The partners in your firm are wildly misinformed.

From the ABA's Model Rules of ethics and professional conduct for lawyers:

(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_2.html

The other commenter is correct that an attorney who suborns criminal activity may have liability for conspiracy to commit those acts. If Yoo, Bybee, et al are prosecuted I expect this would be the theory under which they would be indicted.

We Republicans were so incompetent and left such a shitshow for you Dems to clean up that you don't have the time or political capital to prosecute us for all our rampant criminality. Ha ha!

If someone dies during torture isn't it murder?

As a state prosecutor I'm not fully familiar with federal criminal law, but in almost every jurisdiction there is something called felony murder, which provides criminal liability for the perpetrator for a death caused in the course of commission of a felony.

Torture is a felony offense, so I would think the answer to your question is "yes."

PS Shout out to you wingnuts: as a prosecutor I would never use a coerced confession. They are inherently unreliable.

Even if torture was effective, that would not matter at all, because "effectiveness" is not a defense. So it's an irrelevant point to make when speaking of whether there should be prosecutions.

But this goes to the Bush administration's staggering incompetence. There is not a credible interrogation expert alive that would recommend torture. You get a phony answer and then your investigators waste valuable time and resources tracking down a bogus lead.

So just shut the fuck up. You have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't Jack Bauer and 24, morons.

For everybody else, this isn't about the law. Are you actually going to push prosecution of Nancy Pelosi? Of course not. For that matter you wouldn't push for her testifying under oath. This is Bush Derangement Syndrome in it's last stages before death.

-- shooter242

I think one of the reasons you come off so mind-bogglingly stupid and inept here is that you seem to think you are addressing one kind of audience - one that is blindingly loyal to anyone or anything relating to the Democratic Party - when the people you are actually talking to are very different: folks of all stripes of political persuasions without a lot of affection for establishment Dems but with a uniting interest in seeing the rule of law upheld.

Of course I would push for Pelosi's prosecution or compelled testimony if the investigation showed she was involved. I don't know a single commenter here who wouldn't, and Glenn least of all.

That's why your taunts like the one above completely miss their target. The target you're aiming at isn't here. That's a big reason you look like a complete buffoon in your posts.

It's your party that tends to follow lockstep behind its leaders. You're projecting. The way you critique your perceived audience here actually reveals much about you and your movement.

CC:

I for one am for legalization precisely because I WANT TO GET HIGH WITHOUT BEING HASSLED.

GG:

Does the criminalization scheme really impose meaningful barriers on people who want to purchase drugs for personal consumption, particularly marijuana?

He didn't say it did. He only said he wanted to use without fear of prosecution. Even as a non-user, I can appreciate that.

For all the people who use drugs despite the risk of arrest, I'm sure there are those who would like to indulge but cannot risk a criminal record, and others who might like to get high but don't want to put unregulated, black-market substances in their bodies.

(1) Anyone who favors marijuana legalization just wants to get high without being hassled, and anyone who favors drug decriminalization generally is or wants to be a drug user.

I would like to see marijuana and most recreational drugs legalized (or, at least, decriminalized to start), and their sale heavily regulated and taxed by the government (as with tobacco and alcohol).

I arrive at this view from my experiences as a state prosecutor, so it's not likely I'm motivated by a desire to have unfettered access to mind-expanding substances for my personal use. Heh.

Miers and immigration, that was IT.

You're forgetting the Dubai firm/port security fiasco. I know, it's hard to keep track of Bush fuck-ups but that one prompted considerable outrage from conservatives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030901124.html

The right didn't have much reason to criticize President Bush because he had campaigned honestly, and then did what he'd said he'd do.

Contemplate the Zen-like sound of the jaws of hundreds of Greenwald readers dropping as they read Elephantman's latest comment.

In 2000 Bush repeatedly campaigned on the promise of "no nation-building" and a "more humble foreign policy" than his predecessor.

You're missing the point, son.

Please read this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/02/biden/index.html

After reading the post at the above link, please answer this question: do you now see why Glenn put "Commander-in-Chief" in quotes?

These last years, it seems only comedians -- Letterman, Stewart, Behar, Goldberg -- ask hard questions of the powerful.

That makes sense. The comedians aren't dependent upon those in power for "access", and thus, their livelihood.