@mazinmelegy Any good explanation why he'd use a fax rather than the authoritative, binding DOJ legal analysis, then?
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Well no, but the fax doesn't seem to contain any information that authoritative, binding DOJ legal analysis doesn't.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mazinmelegy
@mazinmelegy It doesn't ADD anything, but it doesn't INCLUDE a lot of the caveats, meaning intent is unlimited.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel But the caveats are all "a matter of practice", not law. In fact, DOJ explicitly rejects the alternate legal interpretation1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mazinmelegy
@emptywheel They simply acknowledge that someone can argue it, and that a jury might buy it. That doesn't seem like guiding legal analysis.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mazinmelegy
@mazinmelegy But if Fredman DIDN'T give those obvious warnings, then DOJ may have used it to say you couldn't charge Zirbel.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel It seems like you're using the fact that the office used "intent needed for torture" as legal defense against Fredman...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mazinmelegy
@emptywheel But isn't that precisely the role of that office?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mazinmelegy
@mazinmelegy Fredman gave torturers guidance. If he gave guidance DESIGNED to allow anything he bears some responsibility for death.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Agreed. I just don't see the same link as you between using the fax and disregarding caveats (not following DOJ legal analysis).2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@mazinmelegy But again, that may come from Mahoney's presentation of it, which is clearly not objective.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.