Let's parse the exact words Obama used

[Duer 157099]

"In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."

Is this the loophole that we're all gasping and grasping for?

It's a thin thread, to be sure. But how in fact does one prove "good faith" -- especially when we know for certain that at least some of this torture was conducted prior to the legal opinions in those memos? Does that not at least suggest strongly that in fact there was no such "good faith"??? That the legal opinions were indeed sought as "legal cover"?

Jesus I'm tired of grasping at straws! I never imagined I'd still be doing the same thing under a dem president -- harkens back to the Fitzmas days...

[notesdev]

1. It should not excuse them

if you, say, follow the advice of someone who tells you that you don't have to pay your taxes, and do it in "good faith", how much slack you think the Department of Justice is going to give you?

Are we back to "just following orders"?

[Duer 157099]

3. Well, but what if it was the IRS who told me not to pay?

That's more the equivalent.

[notesdev]

8. You would STILL be responsible for it

Fairly well known trivia item about the IRS - 10% of the questions it answers, it answers incorrectly.

Getting an incorrect answer from the IRS will do nothing at all to slow the wheels of tax collection. According to them, it is your responsibility. If they tell you you owe $1, and their calculations say you owe $1000, guess what. They will collect $1000 out of your hide when all is said and done.

And really, they have to operate like that, or half the country would try to evade taxes by claiming wrong advice from the IRS.

A non-judicial legal opinion from someone who is paid to provide a biased opinion is no defense for torturers, or fraudsters, or for anyone else. If your lawyer is wrong about the law it is still your sorry ass, not his, that ends up in jail.

[gcomeau]

2. "Is this the loophole that we're all gasping and grasping for?" - No

No, it isn't. I don't care about the order followers, not really. I care about the order GIVERS. And I don't need to parse some obscure loophole in Obama's statements to get there, because he didn't say one damn word about them being protected from prosecution.

[Duer 157099]

5. Really, why don't you care about the order followers?

And why do you think it's one or the other, but not both?

:shrug:

[gcomeau]

7. Because I have a sense of perspective. -nt

[madeline_con]

4. It reeks of the "just following orders" defense. And it will work.

The prosecutions will never happen. Ever.

[depakid]

6. In other words- the Nuremberg defense has just been ressurected

[IDemo]

9. From tonight's special comment by Keith:

"It is our intention," you (President Obama) said today, "to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution." Mr. President, you are making history's easiest, most often made, most dangerous mistake — you are accepting the defense that somebody was "just following orders."

[Metta]

10. He's relying on hair splitting to cover some asses, his included, by being morally relative.

And Constitutionally relative, as well. Happy karma, Obama.