A President should decline to reveal the method and duration of interrogation techniques to be used against high value terrorists who are likely to have counter-interrogation training. This discretion should extend to declining to provide an opinion as to whether Congress may validly limit his power as to the use of a particular technique, especially given Congress’s current plans to try to do exactly that.
As much as I wish DFW were still around just for the purposes of, oh, EVERYTHING, what does it specifically have to do with Obama dismantling the "sekrit executive fort" that Bush has created out of the Executive Branch? I ask because I honestly wonder if I'm missing some crucial link here, did DFW write about politics and I just missed it?
Prosecuting a government official for relying on government lawyers' advice, or prosecuting a lawyer for delivering that advice is a dangerous place to go.
There's good reasons for this. The law is not clear, in fact a lot of the time it's very murky, especially in a field with little case law, like national security law. If a government official can not rely on their government lawyer's advice, then they have nothing to go on, and there's no incentive for the government official to ever do anything, and that's obviously bad.
Prosecuting the lawyers would mean that no government lawyer would ever issue a controversial opinion on a difficult legal question that ever said the action was lawful. We don't want that.
[T]he lawyers said Democratic President-elect Obama probably will seek to declassify more Justice Department legal memos — as well as documents across the federal government — than did the outgoing GOP administration.
Robert Litt, a former prosecutor and top Justice Department criminal lawyer during the Clinton administration, said it's safe to assume that "a serious review of the classification system is on the table."
« Older Adam Smith in Beijing | Goma, DRC Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments