jurisprudence
columns
- The Bauer of Suggestion
Our torture policy has deeper roots in Fox television than the Constitution.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted July 26, 2008 - Investigate Now, Pardon Later
It's not quite time to let bygones be bygones.
Dahlia Lithwick
posted July 24, 2008 - Crimes and Misdemeanors
Slate's interactive guide: Who in the Bush administration broke the law, and who could be prosecuted?
Emily Bazelon
posted July 24, 2008 - Crimes and Misdemeanors
The law, lawyers, and the court.
Emily Bazelon
posted July 24, 2008 - Take Your Paws off the Presidency!
Does the Bush administration have a secret succession order that bypasses Congress?
Bruce Ackerman
posted July 15, 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] 134-Year-Old Man Attributes Longevity To Typographical Error
Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:00:36 -0400 - Can't Go Wrong With A Cheeseburger, Area Man Reports
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:00:21 -0400 - Courageous E-mail To Boss In Drafts Folder Since December
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:00:05 -0400 - » More from the Onion
Let the Oil Deals FlowRaad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.
- Ronald Kessler: Happy 100th Birthday, FBI!
- Binder & Evans: How to Teach Evolution
- Colbert I. King: More D.C. Incompetence
- Today's Headlines
- Alter: How History Shapes Coverage of Candidates
Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:01:40 GMT - Obama’s Paris Visit Captivates French Minorities
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:26:56 GMT - Did a Test Company Mess Up Its Hopes to Go Global?
Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:03:32 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- Over the Rainbow: Angie and Jo
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:21:23 GMT - The New Tavis Smiley, Beware!
Tue, 22 July 2008 16:27:58 GMT - Go for the Bronze
Fri, 25 July 2008 4:18:27 GMT - » More from The Root

jurisprudence









