What's wrong with the "it will compromise ability to get quality advice" meme.

[Atman]

That's one of the biggest arguments we're hearing from the right-wing corporate shills and the ass-coverers; if we prosecute anyone for torture, it will have a "chilling effect" on the ability of the president to get advice, as people will fear that they, too, will one day be called to account for their opinions.

That is ludicrous. What it would do is have a chilling effect on those who would advise ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. Why would anyone be afraid to offer advice that was perfectly proper and based on sound legal reasoning? The argument the right is presenting simply doesn't make any sense. The lawyers who drafted the policies weren't doing so on the basis of sound legal reasoning, they were doing so in order to provide cover for activity which they KNEW was illegal. The president and VP were specifically looking for carefully worded opinions which would allow them to break the law. But breaking the law is still breaking the law. THE LAW didn't change. Just because a lawyer used crafty legalese in order to help make an argument doesn't change THE LAW.

So this whole "chilling effect" meme is total bullshit. The only "chilling effect" I can foresee will be on the act of asking lawyers to draft memos which justify illegal activity...and I, for one, see absolutely no problem with that.

.

[Ian David]

1. It's SUPPOSED to have a "chilling effect" that prevents people from advocating War Crimes.

That's the whole point.

That argument is like saying, "If you prosecute people for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, it will have a chilling effect on discussions about bank robbery."

Come on!

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Didn't bother them at all when they demanded Clinton's closest advisors testify, did it?

[Laelth]

3. Completely counterintuitive.

Prosecutions will help insure that our leaders get quality advice because the people who give it will know they are going to be held responsible for it.

:dem:

-Laelth