filtherton

Okay, I guess that I mistakenly thought you were replying to the quoted text immediately above your musings about the "process of justice". I don't really see what your response about the "process of justice" has to do with anything I said.



We're all welfare collectors. Anyone who thinks that they haven't benefited immensely from the generosity of their fellow taxpayer isn't paying attention.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You know that driving 5 mph over the speed limit is against the law? The only reason people do it is because there is this idea that the police won't pull you over if you're only going 5 mph above the speed limit. This is the very definition of casual disrespect for the rule of law.


Well, I'm not going to look up and argue statutes with someone in law school. You win, dude, no contest. I do think that when it comes to bullshitting on the internet, I'm pretty good, so hear me out.

Here's what I know: The previous administration enacted a policy of extrajudicial torture. I'm no legal scholar, but I bet it's illegal. The previous administration enacted or ramped up the practice of extrajudicially exporting detainees to be tortured in other countries. Again, I'm no Johnnie Cochran, but I would probably get arrested if I tried doing the same thing. The previous administration tapped the wires of American citizens without getting the proper warrants. I don't have a statute to cite here, but I'd be willing to bet that it isn't legal.

I also know that the general attitude of Bush seemed to be that of "I don't give a damn about the law, I'll do whatever the hell I think I need to do to accomplish my policy goals." While there likely isn't anything illegal about having this attitude, one might expect such an outlook would be associated with a certain amount of active disrespect for the rule of law. Legal opinions may vary here.

Maybe you think Bush's administration didn't break the law at all, that he'd never engage or enact policies that were counter to the laws of our land. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I think that such a view is incomprehensible, but perhaps technically sound given the fact that the Bush administration seem to be able to find someone with a JD capable of formulating complex legal arguments to justify the legality everything they wanted to do. A given action can't be illegal if the lawyers at the justice department say it isn't illegal, right? Plus, it'd be nearly impossible to find a lawyer capable of coming up with convincing arguments in support of premises which aren't completely true so there's no way people like John Yoo could be wrong.

But I guess when it comes down to it, Bush probably didn't do anything illegal. A person obviously hasn't broken any laws until they've been convicted of breaking those laws and it's impossible to be convicted of a crime if the people responsible for investigating and prosecuting that crime have decided that they aren't going to investigate anyt of the possibly criminal activities because they want to continue engaging in them.


edit: snarkiness was a part of my bullshitting on the internet paradigm. No disrespect was actually intended.