While I rather like the kicker for
this piece -- "Hit me Bybee, one more time" -- Jonathan Chait
ends up taking back a good bit of his "prosecute 'em" argument
with this paragraph:
Now, exceptions can be made, and the question of whom to
prosecute is tricky. It seems unfair to prosecute CIA agents
who tortured, as they had been specifically advised that
techniques like waterboarding were legal. It's likewise tricky
to prosecute the Bush administration lawyers who wrote
torture-authorizing memos. Administration defenders assert that
those lawyers were "acting in good faith." And, yes, they were
making a good-faith effort to stop terrorism, but to suggest
that they were making a good-faith effort to interpret the law
insults their intelligence and ours. A recent Washington Post
story leaves the impression that torture-memo author Jay Bybee,
now a federal judge, realized the tendentiousness of his memos,
which said waterboarding isn't torture (and therefore is legal)
because it does not inflict "severe physical or mental pain or
suffering."
It seems to me that it is in fact difficult to prove that someone
knew they were giving legal advice in bad faith. And while I
agree with Chait about the rule of law and torture being worse
than being fellated by a White House intern, Bill Clinton wasn't
being fellated in order to stop a sequel to the 9/11 attacks. In
my view, it would have to be pretty clear that the people acted
in bad faith or were knowingly trying to justify illegal actions
before they could be prosecuted.
That said, Chait makes a number of good points, particularly
this:
Finally, yes, we can imagine ticking-time-bomb situations where
regular interrogation methods work too slowly and extreme
measures might prove helpful. But this premise bears the same
relationship to the question of legalizing torture as the
morality of stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving
family does to the question of legalizing theft.
The trouble with actually legalizing torture in these cases is
that everything will be defended as a ticking-time-bomb scenario.
It is better to deal with such exceptions to the rule through
prosecutorial discretion and the pardon power.
Hows about we just start, you know, like KILLING them on the
battlefield instead of "arresting" them and giving them access to
our legal system? Torture problem solved.
What is this, "Law and Order, Overseas Contingency Operation?"
Alan Brooks| 5.6.09 @ 9:33PM
give them all hot oil massages...
VERY hot oil massages...
Crusader| 5.6.09 @ 2:11PM
Hows about we just start, you know, like KILLING them on the battlefield instead of "arresting" them and giving them access to our legal system? Torture problem solved.
What is this, "Law and Order, Overseas Contingency Operation?"
Alan Brooks| 5.6.09 @ 9:33PM
give them all hot oil massages...
VERY hot oil massages...