Marty Lederman Takes over John Yoo's Former Position

If you needed any further proof that things are different–very different–today, there’s this: Balkinization blogger Marty Lederman will take John Yoo’s former position, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OLC.

As of today, the commencement of the Obama Administration, he begins work as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. There he will be joined by two of his former OLC colleagues, Dawn Johnsen, nominated to be head of the office; and David Barron, who will serve as the Principal Deputy (and as the Acting AAG while the Senate considers Dawn’s nomination).

We’ve replaced the guy who did Bush and Cheney’s evil bidding with a blogger-prof and Constitutional champion, Marty Lederman.

Welcome to a new day, America.

image_print
  1. pdaly says:

    Thanks for checking on DC for us, emptywheel and Jane.

    Between partying, will someone check that those government printing presses are silent so that any last minute presidential signing statements by Bush are kept out of the books?

  2. Phoenix Woman says:

    And the shredded pieces of the Constitution are being reclaimed from the latrine where BushCo dumped them. Next, they will be carefully steam-cleaned and woven back together.

  3. randiego says:

    Great news! Keep ‘em coming!

    I’m hoping that the announcements come fast and furious. I want EO’s ordering closing of Guantanamo, immediate draw-down in Iraq, moratorium on foreclosures… etc etc!

    I loved Barack calling out Wall Street!

    “We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.”

    “And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account – to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

    Music to my ears!

    • BoxTurtle says:

      I consider it unlikely there will be any prosecutions for torture. Too many high up Dem’s with dirty hands. Also, looks like they’re going to hide behind Yoo’s et al legal opinions to protect them. Those lawyers will argue that you can’t criminalize a difference of legal opinion. They might get disbarred for being idiots, but I think they’ll escape criminal charges.

      Boxturtle (We can get Gonzo for perjury. Small comfort)

      • bobschacht says:

        Also, looks like they’re going to hide behind Yoo’s et al legal opinions to protect them. Those lawyers will argue that you can’t criminalize a difference of legal opinion.

        Oh yeah, right. I can just hear the mob bosses now. “Hey, Joey here, he’s da best. Certified by da state bar ‘n everything. He tol’ us it was legal.”

        A “difference of legal opinion” is why we have a court system, right?

        Bob in HI

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Exactly. If they lose in court, they stop. But until they take that loss, it appears as though those who operate under those opinions are legally insulated. I invite comment from those who know the law better than I.

          Bmaz@10: Obviously, I’m with your interpretion.

          Boxturtle (Justice and the law are not always the same thing)

        • THATanonymous says:

          The ‘law’ and justice are seldom the same thing.

          How often does a jury overrule a judge’s instructions, no matter how tainted or weak the prosecution’s case?

          Remember, as the Republicans said during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton “… point of order. We do not live in a Democracy. This is a Republic.” One very big difference is that in a Republic, the citizens almost never get to write or vote on the law.

          In a Democracy, everything is up for grabs (and that’s why we have a Republic). We briefly had a Democracy (and a different constitution), but THEY didn’t like it. It was ‘flawed’ or something. So now we got what we got.

          –TA (the law is NOT the law)

        • bmaz says:

          How often does a jury overrule a judge’s instructions, no matter how tainted or weak the prosecution’s case?

          Every day in every courthouse in the land; both sides of the adversarial divide in jury trials depend on exactly that. And they get it. Not sure what your point was with that question.

        • THATanonymous says:

          The jury does decide whose case is better within the instructions delivered by the judge. My only somewhat rhetorical question is: how often do they throw out the judges instructions? Just ignore them? Fail to bring in what amounts to a directed verdict?

          –TA (the law is NOT the law)

        • bmaz says:

          From my observation, they do it every day. And they do so in divergent ways, sometime is favor of one side, sometimes the other. I guess my point is that there is usually a lot of leeway in jury instructions and, on the whole, juries usually get the decision right. To far more of an extent than most people realize or believe.

        • LabDancer says:

          “A “difference of legal opinion” is why we have a court system, right?”

