PRE-MEDITATED WAR CRIMES: NO Problema. Legal Memos Were "Advance Pardons" for Lawbreaking

[L. Coyote]

Goldsmith: Legal Memos Were "Advance Pardons" for Lawbreaking
By Spencer Ackerman - September 4, 2007, 11:31 AM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004062.php

Why did Dick Cheney's lawyer David Addington get so upset over rescinding this or that Office of Legal Counsel memorandum? The purpose of the OLC's review process is to collect legal guidance about courses of prospective policies an administration might want to pursue. Under the Bush administration, however, OLC review became a waiver of immunity for breaking the law. From Jeff Rosen's profile of Jack Goldsmith:

he office has two important powers: the power to put a brake on aggressive presidential action by saying no and, conversely, the power to dispense what Goldsmith calls “free get-out-of jail cards” by saying yes. Its opinions, he writes in his book, are the equivalent of “an advance pardon” for actions taken at the fuzzy edges of criminal laws.

Recall that after the news of the August 1, 2002 OLC torture memo broke, then-AG John Ashcroft testified to the Senate that "There is no presidential order immunizing torture." Maybe not from the president. But according to Goldsmith's account, immunization from prosecution is the elephant in the room when administration lawyers discussed in 2002 what CIA interrogators could lawfully do to al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees. John Yoo, the zealous OLC lawyer who helped pen the August 2002 torture memo, was a "godsend" to an administration fearful of eventual war-crimes prosecution, ...............

[peacetalksforall]

1. So, the way it is set-up, another 9-11 is coming. Their agenda is

too important to them. Put-options dating around the third Friday in September?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[G_j]

3. absolutely

correct

K&R

[bleever]

4. Strange how many legal memoranda were written with immunity

from potential prosecution as a key focus.

It is indeed evidence of premeditation. Great point.

[L. Coyote]

7. Great point on the "number" of them written for this purpose. This too goes to

premeditation and circumvention of existing law (read criminality). I would like to see what the true numbers are, just how many.

Also, can this be linked with signing statements, in terms of criminality?

[G_j]

5. k

[rucky]

6. how much more evidence do we need? n/t

[L. Coyote]

8. AND< just how much more evidence is there? TONS and TONS??