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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (476634)	4/30/2009 1:19:33 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576619

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (emphasis added) That is as close as you can get to Richard Nixon's infamous comment, "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." Did Nixon have a legal opinion setting out the legal basis for the actions he took? Typical nutjob nonsense.

To: bentway who wrote (476634)	4/30/2009 1:40:55 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576619

"The precedent does more damage than the law breaking because it sets the new boundaries and rules for our government." That's the problem. I can understand that Obama is extremely reluctant to pursue this, the idea that we get a witch hunt every time the presidency changes hands is an unsettling one. But, I don't see how he can avoid at least an investigation. Hopefully a non-partisan one. Any attempt at bi-partisan investigations will just dissolve into politics.