In his analogy, the corporation (a private fief, a tyranny ruled by a despot, or perhaps by oligarchs, if you will) is the final arbiter of his fate. If he were to get in trouble, *his boss* would be the one stoking the fires.

The analogy breaks down with regards to Cheney - he is NOT a tyrant, and he is NOT the final arbiter of what decisions should be made. There is an authority above him - well above him, which is the law. Papering over that fact sort of flies in the face of a key tenet of democracy, one that's been around since the Magna Carta - no one, not even a monarch, is a law unto themselves.

He is saying that there's a big difference between running a story and torturing people "because your boss told you to". Heather, you have to stop being so pathetic and inventing things.

trying to package 'stoopid' and sell it!

no surprise here.

Where can I sign up to be that well paid to be that stupid?

Is he saying he would commit a crime if his bosses told him to?

I would give up my own grandmother. Provided I hadn't pulled her plug already of course, being a Democrat.

Your question and answer:

Uhhhh...because your boss telling you what to cover for your "news" show doesn't violate the Geneva Conventions. Just a guess.

is not the correct question/answer.

CM asks the correct question:

If he told us to do that, and I did it, how could I get prosecuted for it?p>

The Answer is:

You would get prosecuted for it because there is no defense for following illegal orders. Torture is black and white, not shades of infinite gray. The Nuremburg and other subsequent trials have utterly dismissed any basis for torture or war crimes even though superiors ordered it be done.

It is your solemn duty as a human being to disobey any order to torture.

If only more facts could be presented, you would soon learn that recruiting CIA officers to perform torture was virtually impossible and that is why CACI, TITAN and Blackwater must be brought into the loop.

to add a little more: (ref: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/02/jus...)

For centuries, our courts have recognized that such claims are false. A few examples are worth highlighting. In 1804, in Little v. Barreme (The Flying Fish), 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that “orders given by the executive” and executive “instructions cannot change the nature of the transaction, or legalize an act which, without those instructions, would have been a plain trespass” against the law, the Chief Justice adding: “[i]f his instructions afford him no protection, then the law must take its course.” Two years later, in United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806), Justice Paterson affirmed that the President is bound by the law and “cannot dispense with its execution, and still less can he authorize a person to do what the law forbids.” If the President had approved a violation, Paterson stressed, “it would not justify the defendant in a court of law, nor discharge him from the binding force” of law.

In 1852, Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 How.) 115, 137, affirmed that superior orders are not a defense: “[an] order to do an illegal act ... can afford no justification.” Later, Justice Miller, in Elger’s Adm’r v. Lovell, 8 F. Cas. 449, 454 (C.C.D. Mo. 1865), recognized that “no proclamation of the president can change or modify” the reach of the “law of nations.” Also at that time, Attorney General Speed, in 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 297, 299-300 (1865), recognized that the laws of war and more general laws of nations “are of binding force upon the departments and citizens of the Government” and neither Congress nor the Executive can “abrogate them or authorize their infraction.” Still later, a district court affirmed, in Ex parte Orozco, 201 F. 106, 111-12 (W.D. Tex. 1912), that conduct resting “merely upon an order directed by the President” was illegal and cannot “be sustained in a court of justice.” Certainly a mere OLC opinion can have no more authority than a presidential authorization, directive, or order.

For doing what my boss told me to do.

It's not even enough to refuse the order to do something illegal, because at that point you know about the illegal behavior and are part of a criminal conspiracy

In terms of stories about moon walking, Bill Maher mentioned on the 40th anniversary of the moon landing that it's sad when America's/mankind's greatest peak was a moonwalk by Neil Armstrong and then Michael Jackson decades ago.

You know . . . ask a question from a position of professed ignorance in order to get the authority on the subject to give you a complete answer. Because I don't think he's an idiot.

Well, what do you guys think? ;)

I think Tweety just gets caught up in his own internal reverb circuit once in a while.

Some people are talented "metaphore makers."
Tweety... not so much.

Such a trivial post - Really, who cares what Matthews compares to what... the point was accurate and yes, he was doing the typical job that `On-Air` people do in asking a stupid question to get the interviewee to explain their position.

Literally, there are thousands of topics that should be getting coverage and aren't... meanwhile you guys and your crush on tweety and the rest of the cable news anchors results in a post each time they scratch their head in a `peculiar` manner.

Yes, keep calling the kettle black.

"how could I get prosecuted for it?" There might yet be a few German concentration camp guards, prosecuted by the US and their Allies, who may just be able to enlighten him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmw80ThFKBs

Very simple question for Chris: If you were a member of the Nuremberg Tribunal responsible for determining the fates of the Nazis after WW2, would you have exonerated them of their crimes because they were told to do it by a superior?

It seems Chris thinks the "Just following orders" defense is a justifiable one.

Or perhaps Chris believes that War Crimes are only committed by regimes that act contrary to the wishes and legal opinions of their respective Justice departments?

Or better yet... Perhaps Chris should tell us whether he thinks there is such a thing as a war crime.

anything is worth a tweet nowadays. Thanks but no thanks on that service.

It also violates US Code. US code is actually quite specific in the illegality of torture. As well as the illegality of kidnapping, rape and murder. All of which were committed under orders of White House officials. And if Holder does not prosecute those crimes he WILL go to prison for not prosecuting for political reasons, a very serious crime in it's own right.

or is he as stupid as the question implies?

Tweety analogizes this to "covering news"??

How about giving a more apt and appropriate analogy, such as: if your boss asks you to kill your neighbor, and you do it, how can you be blamed? You were just following orders, and your heart was in the right place. Right?

Excuse me but didn't your parents teach you that the end does not justify the means?

Duh.