          … at the end of which sit two Democrat-appointees, two old-fashioned bow-tie professorial small r small c conservatives, a late-blooming reluctant traditionalist Republican & four reflexive wingers whose combined empathy for the human condition only occasionally rises above that of boa constrictor.

          Those who criticize the President […whoa; a moment, please…] for his apparently being torn over what to do about even the worse systemic abuses of the Bush administration should bear in mind that, given his prominence in the teaching of constitutional law, it safe to assume the President […another moment…] is aware of the above.

          I’m not proselytizing for any particular course of action here & now, but I think it’s worthwhile to consider the reasons Nuremberg worked for Hitler’s Nazis whereas Truth & Reconciliation worked for South African apartheid – & that America is both partly each of those & otherwise neither.

        • bobschacht says:

          So far, the score for court cases over at the wheel house is 3 for BushCo, and at least 20 for the other side. BushCo legal decisions don’t hold up too well, even in a court with Republican judges.

          Do you really think that those legal rationalizations by Yoo will stand up in court?

          Bob in HI

        • BoxTurtle says:

          Of course they won’t hold up.

          But BushCo says they followed those opinions in good faith, and it’s going to be really tough to even get charges filed as long as that holds up. And even tougher to get a conviction.

          BushCo did what they were supposed to: They got a DoJ opinion as to the legality of their actions. WE know that was cooked from the start, but until you get someone to actually say so in court a jury is likely to come back Not Guilty.

          Boxturtle (If Gonzo rolls over, it’s a new ball game)

    • bmaz says:

      Oh my. Can you say torture prosecutions?

      Um, that is not how I have read Lederman’s take on the matter. I think he believes that the shitbag OLC opinions insulate the malefactors. I don’t think this means what you are thinking it means.

      • WilliamOckham says:

        I have reason to hope you are wrong. I’ve read Prof. Lederman’s blog closely and I see some development in his thinking. He has repeatedly said that reasonable reliance on OLC opinions is a defense against prosecution (and that DOJ prosecutions in such cases is unthinkable). On the other hand, he’s gradually come to the realization that there are some people for whom that defense is not available, especially Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. I also think that the CIA IG reports (remember they saw the torture tapes) will show that there were bad actors who acted before the OLC opinions and/or went beyond them in their actions who could and should be prosecuted.

        The key thing now is that it is our job to create the political climate necessary to allow the new crew at DOJ to act.

        • bmaz says:

          Hope you are right about the evolution of thought process for Lederman. I think for him to get where we would want, and you are suggesting, he might have to get to where he places Yoo in the group with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld you describe (I would also include Addington and Haynes by the way).

          My point is that I don’t think, in the long run, he will be able to make the leap you suggest without making it to the point of concluding that Yoo/OLC unethically authored intentionally bad opinions that are, and were, unsustainable as a legal foundation. To be honest, I am not sure he wouldn’t say that even if he so determined the opinions were bad; I think he might still believe Bushco could rely on opinions, irrespective of their legal providence. At least this is the tenor of what I have taken from his stance.

        • masaccio says:

          I am satisfied with seeing any three of these people in the dock. I would add a bunch of others, at top three or four levels of in the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice and in the White House itself. I’ll kiss a pig if Karl Rove didn’t have his trotters in the decision to torture, and there are others there as well.

  4. JThomason says:

    It is only vanity that would hold an executive branch legal opinion unruled upon judicially and untested adversarially to be presumptive evidence of good faith. But I suppose that is what sovereign immunity looks like in the twenty-first century.

  5. randiego says:

    I know I’m off-topic, but I’ve been anticipating the first day for so long. What announcements would there be? What executive orders would come? What particularly egregious last-minute orders would be reversed?

    I remember that day in 2001, when Bush immediately announced they were cutting off some sort of international abortion birth-control education funding. (They couldn’t legally cut any domestic funding, IIRC).

    I remember thinking to myself, “Man we are sooo fucked”.

