> As I am well aware. What is your point?
>>
>
> My point is that I didn't write that and your post gave me undeserved
> credit.
Reviewing it, I don't see how, but will take your word for it.
> I can't find where I said that either. Before I decide whether to apologise
> for saying something so vague and sweeping, could you identify the post from
> which you are quoting?
>
Of course you didn't say either. In fact, you haven't said anything at all about the precise standards you would utilize to criminalize legal opinions, leaving us to guess your criteria. So how about you explain it to us now?
You seem to be suggesting that the Cheney view (that torture of government
> prisoners is actually legal) is correct. Your reasoning being that other
> atrocities are legal, so all atrocities must be legal. Have I got you right?
Not all all. But if I wish to state that a particular atrocity is legal, my opinion itself should not be a crime, even if it is factually wrong. And while I'm not an attorney myself, I don't see how prohibiting lawyers from dispensing certain types of advice to their clients (say, the types you don't like, or disagree with, or whatever) is compatible with either the current framework of legal protections and obligations, or the rights of free political speech.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."