This is an excellent summary, but to be fair he also wrote this explanation for his reluctance to rule out any methods of interrogation:
And with hundreds and perhaps thousands of Americans again lying dead on the streets or in rubble somewhere, I would know deep down that I was at least in part responsible. In the final analysis, I could not countenance the thought of having to live with that
A group of us used to struggle mightily with things like the ticking bomb scenario and the justified and unjustified uses of torture. And then the bell would ring and we'd have to go back into the 4th grade classroom.
The thing that pisses me off is that there does not seem to have been any point at which someone said the risk of a few thousand dead is worth not doing horrific action X for any value of X. If there had been somewhere in this mess a memo saying we can afford to risk another 9/11 rather than do some horrible thing or other I might have a little sympathy for some of these guys.
I think he's just covering his ass there.
I'm not sure who this "we" is he's talking about, but I do enjoy some good: if I can eat a cow, why can't i fuck one logic.
As a man in a bureaucratic profession, my initial reaction was that I couldn't believe this guy was just unilaterally disclosing obviously attorney-client privileged communications and his work product. Maybe there's some weird loophole here for government lawyers or maybe he got the government's permission first (also weird) but it's pretty striking.
I can fuck like thirty goddamn logics.
7. RH, have you watched Breaking Bad at all? If Saul Goodman and Huell both take up crossfit and abstain from grain-based "food", then Halfordismo thought becomes the official code of conduct for attormeys everywhere, right?
The picture he paints of George W. Bush pretty much matches my idea of him although our interpretations differ. W. would rather take all the blame for torture than acknowledge that he was kept out of the loop and not allowed to make important decisions.
7: The book had to have been read in advance by the CIA and been given a green light by them, right?
I mean, I would completely support disclosing attorney-client communications if you thought you were preventing or disclosing the facts about a major governmental crime and were explicit about that. But that doesn't seem to be this dude's position -- it's more like "here are a bunch of secrets I am professionally bound to keep, which show that we were all thinking dumb thoughts about torture in a bureaucratic way, but I'm just going to spill them anyway without worrying about it." It's weird from a lawyer.
9 -- I've said before and would say again that Saul Goodman is one of the best lawyer characters of all time. He of course violates about 30 goddamn canons of professional responsibility but, still, the character and his loyalty towards Walt is a great meditation on legal ethics.
I mean, I would completely support disclosing attorney-client communications if you thought you were preventing or disclosing the facts about a major governmental crime and were explicit about that. But that doesn't seem to be this dude's position -- it's more like "here are a bunch of secrets I am professionally bound to keep, which show that we were all thinking dumb thoughts about torture in a bureaucratic way, but I'm just going to spill them anyway without worrying about it." It's weird from a lawyer.
9 -- I've said before and would say again that Saul Goodman is one of the best lawyer characters of all time. He of course violates about 30 goddamn canons of professional responsibility but, still, the character and his loyalty towards Walt is a great meditation on legal ethics.
11 -- of course, but it's not usually that simple; ordinarily you can't just say "hey I'm going to disclose tons of privileged information with your consent" because there's an argument that by doing so you've just made all kinds of other information non-privileged. It's completely possible that this works differently for government lawyers, particularly federal government lawyers (never been one and am not going to look up the rules now) or that the CIA is just so confident that it can never be sued or forced by a court to disclose anything that it just doesn't care, but if I were an ACLU lawyer with a case involving these issues I'd be waiving this book in front of a judge and saying that publishing this stuff requires the feds to turn over a lot more stuff.
publishing this stuff requires the feds to turn over a lot more stuff.
I think the CIA maybe is less worried about waiving attorney client privilege because they can rely on classification? That is, just because it's not att'y client doesn't mean they have to turn it over.
Yeah, that's probably right. Still, seemed weird (and of course points to the general ridiculousness of over-classification).
the seeming paradox that we recoil from torturing enemy combatants even when we find it acceptable to kill them.
Which distinction was completely obvious to the people who wrote, and ratified, the Bill of Rights, with respect to traitors, murderers, assassins, etc. And perfectly obvious 150 years before that when the Felton question came up.
I don't generally like calling people scum, but the word fits a bunch of government lawyers and their apologists.
18 was basically my response. It was such a disturbing read, and the ongoing reality is of course also disturbing.
A friend gave me the first two seasons of Breaking Bad. So far I do not feel the magic, but I think that is largely because I am a contrarian prick so much of the show has been pre-spoiled: "Emmys! The ending! OMG it's so good you have to watch you know you can get Netflix on your Playstation right?!?! What are you talking about, you've 'never seen Mad Men'? You're babbling. You're not making any sense. You're hysterical."
I'm still surprised Jim Henley's argument against torture wasn't enough to carry the day.