  6. BoxTurtle says:

    Often enough that there’s even a phrase for it: Jury Nullification. A classic example was OJ’s murder trial. That time it worked for the defense.

    Even seen the Scary Black Man gambit: It works the opposite way: You convince the jury that even if he’s innocent he’s still too dangerous to let out. It’s YOUR job to protect the citizens. Defendant doesn’t have to be black, just scary.

    Boxturtle (This is part of the reason why having a representative jury pool is so vital)

    • THATanonymous says:

      Exactly. And it doesn’t happen that often. That’s why we remember those cases.

      They can (but don’t always) demonstrate the triumph of common sense over stupid or maliciously applied laws. This is one of the reasons I say: the law is NOT the law.

      –TA

  7. JohnLopresti says:

    MartyLederman should find constructive the process of addressing DawnJohnsen’s article suggestions for patches to prevent politicizing OLC the way BushW did in some future presidency. The show trials are one of the conundra already. Then there is the issue of how to help congress sort out what it disliked in what I believe were called the Rome agreements part of the human rights guarantees in the Geneva conventions modernization, which, if I recall, occurred during Clinton term 2 at a time when the president had a difficult time keeping the tone of the interlocutions with congress constructively dispassionate. There was a funny interview today on Gross’ NPR program in which a history prof explained the reannealing of religiosity to secular government largely has occurred long after the dawn of the XIX century, president JQAdams insisting the oath of office be taken with one hand rested upon a compendium of laws not on the other good book. Then again, MTV evidently plans to broadcast a presidential entertainment event; perhaps the issue is less one of symbol and more one of keeping concurrency with what is important to people now.

    • bmaz says:

      Is he going to phone it in and then pathetically ask congress to bail him out again? I have seen no evidence that he is up to the task any more.

      • BayStateLibrul says:

        Nah. Good man, from the State of Maine, the home of the landlocked salmon
        Where Life is as it should be…
        Where the construction workers are surprised and alarmed if you obey the signs they wave…
        Where They drive fast and erratically on two lane roads…
        Where Lobster-themed products aren’t just a good idea, they are the law…
        Where “BLT” means “bacon, lobster, and tomato”…
        Where Mcdonalds serves lobster rolls…
        Where 7-11 serves lobster rolls…
        Where Tim Horton’s and Dunkin Donuts do not yet serve lobster rolls, but their resistance is futile…
        Where else can you get lobster tempura sushi?
        Where MLB was not tainted by the Mitchell Report.

  8. WilliamOckham says:

    Here’s Prof. Lederman’s problem summed up in the only time he ever took note of one of my comments on his blog:

    [UPDATE: In a comment to last night’s post, William Ockham asked: “Why doesn’t the government just come out and say it: We illegally imprisoned and tortured these guys and we’re afraid they might hold a grudge against us.” I thought William’s comment was tongue-in-cheek. In fact, it was prescient. Never underestimate . . . ]

    Here’s the background. The issue at hand was the habeas proceedings for the Uighers detained at Gitmo. In prior post, Lederman worked his way very methodically showing how absurd the legal claims that the DOJ was making really were and wondering what they were going to putting in their brief that was due out the next day. I had the first comment on that entry and I was totally serious. The brief came out and, lo and behold, that is exactly what the DOJ argued. For the last few years, I’ve worked under the assumption that the Bush/Cheney regime was made up of a small cabal of secretive would-be tyrants (Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and Rumsfeld) manipulating a larger group of fearful, authoritarian-followers (Bush, Gonzales, Goldsmith, etc.) supported by a bureacracy, press and Congress who abdicated their roles in our system of checks and balances. When we peel back the layer of secrecy the Cheneyites have laid down, even the less suspicious types like Prof. Lederman will see the conspiracy that lay at the heart of our government for the last eight years.

