Basically, Obama's resurrected the Nuremburg defense

[depakid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

Wasn't necessary and was premature at this point. Seems to me, that was both a strategic and tactical blunder.

The wiser move would have been to leave sword of Damacles hanging.

[cali]

1. yes, he did. but neither you nor I are privy to the exigencies of his decison.

hard to say it wasn't necessary. I wish he hadn't done it, but I don't feel as if I know enough at this time about it. I do know that he was under enormous pressure not to release those memos. And that he's going to catch a lot of shit- much of it unreported- because he did so.

[knowbody0]

2. IMO

putting them out there is his phase one. our reaction and demand for action will compell him to move forward. it will come up at his next "town meeting".

[depakid]

3. It's going to be interesting to see the international reaction

in tomorrow's papers -or on tonight's news and analysis down under.

Was there an expectation that the Oabma administratio would seek to further some measure of accountability?

Or are they already so cynical and jaded that they'll just roll their eyes and think- par for the course with America.

Either way, it's not proud moment in history-

[MADem]

4. Not really. Once upon a time, cocaine was legal.

People who did cocaine were "just fine and dandy."

Then, they outlawed it.

Are you gonna go back and arrest those people who did the cocaine back when it was legal? Because it's illegal NOW, after all.

That's the same argument.

The Justice Department gave those guys PAINFULLY ARTICULATED COVER for what they did. They produced a blizzard of paper in cover. They said, in essence "This is legal, this is not. That is legal, the other is not." They gave them a laundry list. Column A is OK, column B is not.

It doesn't make what they did "morally" right, but it does make prosecution problematic in the US court system.

[depakid]

5. Same "I was just following orders" deal that's been adjudicated and settled

by the US Supreme Court.

Trouble is you see, is that what it looks like is that NO ONE on any level is going to be held accountable. Even those who knew full well- with no excuses whatsoever, that what they were doing constituted violations of US and international law.

[MADem]

6. No. There's a difference here. The US Justice Department said what they did was LEGAL.

The ultimate legal authority of the US government, DOJ, told them they were "OK." I think Obama (the Constitutional law lecturer) saw the conundrum.

Doesn't mean international courts could not go after them--but US courts? Not gonna happen.

The people involved in this matter are safe from international prosecution if they stay within the USA.

[depakid]

8. Sorry- that doesn't make it legal, as the DOJ and the executive are NOT the ultimate authority

While they certainly retain the discretion to prosecute or not in any partiular case- a blanket failure to go after anyone represnts a pretty serious breach of duty and raises a separation of powers issue.

As Andrew Jackson said while marching the Cherokee to their deaths on the trail of tears (after they'd won the right to stay on their land in the Supreme Court): Mr. Marshall has his ruling. Now let him enforce it.

[MADem]

9. I think that a case can be made that they believed they had cover.

I think Obama thinks so, too.

At what point do "you" (that's a general you, not a you-you) get to decide what's legal and what isn't?

If the Justice Department tells you that they have reviewed the law, and they provide a torturous (forgive the deliberate pun) explanation of what you can and can't do, you're down to the "reasonable man" defense.

A reasonable man (or woman) would say that if the DOJ tells you that this is "OK," then it's OK.

[CTLawGuy]

7. other than teetering near Godwin territory

a reasonable criticism. Thank you for not calling him a corporate sellout or just like Bush.