yossarian wrote:
Well, and then there is the fact Bush was actively supporting torture, whereas Obama is only not allowing him to be raked across the coals for it in the name of "national security".
Yeah. Bush actively supported torture. No bias there! Nosiree!
Quote:
It is not for the love of Bush, but for all those along the chains of command who were assured it was legal by the Bush team and followed orders. Obama does not want them having to go to jail because it would set a bad precedent - future employees would virtually have to either have law degrees or get outside legal council to ensure what they were doing was in fact legal if they could wind up in jail when the president changes.
It was a pretty silly lawsuit. It was filed specifically to force the release of classified documents and go fishing with them. Think about it. The CIA is handed over prisoners to other countries in which they were later tortured, not by the CIA, but by those countries security forces, so they sue the airline company they contracted to do the transporting? That's like suing the company that operates the school bus for driving you to school, because a teacher at that school molested you.
They were right to rule this way on this case. They would have been right to rule this way regardless of who was sitting in the Oval Office at the moment.
Quote:
I understand that argument but I do not approve of it. Everyone is subject to the law, even if the white house tells them it is legal - especially for crimes as heinous as torture.
And if there was a speck of evidence that the company contracted to fly those prisoners around were involved in said torture, you'd have a point.