    • bmaz says:

      As you know, your basic theory is not far off from my own thoughts. However, to really get there from here for Lederman is going to require him making the leap about the effective criminal complicity of the OLC in the process. Maybe as he really sees the evidence he can make that leap, but from what I have seen to date, he has been unwilling to do that. And I think it is going to be even tougher for him to now, because Obama really does not want to go there, and Lederman will not want to tackle the standing of his once and future department. I hope I am wrong, but that is where my bets are placed.

      • LabDancer says:

        Can I just interject with this smaller point – without meaning to stop the by-play, which is interesting & on a vital, timely issue?

        As a matter of practicality, IMO Marty Lederman himself, at least from this point, is going to have a lot less to do with the decisions to be made, including whether any convictions are pursued; even more so on the means by which that might be done; & yet even more on the execution of any such efforts, than he was before he stopped showing up his regular exercise of his First Amendment rights at Balkinization.

        Also IMO William Ockham is right in suggesting that to get to that pursuit, it’s going to be up to the blogosphere – from here & all round the entire Lake; from that rabble roused at Glenn Greenwald’s blog; from Horton’s readers going off & finding someplace to offload; views; the likes of digby & atrios & the coles; not to leave out the spawn of the Orange Satan; & those two at MSNBC [who’ve already started] – not so much Marty Lederman, and effectively not at all.

        The big difference is that the OLC won’t be the enemy.

        • LabDancer says:

          Well, I was thinking of The Godfather, in particular the scene where Barzini attends the funeral.

          Apologies if this has been posted before by someone else: here’s a recent & timely piece from the President’s former rag:

          http://tinyurl.com/8w688q

          As would any trial lawyer who’s been around, I second bmaz’ responses on the sightings of jury nullification. Moreover, it’s existence is no reason to shy away from resort to the process; but without it being broadly public, such as up on c-span [optimally with live-blogging by Ms E Wheel et ladies of FDL], it’ll lose a critical amount of value.

        • LabDancer says:

          You’ve lost me, or I’ve lost myself, I don’t know which. Perhaps we’ve been communing on separate planes.

    • Nell says:

      When we peel back the layer of secrecy the Cheneyites have laid down, even the less suspicious types like Prof. Lederman will see the conspiracy that lay at the heart of our government for the last eight years.

      Speaking of peeling back the secrecy, a question to the lawyers here:

      Does President Obama have the legal power to make public the Executive Orders issued by Bush, even those that Bush classified? Or is it the case that other presidents have issued classified EOs (I realize the technical name for them is something else), and that there is not a tradition of transparency on that matter?

      This was brought to mind by WO’s point about the evidence that U.S. personnel tortured prisoners under the Bush administration before the OLC memos “covered” them. I have assumed for a long time that one or more of the executive orders issued by Bush also “authorizes” torture, since there was one that plainly “authorized” assassination.

  9. QuickSilver says:

    I think we’re quite likely to see another round of (supposed) torture accountability. With that in mind, it’s instructive to watch the Errol Morris documentary, “Standard Operating Procedure,” to see how the scapegoating worked the last time around.

    The documentary is worth renting just for Lynddie England. I was surprised to find myself becoming sympathetic to her.

  10. JohnLopresti says:

    Where I think much of bmaz’s viewpoint is visible in Lederman’s writing occurred around the time of the ‘amaze’ of Sen. Levin at the ‘dramatic’ Comey testimony, in Lederman’s writings at the time at Balkinization site, that is, speaking of MSL here exclusively pretty much. On the toture issue, Lederman was pretty energized, but with materials like the Levin McCain report naming names of who authored the shuffling letters which crept toward brutality, I would anticipate that Lederman would opt to focus on international law, rather than on career professionals with whom one labors in that part of government known to him. With respect to his writings on case histories, I think he brings a lot to OLC. I believe he will debunk the still secret memos as well as the published ones. He disliked wire tapping innately, but that is a cacaphony of opposing interests still. Like here, I was relieved never to have had a direct exchange with him on ideas; I try to err on the side of simplicity to avoid dialog among peers, as I do something else for a living. It is nice to have people like ew and bmaz to take the fore and actually parse the laws. I almost laughed when the other day valtin after a thorough grilling hereabouts, mostly comprised of various degrees of praise, but smartly, mentioned, maybe a timeline is a good way to do more research and expose; typical ew-ville experience. Yes, a timeline, here’s hoping Lederman assembles a timeline of the tocha memos, if he is allowed access to the files and policy oversight sufficiently permissive, but not so expansive as to generate interest in IG and OPR, the old refrain.

