v'ܩ Bush Attorneys Should Be Disbarred For Doing Their Jobs?
Home > Uncategorized > Bush Attorneys Should Be Disbarred For Doing Their Jobs?

Bush Attorneys Should Be Disbarred For Doing Their Jobs?

Full disclosure: I think torture is wrong. Derek and I disagree, and argue, about this weekly. My problems with torture are entirely an ethical one, however, and have nothing to do with the legality of the issue. Would you like to know why? Because, I’m Am Not A Lawyer. The internet, with an uncountable number of different communities has somehow, despite the I.Q. of the average internet citizen being dangerously close to that of a new born chimp, figured out that lawyers are qualified to have legal opinions on issues involving the law. I know, it’s crazy to think that years of schooling and $150,000 in loan debt make you qualified to have an opinion on issues that arise within your specialty. Some groups, however, have decided that this just isn’t so. In fact, they believe that if an attorney’s interpretation of the law disagrees with their own that the attourney should be punished for the actions taken based on their advice.

One Way Ticket To Thought-Crimes-Ville Please.

It’s an absurd proposition to think that these attorneys should be punished for their interpretation of the law. Whether or not what was done, torture in this instance, was truly illegal is really a matter for the supreme court. In the case that it is decided it is illegal the guilty parties would be the ones that carried out the action. Assuming that the attorneys were completely wrong the only people they should be accountable to are their clients, in this case the Bush officials, who would be going to prison for committing torture, probably in the form of a lawsuit.  If the liberals really believe that wrong doing took place they need to try the members of the Bush administration they believe to be guilty, allow the supreme court to make a decision, and allow those same Bush officials to then sue their incompetent attorneys. But suing them because you disagree with their interpretation, without even showing that it’s false, is a new level of stupid.

Author: T.J. Seabrooks Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. June 19th, 2009 at 22:41 | #1


    whadya know? it’d almost be like the free market in action?

    SCOTUS keeps saying that this particular group of lawyers who interpret things with a leaning towards ($X) are advising their client to commit ($X).

    But! Lo and behold, the SCOTUS declares that actions ($X) is unconstitutional and a crime against ($something-or-other). The Lawyers who advocated the use of ($X) will be seen as … idiots?

    yeah, that was the word I was looking for.

    People will no longer listen to them…
    will no longer follow their advice…
    and will no longer commit the unconstitutional activity ($X)…

    how is this a bad thing?

  2. June 19th, 2009 at 22:43 | #2


    I just found your blog, but I love it. it was for lack of opinions such as yours that I stopped updating mine. didn’t feel that I was reaching anyone who was capable of changing their vote.