{"id":367560,"date":"2010-02-24T18:02:19","date_gmt":"2010-02-24T23:02:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2010\/02\/john-yoo-and-the-torture-memos\/36559\/"},"modified":"2010-02-24T18:02:19","modified_gmt":"2010-02-24T23:02:19","slug":"john-yoo-and-the-torture-memos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/367560","title":{"rendered":"John Yoo and the Torture Memos"},"content":{"rendered":"

I followed James Fallows’s advice<\/a> and read the OPR report on John Yoo<\/a>.
\nI agree with what I think is Jim’s main point–that parts of the
\ndocument force the reader to confront the disgusting reality of
\n“enhanced interrogation”, which is a salutary experience. But I can’t
\nsay the report persuaded me that, as it asserts, Yoo knowingly<\/i> misled the government about the law. I can’t say the report even tries to support that charge. \n<\/p>\n

Yoo’s view that methods like waterboarding and prolonged sleep
\ndeprivation are not “torture” so far as the law is concerned may be
\nincorrect, as many experts say, but it is nonetheless legally defensible,
\nand the report admits as much. Yoo seems to me consistent and sincere
\nin his belief. His view that under the circumstances pertaining after
\n9\/11, the law imposed no significant restraints on presidential power
\nis even harder to defend–but again,
\nthis appears to be his considered, conscientious view. <\/p>\n

Jim Fallows advises readers also to look at the memo by David Margolis<\/a>,
\na respected career lawyer in the Justice Department, who overruled the
\nOPR findings. If you do read the OPR report you should indeed read
\nMargolis as well. The OPR report comes in for some serious criticism.
\n(See also these letters on an earlier draft from Michael Mukasey and Mark Filip<\/a>, and Ronald Rotunda<\/a>.) It is not an exemplary piece of work. The good faith of its authors, it seems to me, is called into question. \n<\/p>\n

Margolis faults Yoo for poor judgment, saying he “consistently
\ntook an expansive view of executive authority and narrowly construed
\nthe torture statute while often failing to expose (much less refute)
\ncountervailing arguments and overstating the certainty of [his]
\nconclusions”. At the same time, Margolis says, “But as all that
\nglitters is not gold, all flaws do not constitute professional
\nmisconduct.” He quotes Jack Goldsmith, whose fine book<\/a> on the Office of Legal Counsel and the war on terror I have previously recommended<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

All
\nof these men wanted to push the law as far as it would allow. But none,
\nI believe, thought he was violating the law. John Yoo certainly didn’t.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Goldsmith
\ncomplains that the Bush administration worried too much about what was
\nlegal and not enough about what was moral or wise. I think that is
\ncorrect, and it is why I question Jim’s assessment that Bush’s early
\npolicies on interrogation were, among other things, “lawless”. They
\nwere morally wrong and counter-productive, in my opinion. They were
\nbased on poor legal advice too, according to the scholarly consensus. They were not lawless.\n<\/p>\n

The
\nlaw itself was and is at fault. It is still not as clear as it
\nshould be, and Congress has let that state of affairs persist. The
\nlegal opinions and the policies have been changed, which is good, but
\nthis important lesson has yet to be learned.\n<\/p>\n

Being unwise or evil does not make an act illegal. The OLC’s job is to advise on the law, not say what is wise or moral. Sometimes, the
\nlaw is an ass. That is why you cannot leave policy-making to lawyers.<\/p>\n



\n

\n Email this Article<\/a>
\n Add to digg<\/a>
\n Add to Reddit<\/a>
\n Add to Twitter<\/a>
\n Add to del.icio.us<\/a>
\n Add to StumbleUpon<\/a>
\n Add to Facebook<\/a>
\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\n\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I followed James Fallows’s advice and read the OPR report on John Yoo. I agree with what I think is Jim’s main point–that parts of the document force the reader to confront the disgusting reality of “enhanced interrogation”, which is a salutary experience. But I can’t say the report persuaded me that, as it asserts, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5958,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-367560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367560","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5958"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=367560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/367560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=367560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=367560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=367560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}