    • THATanonymous says:

      And that, ultimately, is why the law is not the law. People don’t go wherever the law leads but instead follow the political (or emotional or monetary) demands of the day. Doesn’t matter which party or group you are affiliated with, (sh)it happens!

      –TA (the law is NOT the law)

        • stryder says:

          who has oversite over the olc?
          The secret opinions became policy without any oversite and were vieled in national security cloaks to prevent any oversite right?
          I understand that there was complicity within the dems but for the most part most of these opinions were secret.
          How can this be? A legal coup?

        • THATanonymous says:

          The law is many things, not all of them compatible, but they share one thing. They occur in a context in which whatever had been considered the law is subject to upset, methodically or violently. How law gets made, enforced, ignored or abused is a subject that is larger than and therefore stands outside the law per se.

          My intention in repeating the phrase has been to elicit awareness and discussion of the context in which law and public discourse of behavior take place. It is the job of lawyers to take the law as a largely given thing, subject to interpretation but seldom subject to challenge of its validity. It is this point that is most important: context (legal, social, ethical) determines the law, where law is an attempt to codify an ever changing set of social agreements. It is because of the constant but often unseen flux of these social agreements that we can only meaningfully discuss the law as an ongoing but always changing (even reversing course) effort by humans to discover what we all agree to, or not. Law is not fixed nor even mostly complete. It is this ongoing effort that, seen in a larger context, constitutes the blackboard on which we write the law. It is written in disappearing ink and requires regular review and renewal to remain current. It is the larger context which is the real law, not what is written on the blackboard.

          Judging from the further posts on this subject, it seems that the discussion has now begun to include the context necessary to appreciate what the law is or is not. I would hope that all the threads (not just legal issues) on this, the most intelligent blog I have ever come across, would simultaneously include an overarching discussion of the context in which the material of whatever thread is being discussed.

          I like detail, am greatly fond of analysis, but I love context. bmaz and ew do a great job of setting ‘em up, and I would enjoy this blog even more if the process included a larger contextual point of view, in which we all can knock ‘em down.

          –TA (the law is NOT the law)

        • bmaz says:

          Um, isn’t that what you and every other commenter who graces these pages have been doing all along? I guess the reason I keep probing what you are saying is that it seems somewhat a statement of the obvious to me. Of course the law is a living breathing thing subject to context, that is where the facts that the law is applied to come in. Law by itself means nothing without the factual situations in which it is applied. That is the context. Maybe we are looking at the same coin, and seeing the same thing, just from different perspectives….

        • THATanonymous says:

          Perhaps it would help if I explain that I am a cynic masquerading as a sophist, and I live in a mortgage-free barrel.

          My position in life is a repeated question: What is outside this box and who made this box? This question apparently causes some people a lot of irritation, but that is not the purpose of the question. By repeating the question, I hope to find the outermost box (sometimes with the help of others) and thus the setting in which it and all other boxes exist.

          One of the primary concerns (if not THE primary concern) of cynics is ethics. One way of looking at ethics is to see the subject as an investigation and description of human behavior that is as value free as possible. Cynics are looking for the ‘natural rules’ of human behavior. Just what natural rules are and how to define them is a separate but very interesting topic. Natural rules bring to mind law. But they are not the law created by men. Rather, they are the law(s) of nature and, whether we know it or not, natural rules/laws precede human laws. Human laws are good if they echo the natural rules (are ethical) and human laws are bad when they distort or encourage the distortion of those natural rules. A law against gravity will still fall to the ground at 32 feet per second squared.

