Conservatives say the Bush DoJ OLC "gave advice" while liberal say they "authorized" torture

[Bucky]

So which view is right? (PS, the suspense is not killing me).

What are the facts in the case? Did the Office of Legal Counsel actually authorize "enhanced interrogation" as a policy, or just render legal opinions on request that had no legal binding authority?

Not surprisingly, news outlets I read & listen to haven't given specifics on this seemingly critical question.

[babylonsister]

1. The conservatives are protesting a bit too much imo.

While this criminal act was being carried out, who was president and who had the ultimate say-so? End of story.

[mmonk]

2. Basically it is the following:

The President and Vice President wanted to torture so they requested flawed legal opinions giving them the legal appearance of an illegal or nonexistent right to torture.

[Bucky]

3. So the authorization didn't come from the lawyers at OLC?

I would think that the culpability comes from the authorizing authority. Is it customary to hold lawyers legally culpable for acts committed pursuant to their legal advice? I can see grounds for disbarment, but if their opinions weren't binding, the case for prosecuting them is a hell of a lot weaker than the case against Bush & Cheney? Is this just a case of "target of greatest opportunity"?

Our country tortured people--someone needs to go to jail. But who?

[LooseWilly]

6. I think it is customary to sue lawyers for malpractice for extremely poor legal advice.

It suddenly occurs to me though, that a lawyer giving legal advice to justify a crime might well be considered to have been a participant in that crime, as an accessory or something...

[mmonk]

8. The authorization came from the top. The law of agency in my opinion

though not technically. The lawyers at a minimum should be disbarred.

[LooseWilly]

4. I think Obama's argument for why in-the-field CIA agents shouldn't be prosecuted

... is a clue. He's been framing the disinterest in prosecuting the agents on the ground based on a "good faith" reliance on the OLC opinions as an expression of policy.
In this framework, the "advice" was tantamount to "authorization", as it was cited as justification for the consequent policies that were implemented.

It seems to me that those who gave the opinions can be judged to be at fault, or those that used that "advice" to come to the decision about the policies that they went on to implement can be judged to be at fault. Of course, I'd love to hold them all accountable...
The argument that the OLC lawyers weren't accountable because they just gave legal advice, and that those who implemented policy likewise weren't responsible because they were relying on the opinions is ridiculous. If the OLC opinions are just "advice", then those who solicit/make decisions based on that "advice" are responsible for knowing that it is only advice!! In that case, the lawyers of the OLC should be dis-barred for malpractice, and those who used the ridiculous opinions to form policy should be held fully accountable, and I would personally laugh if they were to try to bring those opinions into court to defend themselves with...

[annabanana]

5. The Administration said to the OLC:

"Make it so we can do this."

So, being good corporate lawyers,... they did.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

7. Advice was, it's ok to torture