It is PAST time that ganja activists create a cohesive attack on FEDERAL policy, since clearly no progress is possible until we can defeat the federal lies.

Still though, I find it hard to agree with the contention that they were “told by all levels of the federal government that what they were doing was legal and appropriate.” Just as a starting point, I’ll quote wikipedia:

On July 20, 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush signed an executive order banning torture during interrogation of terror suspects. While the guidelines for interrogation do not specifically ban waterboarding, the executive order refers to torture as defined by 18 USC 2340, which includes “the threat of imminent death,” as well as the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

So there was not an absolute ban, but the fact that GW (of all people) signed a resolution like this shows that consent on the legitimacy of waterboarding was far from universal, even among the federal government. I don’t really buy the idea that “all levels” of the government unanimously approved of the technique.

This would be federal prosecution of federal employees told by all levels of the federal government that what they were doing was legal and appropriate.

Following orders is an institutional mandate, while following the law is a legal mandate. A subordinate in any department, military branch, etc absolutely has the right to refuse to follow orders if he believes those orders are illegal. Otherwise a single office run amok could cause a whole lot of misery. There would be no such thing as a whistle blower.

Could those CIA operatives have faced departmental discipline or termination if they had refused to commit acts of torture? Almost certainly. Still though, it is no excuse, just as Hitler’s men had no excuse.

…Obama’s continuing efforts to protect Bush’s torture team from prosecution, from Cheney, Yoo, and Bybee on down to the CIA operatives who actually administered the torture techniques.

since we’ve known for awhile now that these techniques were approved by the chain of command, up to and including congress. Unless Obama wanted to indict the congress and senate as a whole then he didn’t have anywhere to really go.

Am I of the understanding that Radley thinks that a CIA field operative (a federal employee) should face federal prosecution for doing what he was told by his immediate supervisor, his region head, the head of the CIA, the head of DHS, the applicable congressional committee members (republican AND democrat), OLC rulings, and finally his commander-in-chief? If that isn’t a perfect example of a “legal order” then at what point does a federal employee have an absolute guarantee that they’re following a good order? When could they NOT be prosecuted?

The drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of.

This is an abomination of everything that America is supposed to stand for. As long as this country continues the drug war, you are not free. At the root, then, those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.

…the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of defendant are entirely consistent with the policies of DOJ and with public
statements made by the Attorney General with respect to marijuana prosecutions.

How on earth are those two things “entirely consistent”? That just sounds like a complete lie to me, without even an attempt at rationalization or cover-up. Holder’s comments are on record, and seem explicitly designed to protect people exactly like Charlie Lynch.

Like Radley said, if their excuse was that they didn’t want to retro-actively change the rules, then at least there would be some logical distinction between this case and Holder’s statements. Not only do they fail to make that distinction, they make the audacious claim that Lynch’s prosecution is entirely in step with this “new” policy. Are we all supposed to be complete morons?

Although Jack Bauer sees nothing wrong with this, maybe someone should be put on paid leave until an investigation clears them of any wrong doing.

“What the president said during the campaign … will be consistent with what we will be doing here in law enforcement,” he said. “What (Obama) said during the campaign … is now American policy.”

DOJ (in memo):

The investigation, prosecution, and conviction of defendant are entirely consistent with the policies of DOJ and with public statements made by the Attorney General with respect to marijuana prosecutions.

Looks like another instance of Obama’s words having no meaning.

What actual purpose does pushing for a harsh sentence for Lynch serve, aside from validating the ego and efforts of some U.S. Attorney?