          Social scientists and physicists, among others, agree that it is impossible to evaluate a system from inside the system. People, or instruments of observation that are embedded in the system, distort the system even as they try to observe and analyze it. This fact is independent of the motives of the observer. That’s why it is compulsory for any dedicated investigator who wants to ‘get to the bottom of things’ to step outside the system.

          You have raised some interesting questions. Is what I am saying obvious, or is it an effort to find a window outside the box (in this case the legal box) from which to obtain an undistorted view back into the system. That is, don’t we first have to question why a thing is and if it is natural for it to be that way? And don’t we need to ask if there might be some forces, sometimes external forces, that are creating an illusion of a whole thing, seemingly natural in form, that is in fact a contrivance? If what I am saying is indeed obvious, perhaps you have made your way further down the path than I have. Or, maybe, just maybe, there is an ‘obvious’ interpretation of my remarks that obscures their real meaning.

          Are we looking at different aspects of the same coin? If you are also considering the ‘monetary system’ when you look at a ‘coin’, then perhaps we are. But if you are looking at the ‘value’ of the ‘coin’ from within the system that mints them, perhaps what is obvious is also wrong. For example, to continue the money metaphor for a moment, fiat money has no intrinsic worth. Its value is whatever we say it is. There is no way to be sure the ‘coin’ created by fiat money will have any value at all tomorrow. Indeed, current economic events are about to make that painfully clear.

          Likewise with the law, people can exist without man-made laws because the same set of natural rules exists within each person. The value of these rules is ‘built-in’ (think about inalienable rights before they are written down). Humans evolved to a point where we could contemplate human-made law, without benefit of that kind of law to keep us in order and not wipe out our species in a grand act of suicide. If people choose to ignore those rules, override them or are unaware of them within themselves, then perhaps we need man-made rules, written laws, to explain the current conventions for agreed behavior. But those laws are not the same as what is available to every person, even the illiterate. Man-made law only means what we agree it to mean, which certifies that it is an artificial contruct (doesn’t matter if it is a good one or not). And that is the basis of my statement that the law is not the law. We cannot give meaning to a bad law and we cannot enhance the rules of nature by writing a law about them.

          Context is another word for the position outside a particular box that is being examined. Of course each subject must be delimited, or we would always only be trying to talk about ‘the universe and everything’, and all conversations would be the same. Delimiters are sort of like time, which is what keeps everything from happening at once. In order to understand the nature of the delimiters for a particular subject, we need to be able (at least for a moment) to step outside the subject and view the setting in which the particular delimiters are applied. This exercise often helps clarify misunderstandings and miscommunications that occur within the subject itself but cannot be resolved from within the subject. It also helps one to know if the delimiters are natural or artificially imposed. Without that contextual view, it is impossible to claim knowledge of the importance of a subject, or whether it is being pursued in a rational way.

          Are we talking about the same thing? I suppose that is up to you.

          I like detail, I am a fan of great analysis, but I LOVE context. For without it, nothing makes any sense (to me). That’s why I would like to see a mental step-back on each thread, that explores at least a little bit the context for the discussion, and whether the commenter has a different take on the context from what has been previously offered.

          –TA (you tell me what the law is)

  11. LabDancer says:

    I’m posting this separately because it goes to the idea of the preferred means to ‘model’ the prosecution of Bush administration officials – for the torture policies, at least. There are lots of sub-topics in addition to jury nullification [whether its a legitimate concern, as professor Eric Posner has posted about at the Volokh blog; how so; what then; etc]. Is this something bmaz could raise when Fearless Leader returns: setting aside a thread or so for? Even one to suggest topics & concerns would get interesting, & long.

  12. bmaz says:

    Anybody remember who the mope was back when Janet Napolitano was nominated that was telling me how much trouble she was gonna have getting confirmed? Cause she sailed through without opposition at both her hearing and on a freaking voice vote when confirmed today.

