage of law, but Cheney’s statement would seem prima facie evidence to help convict him of torture in any world-wide tribunal.

If I were a crooked lawyer, I would advise Bush to admit that Cheney was the “real-guy-in-charge-de-facto-president” and to plea to the mercy of the court that he (bush) acted within the full legal scope of the ‘Stockholm Syndrome.’

‘I will fight. I will fight. I will fight…’

‘…And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:…’

p.s. In all seriousness, another extremely interesting study is
Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment
http://www.prisonexp.org/

“Many times people commit cruelty because they are terrified. They know what they’re doing isn’t right, but they do it anyway because to refuse participation could mean they will be tortured themselves.”

That was precisely my experience during the tenure process.

The process of sorting it all out is difficult, but this same pattern does seem to repete itself again and again in human life, a good example being the post yesterday showing the pastor and congregants moving against their fellow congregant who was having sex with her boyfriend.

Sadists order cruelty but it’s only sometimes that true sadists answer the call. Many times people commit cruelty because they are terrified. They know what they’re doing isn’t right, but they do it anyway because to refuse participation could mean they will be tortured themselves, and I think, even more importantly, they will be torn away from belonging. Belonging is always important to us, but a situation of stress and fear makes the desire to belong even stronger. I think sadists know this and they deliberately create scenes of chaos, where people become desperate to cling to each other. If the price of belonging is harming someone else, there’s a very high chance harm will be done. That’s why paying close attention to the situation is so critical. If you look at cheneybush they have consistently created a climate of chaos and fear (they’re still at it) because they know this will create the most number of people willing to commit acts of astounding cruelty.

We have to be really careful in any chaotic situation, to know we are vunerable and try to counteract that force in our own thoughts and actions. I would like more information on what allows people to resist, because we need to know this so we may act with that knowledge.

Good luck with the talk tomorrow. Tell ‘em we’re not all this bad!