Jake. July. 2009. Again.

[Jake Patterson]

The Obama team has threatened to conduct a full investigation into the
issue of warrentless wiretaps and Gitmo excesses and things. I have
no problem with that. They have also said that they will bring
charges against the lawyers Bush used to find a legal avenue to do
this. I have a problem with this. Of course, I have a problem with
everything.

So I would like to ask the group what it thinks of this. Is it right,
after an administration change such as Bush to Obama, for the new
administration to punish those involved in the controversial actions
of the previous one?

On the one hand, should legal offenses only be actionable during the
tenure of a specific president? On the other hand, does it feel too
much like a regime change?

[Brett Kraus]

It is almost, but not quite like the "Samuel Mudd" situation. He was
asked to set the leg of John Wilkes Booth after Booth killed Lincoln.
As a Doctor, you have a duty to work on the person in front of you.
Mudd, was tried and convicted for treason for setting the leg. Should
he have done it? Yes. Should he have been punished? No.

Lawyers have a duty to their client, in this case the President. He
asked them to do something. Was it illegal? In my opinion, yes.
Intelligent minds, however, often disagree and so others may not allow
it. Lawyers take an oath before being permitted to practice law. Part
of that oath is a promise that they will never knowingly help another
person break the law. If they do, they can be charged with a crime or
lose their law license. A criminal defense attorney cannot hide
evidence without being guilty of a crime and without violating their
ethics.

Our nation adopted part of England's doctrine that the "king can do no
wrong" doctrine. Our nation, however, gave us a process by which to
determine that a president had done something so horrible that they
should not be president any longer, which would open them up to
criminal sanctions for their action. If they are removed from office
or resign, they can be charged criminally for the act taken in office
(and if impeached cannot be pardoned for the crime they were impeached
for, which is one reason why Nixon resigned prior to being impeached).
I am not so concerned about the action Obama is taking as I am about
the timing. He can no longer charge Bush for these atrocities, because
he did not start impeachment proceedings in time, while Bush was still
president. As such, I have concerns about punishing the workers for
something the boss said. But their defense is unlikely to work in this
case, it is the same one attempted in the Nuremberg trials of former
Nazis. Our boss told us to do something wrong and we were just
following orders.

So, it is tough to say what should happen. There is enough to
investigate, and certainly the lawyers were not angels. Should they be
punished? I do not know. One of my professors may be stuck in this
category. She worked for Bush during the wiretaps, so I hope, for her
sake, that she does not get charged, but it is an interesting new
issue. Gut feeling, it seems bad, but I can see a valid reasons for
them.

[Adam Webster]

Are you in Logan again?

[Brett Kraus]

Sorry, talk about psycho, I did not even edit the last thing I did in
this post thread, so please excuse the myriad of Typos and bad
grammar. I am sure it happens a lot, since I do not spend much time
editing my posts, so sorry.

Also, Adam...yes I am in Logan again.