  13. JThomason says:

    Oh. Sorry. I was referring to this:

    This Article accepts the unusual invitation to “see for yourself” issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead sought to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that “no reasonable juror” could find that the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to the public. Instead, the Court uploaded to its website a video of the chase, filmed from inside the pursuing police cruisers, and invited members of the public to make up their own minds after viewing it. We showed the video to a diverse sample of 1350 Americans. Overall, a majority agreed with the Court’s resolution of the key issues, but within the sample there were sharp differences of opinion along cultural, ideological, and other lines. We attribute these divisions to the psychological disposition of individuals to resolve disputed facts in a manner supportive of their group identities. The Article also addresses the normative significance of these findings. The result in the case, we argue, might be defensible, but the Court’s reasoning was not. Its insistence that there was only one “reasonable” view of the facts itself reflected a form of bias — cognitive illiberalism — that consists in the failure to recognize the connection between perceptions of societal risk and contested visions of the ideal society. When courts fail to take steps to counteract that bias, they needlessly invest the law with culturally partisan overtones that detract from the law’s legitimacy.

    Which is from a link to an article from the HLR you posted. And to come full circle the jurisprudence Yoo practiced seems to be of the same ilk of a kind of jurisprudence steeped in the projection of politics. I don’t know. And a factor like a “Sicilian lament” heard in my head certainly runs astray of objectivity. It might nevertheless be a valid “tell.” This is where I have been communing.

    Finally I regret my pith characterization but you know this subjective certainty grates on me. And I think that is what you are saying about privatizing jurisprudence.

    • LabDancer says:

      Thanks for the crumbs. I think you may have mistaken my linking to the HLR article as endorsing … something. It’s possible I have, but wasn’t aware. It might help that I clarify my own leanings.

      First: I’m not able to get enthusiastic about Rep. Conyer’s “blue ribbon” bi-partisan commission; it’s one thing for a commission to become subverted into an exercise in political accommodation & truthiness – it’s quite another to set up another pre-Iraq intell commission – whose report I cannot believe I actually was able to force myself to read thru, given insufferable quantity of drivel & manipulated views. Something of value might come out that sort of thing, but if so it’ll have died under the weight inherent in that process.

      Second: I’ve got no problem with the idea of a Presidential Commission to rigorously pursue evidence wherever it may go, & particularly in public – because that origin holds the potential for reducing the number of over-riding agendas – & theoretically to none, depending on the President’s degree of commitment & self-discipline. I have no reason to doubt the latter; it’s the former I’m not holding my breath waiting for.

      Third: With the absence of Bush pardons, if this is to be handled by Congress, the Hill will be alive with the sound of the 5th, and it’s virtually impossible for a captain to navigate thru these waters with dozens to hundreds of desk admirals constantly shouting in her or his ear.

      Which leaves –

      Fourth: An independent special prosecutor, someone who really knows her/his stuff, operating under instructions to go to trial on a wider basis than Fitzgerald was granted in the Plame leak case. IMO that’s the only tool that has a chance to work – & even then it would require help from Congressional efforts & the new administration’s meaningful commitment to that end.

      There has to be a trial. In these circumstances the usual hedges on why there might not be one don’t apply. The outcome has to be made important because it keeps the system focussed and honest; but the outcome really is in getting the story out there in full, in front of all of us.

      I kind of like William Ockham’s idea of authoritarians & enablers [it’s down-page on the Balkinization post he linked to], but IMO sorting them out on that basis is more reliable as an artistic exercise than something to guide practical legal determinations [not that I’m dissing artistic exercises – far from: they’re the ones which lead to the most accurate, lasting & meaningful lessons].

      Finally, I don’t think this last – or it effectively – is unobtainable. I’d give it long odds if I were an objective observor, but I’m not – & I don’t believe any of us are.

