Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (11643)	4/21/2009 3:37:49 PM
From: pompsander	Respond to of 103300

Sorry, Wayne...I linked to the wrong WAPO op ed. You posted on the IMF...apologies. P.

To: pompsander who wrote (11643)	4/21/2009 3:40:12 PM
From: Wayners	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Well if it was against the law, there should be prosecutions for those that interpreted the law incorrectly, if the law is that clear. The officer's that actually performed the interrogations are innocent if the law is unclear, because their lawyers gave the OK that it was legal to the highest levels of Government. IMO, if it is found to be blatantely illegal, it is the Government's own lawyers IMO who are complicit. If indeed the law is grey enough so nobody knows if it was legal or not, then end of story, change the laws for the future if that is what the voters want or clarify the languarge to allow it if that is what the voters want.