Comments for EXECUTIVE WATCH

Comment on Three Takes on the OLC Torture Memos by Regina

Regina — Wed, 23 May 2012 00:14:06 +0000

Cecil, I don’t know your background, but when the line is never or relray clear, a lawyer should be hard pressed to act as if the line is clear, which is to say that the lawyer would normally warn someone that A is clearly not torture, that C is and that B is open to interpretation and one could not guarantee that having engaged in B, one would not be violating the law. Yes, an unsatisfying conclusion, but that’s when one tries to use judgment that would, presumably, make B off limits unless someone in authority adjudges that for a very particular threat (as in one individual case at a time) it’s okay to take the legal risk and commit B which still would not guarantee that B is legal, only that there’s less likelihood of enforcement risk because it’s clearly not a pattern of conduct that is indiscriminately used. In most cases, however, one would steer well clear of B, and would never convey to men in the field, so to speak, that B is okay, but would draw the line at A, particularly when the torture convention is involved, because anything we do to *them* could be turned around and done to *our guys*, and if we don’t want that we must be judicious. I think it very telling that some of those being asked to commit B themselves raised the objections. Good for them. And the discussion about intent sacre bleu! those in the DOJ who actually prosecute crimes must cringe at the notion that an internal DOJ memo could be used as a road map to defend the criminally clueless hey, if you shoot into a building that you know has someone in it but you don’t *intend* to hit anybody, are you guilty of some degree of murder? In most states you would be, although it wouldn’t likely be the highest level. Intent is frequently inferred from actions when no reasonable person could mistake the consequences or likely condequences of engaging in them like, say, listening to someone scream and seeing that bruises and broken bones and psychosis are the result of your actions. If you know what’s happening, as in you’re sentient and not sleepwalking or insane, you usually have all the intent that the criminal law requires. Intent a la Ratzlaf is relevant only when there is nothing mala in se regarding your actions nothing about them that would put you on notice that they are illegal unless you know exactly what the law provides, in the case of Ratzlaf, a complex tax law regarding the structuring of a transaction to evade taxes. But SCOTUS has decided subsequent cases that make it clear that Ratzlaf is an outlier not the norm in any relevant sense where one’s conduct would normally be viewed as wrongful, even if one doesn’t know all the elements of the completed offense that one is committing. Notwithstanding the above, I think there can be complexity regarding torture, because an acceptable interrogation practice could have unforeseen consequences, that is, a weak individual may break down under normally acceptable interrogation practices, but that’s different from setting the threshold of injury so high that no normal person could escape the fact that they are quite likely to inflict grievous bodily harm. In any event, you’d get a much more nuanced memo than the one that was written if they were really interested in that question.

Comment on President Obama’s Signing Statements and Congress’ Response: A Return to Separation of Powers Sanity? by Peter M. Shane: President Obama’s Signing Statements and Congress’s Response: A Return to Separation of Powers Sanity? | BlackNewsTribune.com

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:10:53 +0000

[...] For readers who can wade through 1600 words of explication of these theses, I have laid out my detailed analysis here. [...]

Comment on The Eisenhower-Obama Doctrine? Ending the Military’s “Blank Check” by Margaret Houston

Margaret Houston — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:35:52 +0000

I’m hoping you don’t see this as offensive but this sounds like the same ol’ Obama rhetoric.The fact of the matter is Obama has done very little of what he promised.

Comment on Weekly Web Watch 12/21/09 – 12/27/09 by Building Confidence in Children

Building Confidence in Children — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:31:56 +0000

Fantastic Web site! I wanted to ask if I would be able quote a portion of your web page and use a few items for a school assignment. Please let me know through email if that would be fine. Thanks

Comment on High Court to Consider Separation of Powers in Upcoming PCAOB Case by Veronika Tufano

Veronika Tufano — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 04:35:25 +0000

If the US senate has a hard time understanding the new health cae bill from Obama how can common folks? When will we be able to understand what he has done?

Comment on The Eisenhower-Obama Doctrine? Ending the Military’s “Blank Check” by buy youtube views

buy youtube views — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:55:01 +0000

I had difficulties reading this blog when using my iphone, whats the cause?

Comment on Weekly Web Watch 08/10/09 – 08/16/09 by Teddy Amphy

Teddy Amphy — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:02:44 +0000

i dont know how i found your blog because i used to be searching details about politics, however anyway, i had a nice time reading it, hold write it

Comment on Executive Action Report: 10/14/2009 – 10/20/2009 by Manchester Solicitors

Manchester Solicitors — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:49:58 +0000

Hi vey nice interesting blog im from Bradford i found this on msn i found this blog very interesting good luck with it i will return to this blog soon

Comment on Weekly Web Watch 11/30/09 – 12/6/09 by Loren Jurgensmeyer

Loren Jurgensmeyer — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:08:51 +0000

I actually enjoy this blog. Discovered it on Google and you put up some great info. Look forward to the next post.

Comment on Obama and the Balance Between Federal and State Regulatory Regimes by Silvanus Dennis

Silvanus Dennis — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:23:04 +0000

Soap and pedagogy are not as sharp as a mow down, but they are more mortal in the far run.