jurisprudence
columns
- Take Your Paws off the Presidency!
Does the Bush administration have a secret succession order that bypasses Congress?
Bruce Ackerman
posted July 15, 2008 - Chatter in the System
The New War Powers Commission suggests bold new "consultation."
Dahlia Lithwick
posted July 12, 2008 - "You Remain an Enigma to Me"
And other responses to Michael Mukasey's trip to the Senate.
Emily Bazelon
posted July 9, 2008 - Constitutional Drift
Obama veers to the right, but does he need to take the Constitution with him?
Doug Kendall
posted July 9, 2008 - Telling Doctors What To Think
South Dakota's unbelievable new abortion law.
Emily Bazelon
posted July 2, 2008 - Search for more jurisprudence articles
- Subscribe to the jurisprudence RSS feed
- View our complete jurisprudence archive
Getting Away With TortureThe failures of the legal system for both the torturers and the tortured.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Monday, April 28, 2008, at 10:41 AM ET
While it's arguable that Yoo was merely producing a theoretical, lawyerly opinion regarding the line between aggressive interrogation and abuse, the possibility is arising that—as Columbia Law School's Scott Horton suggested last week—"the Bush interrogation program was already being used before Yoo was asked to write an opinion. He may therefore have provided after-the-fact legal cover."
Yoo's bloodless legal analysis—he calls it "boilerplate"—may well have opened the floodgates to multiple instances of prisoner torture and even death. Yet virtually nobody suggests he should be subject to legal consequences. Indeed, even the notion that he be relieved of his teaching post at University of California-Berkeley's Boalt Hall has been dismissed as a threat to "academic freedom."
Yoo's possible contributions to the normalization of torture at Guantanamo and beyond almost pale in comparison with another story that was all but ignored this month, when ABC News revealed that top Bush administration officials, including Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, George Tenet, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld met several times in the White House to discuss specific torture techniques to be used against al-Qaida suspects in U.S. custody. This group together signed off on sleep deprivation, slapping, pushing, and water-boarding, in a manner "so detailed … some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed, down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic." Days later, President George W. Bush confirmed to ABC that he'd "approved" of these tactics.
According to a forthcoming book by Phillippe Sands, it's just not very hard to connect the dots here: "The fingerprints of the most senior lawyers in the administration were all over the design and implementation of the abusive interrogation policies. [David] Addington, [Jay] Bybee, [Alberto] Gonzales, [Jim] Haynes, and [John] Yoo became, in effect, a torture team of lawyers, freeing the administration from the constraints of all international rules prohibiting abuse." Yet, despite the fact that senior members of the Bush administration may well have violated the War Crimes Act of 1996, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there is scant serious talk of any accountability there, much less future legal prosecution. Yes, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility is investigating whether agency attorneys provided the White House and the CIA with faulty legal advice on interrogation. But as my colleague Emily Bazelon has observed, that's a little bit like setting the local meter maid at them.
Barack Obama recently pledged that if elected, he'd have his Justice Department immediately review whether crimes had been committed in the Bush White House. But virtually nobody truly believes that high-level architects of the American torture policy will face domestic criminal prosecution, even if domestic laws were broken. As Yale Law School's Jack Balkin pointed out, the political costs are too high: "One can imagine the screaming of countless pundits arguing that the Democrats were trying to criminalize political disagreements about foreign policy."
High-ranking administration officials and enemy combatants have little in common, and their respective acts of lawbreaking are not morally comparable. Still, their legal situations are weirdly parallel and show how the rule of law can fracture under the strain of politics. Those alleged lawbreakers at Guantanamo will never be acquitted for purely political—as opposed to legal—reasons. The alleged lawbreakers in the Bush administration will never be held to account on precisely the same grounds.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- [audio] Hewlett-Packard Introduces New Soup-Resistant Laptop
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:00:09 -0400
Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:00:27 -0400- Queen Elizabeth II Announces She's Pregnant Again
Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:00:00 -0400 - » More from the Onion
A Grand TourDavid Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon
- David Ignatius: Middle East Peace for Dummies
- Robert Novak: Scandal at the Pentagon
- Dana Milbank: Sorry We Asked, Sorry You Told
- Jamie Barnett: Defending Our Values
- Today's Headlines
- Democrats Ignore Mukasey Plea for New Gitmo Law
Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:17:16 GMT - John Mellencamp Tackles Race, Politics in New Album
Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:44:03 GMT - Readers Fired Up By Teen-Pregnancy Issue
Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:30:57 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Burden of Proof
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:06:08 GMT - Obama in Berlin
Tue, 22 July 2008 15:20:11 GMT - When Thugs Cry
Wed, 16 July 2008 18:25:58 GMT - » More from The Root

jurisprudence









