<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>The Legality of Evil: The Torture Memos and the Living Constitution</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/02/the-legality-of-evil-the-torture-memos-and-the-living-constitution.aspx</link><description>Orin notes that John Yoo's torture memo sounds very lawyerly in its arguments . This observation points to an important fact about legal discourse: Lawyers can make really bad legal arguments that argue for very unjust things in perfectly legal-sounding</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>