That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.
These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.
After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people both. His decision to release these memos was another sign of his commitment to transparency. We are waiting to see an equal commitment to accountability.
“The Lawyers?” Hey Judge! Hey Judge! Hey Judge! Hey Judge! Lookie here! I caught The New York Times making an inconsistent statement. The Times is firmly committed to disavowing the following fallacious attacks against attorneys: ”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Bare with me Your Honor. I must argue in the alternative so we may prepare our case. We’ll argue from the point of view of The New York Times for a bit. Ok? Ok.
Alternatively, what constitutes “torture” is certainly an easy issue to decide. I mean, The Times devotes several paragraphs to its definition.
Changing the rules in the middle of the game would never have a chilling effect on the conduct of present or future parties. No. Not even future Presidents. What’s the big deal? Just an itsy-bitsy thought of a federal indictment for someone’s interpretation of law where reasonable minds might disagree. Like some Harvard Law Prof. I’m sure this writer must have gone to Harvard Law and studied all aspects on the dicey issue of torture. Arguing for The Times is fun.
What is “torture?” Is this easy to answer? Are there situations where say, in the “Ticking Bomb” scenario, torture is justified? President Clinton said so explicitly according to Professor Dershowitz. What about a “Slow Ticking Bombs?” Ones that lead to other “Ticking Bombs.”
That’s right I forgot. It’s so clear. Crystal. Neverrrrrrmind.
Of course you’re not irrational Judge. No. People might just disagree with you. And, reasonable people sometimes disagree. Except that, wait, you are irrational Your Honor. So am I. So is Professor Dershowitz. So is President Clinton. We’re all from Neptune.
Sometimes, the answer is not always apparent. Other times, there might be a right answer, but, critical thinking, and more thinking, and the re-evaluation of the other thoughts, must happen before a conclusion is reached. Like “impeachment.” Or other beheadings. But again, to argue in the alternative, thinking is bad.
Now, Judge. I’m not saying I know the right answers here. Apparently Socratic Wisdom is not a part of The Times methodology. Nor is empathy. Strike that. They are a beacon of legal wisdom and careful thought here.
Perhaps they ought wait for the law to move into gear before prejudging a case. It’s funny how people love playing “Mother May I” with the law. The law is not such a fickle mistress for The Times considering they have her chained to a leash. Just kidding. I’m arguing in the alternative. The law on a leash is great. The law is a dog.
In fact, we should go back in history and Monday Morning Quarterback every administration. On every issue. Even the ones we know the answers to now, but didn’t then. The sentences should be swift and harsh.
Sorry the article was long and I couldn’t properly kill babies.