Bush attorneys who wrote terror memo face backlash

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
May 6, 9:21 PM EDT

Bush attorneys who wrote terror memo face backlash

By TERENCE CHEA
Associated Press Writer


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Pressure is mounting against two former Bush administration attorneys who wrote the legal memos used to support harsh interrogation techniques that critics say constituted torture. John Yoo, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is fighting calls for disbarment and dismissal, while Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals faces calls for impeachment.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CA_INTERROGATION_MEMOS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
 
Mottleydude said:
Yea, we should tar and feather the sum bitches (twould be ironic wouldn't it? lol)
Click to expand...

my thoughts keep going back to nuremburg.......

This SHOULD be a very popular example of why we should stop nominating lawyers to sit on very important benches in this country. All most lawyers seem to be capable of is taking a very straightforward and self explanatory law, then twist and bend it until it's totally unrecognizable, then tell us 'average' people that they are needed to interpret it.

no offense to Soc.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
my thoughts keep going back to nuremburg.......

This SHOULD be a very popular example of why we should stop nominating lawyers to sit on very important benches in this country. All most lawyers seem to be capable of is taking a very straightforward and self explanatory law, then twist and bend it until it's totally unrecognizable, then tell us 'average' people that they are needed to interpret it.

no offense to Soc.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you're nuts. I mean you can't be serious that you'd want to put an amature on the bench at the highest level?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
my thoughts keep going back to nuremburg.......

This SHOULD be a very popular example of why we should stop nominating lawyers to sit on very important benches in this country. All most lawyers seem to be capable of is taking a very straightforward and self explanatory law, then twist and bend it until it's totally unrecognizable, then tell us 'average' people that they are needed to interpret it.

no offense to Soc.
Click to expand...

You've got to understand the law before you can judge it, SMY. So a judge would at least need to go to law school. And if they go to law school, what are they going to do in between then and being a judge? You have to distinguish yourself in law to become a judge. And where else are you going to do that besides being a lawyer?
 
Mottleydude said:
I'm sorry but you're nuts. I mean you can't be serious that you'd want to put an amature on the bench at the highest level?
Click to expand...

Watermark said:
You've got to understand the law before you can judge it, SMY. So a judge would at least need to go to law school. And if they go to law school, what are they going to do in between then and being a judge? You have to distinguish yourself in law to become a judge. And where else are you going to do that besides being a lawyer?
Click to expand...

really? this is why the vicious circle of rendering the constitution into pulp will continue. You failed to grasp the point of it all it seems. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that I have a better understanding of the constitution and the laws than most of these judges and lawyers do.

One does not need to be a lawyer in order to understand the constitution.
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand laws as written and if it requires a lawyer just to read the damned thing, then it should be struck down. Or is this concept alien to you?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that I have a better understanding of the constitution and the laws than most of these judges and lawyers do.
Click to expand...

Well it's a good thing that we have a different standard of deciding who has a good understanding of the constitution than what "seems" to SMY.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
really? this is why the vicious circle of rendering the constitution into pulp will continue. You failed to grasp the point of it all it seems. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that I have a better understanding of the constitution and the laws than most of these judges and lawyers do.

One does not need to be a lawyer in order to understand the constitution.
One does not need to be a lawyer to understand laws as written and if it requires a lawyer just to read the damned thing, then it should be struck down. Or is this concept alien to you?
Click to expand...

I think your missing my point. To use an anology it's like this. You, I and George W Bush share something in common. Were all three dangerously underqualified to be President of the USA. Ditto for as a high court jurist.
 
Watermark said:
Well it's a good thing that we have a different standard of deciding who has a good understanding of the constitution than what "seems" to SMY.
Click to expand...

considering that my standard is awesome and yours plain sucks ass, I fail to see how that's 'good'. By your own standards, I should never perform first aid since i'm not a paramedic?
 
Mottleydude said:
I think your missing my point. To use an anology it's like this. You, I and George W Bush share something in common. Were all three dangerously underqualified to be President of the USA. Ditto for as a high court jurist.
Click to expand...

well, not knowing you personally, i couldn't say whether you'd be underqualified or not. I, however, would consider myself better qualified than the last 3 presidents we've had. I also consider myself much more qualified to be a sitting judge than probably 1/3rd of the federal judges out there, but let's not do anything like require bullshit degrees to interpret a document written by people who weren't lawyers.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
well, not knowing you personally, i couldn't say whether you'd be underqualified or not. I, however, would consider myself better qualified than the last 3 presidents we've had. I also consider myself much more qualified to be a sitting judge than probably 1/3rd of the federal judges out there, but let's not do anything like require bullshit degrees to interpret a document written by people who weren't lawyers.
Click to expand...

that is simply not true, more than 30 were either lawyers or had a legal education
 
SmarterThanYou said:
considering that my standard is awesome and yours plain sucks ass, I fail to see how that's 'good'. By your own standards, I should never perform first aid since i'm not a paramedic?
Click to expand...

You got it backwards son. Just caust you know first aid doesn't qualify you to be a paramedic as you'd be dangerously underqualifed. Just as you would be as a jurist.
 
Mottleydude said:
You got it backwards son. Just caust you know first aid doesn't qualify you to be a paramedic as you'd be dangerously underqualifed. Just as you would be as a jurist.
Click to expand...

and I disagree. One does not need a college degree or a little certificate to announce to the world that you know what the hell you're doing. I'm living proof of it.
 
Mottleydude said:
Thanks for making that point before me. Not only were they lawyers, they were some of the greatest legal scholars in history.
Click to expand...

this should be really simple, yet it's been purposefully made so fucking complicated that you think it requires law degrees to understand it. Lawyers and judges who were lawyers are directly responsible for the mess that the constitution is right now.

It was written so that the average layman could easily understand it. It was presented to the citizens of all of those colonies in easy to understand terms so it could be ratified. why is it that NOW, it requires 8 years of law school (and to some they want years of experience as a judge) to be able to read the plain text today and understand it?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this should be really simple, yet it's been purposefully made so fucking complicated that you think it requires law degrees to understand it. Lawyers and judges who were lawyers are directly responsible for the mess that the constitution is right now.

It was written so that the average layman could easily understand it. It was presented to the citizens of all of those colonies in easy to understand terms so it could be ratified. why is it that NOW, it requires 8 years of law school (and to some they want years of experience as a judge) to be able to read the plain text today and understand it?
Click to expand...

another not true statement, it is not just "now", all justices have been lawyers, from the very beginning

and lawschool is generally 3 years
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top