      • JThomason says:

        Maybe I did attribute an endorsement in your posting the HLR article. Obviously questions of legitimacy are difficult but a fundamental understanding of evidence has long guarded against the saturation of pervasive subjectivity or politicization. The institutionalized preservation of values has a practical benefit. I really don’t mean to be sanctimonious about this. Actually I found the concept of “cognitive illiberalism” viscerally constructive from a critical perspective. So I appreciate the input. And I am sure I am far from exhausting its implications, if I even have a slight comprehension. The same I suppose could be said about the movement from what Obama called today the “charter of fundamental human rights.” So I choose to align myself with the historicity of values Kennedy delineated in Boumediene. This fully engages the possibility of “rational” discourse founded on a studious inquiry beyond a mere faith or pragmatism. I am sure some of the dichotomies I have deployed might in the end be confusing but I think they are helpful in illuminating the domains fully at play in these considerations.

        You cover the political options and nuances far better than I could. The point I would make about objectivity is that it is a disciplined public effort and I am sure Congress at this point is unwilling to pursue this. But at some point if the clear consensus is that the treaties relevant to the prescription of torture require domestic prosecution how can it be avoided without a great cost to posterity. And in the end, if it is presented clearly, common sense is difficult to overcome, just as that in spite of the flaws of the jury system and as both you and bmaz have suggested, the jury usually gets it right. I don’t mean to be convoluted here but this seems to be where we touch on the dimensions of mystery held in the attempts of holding factors relevant to the truth in a legitimate system of jurisprudence. And I am not without experience with this.

        I suppose my advocacy is really directed at conscience and I have a difficult time understanding the static implied jurisprudence attributed to Lederman, the positional considerations raised notwithstanding. I ventured over to his blog from time to time and I suppose I am naturally oblivious to the inherently self-protective considerations of one who considers acting as a government lawyer. And this does not touch on the apparent demur with respect to the special ethics that apply to this calling. Lederman seemed to have some sense of the specious methods deployed in many of the controversial OLC opinions. And from the point of view of analysis where “cognitive illiberalism” is constructive in delineating a certain kind of jurisprudence with respect to facts there is an analogous illiberalism at play in Yoo’s treatment of the law. In reality its hard for me to characterize in any way other than as a “facetious illiberalism.” So for the sake of discussion, from a position of disinterested observer, of what the fuck the law is I would hope it is more than just vain retainers making shit up.

        Other than that I think it is clear to me now how the fedora resonates. Its screams Abramoff, that I think for me ultimately was the tell, seeing how we are otherwise denied inquiry at this point. But it does not seem like this issue will die an easy death.

        In the end I really can’t keep up with you, but I enjoy the effort.

  14. freepatriot says:

    the debate over torture prosecutions leaves out one important consideration

    The Nuremberg Court hearings

    bmaz can teel us what has gone before

    but we’re dealing with new stuff here

    in 1945, the idea of a group of nations usurping German soverengity to hold criminal hearings was unheard of

    but it happened

    when the law fails us, We The People have a right to enact GOD’S LAW

    and in case you didn’t notice, the people arguing against this are gonna be defending WAR CRIMINALS

    I don’t think anybody is gonna have a problem with george facing the bar of justice

  15. masaccio says:

    From the Judges Cases at Nuremberg, the Alstoetter case:

    We concur in the view expressed by the first International Military Tribunal as quoted above, but we observe that the decision was supported on two grounds. The Tribunal in that case did not stop with the declaration that it was bound by the IMT Charter as an exercise of sovereign legislative power. The opinion went on to show that the IMT Charter was also “the expression of international law existing at the time of its creation.” All of the war crimes and many, if not all, of the crimes against humanity as charged in the indictment in the case at bar were, as we shall show, violative of preexisting principles of international law.

    And farther along in the decision:

    This universality and superiority of international law does not necessarily imply universality of its enforcement. As to the punishment of persons guilty of violating the laws and customs of war (war crimes in the narrow sense), it has always been recognized that tribunals may be established and punishment imposed by the state into whose hands the perpetrators fall. These rules of international law were recognized as paramount, and jurisdiction to enforce them by the injured belligerent government, whether within the territorial boundaries of the state or in occupied territory, has been unquestioned. (Ex parte Quirin, supra; In re: Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 90 L. ed.) However, enforcement of international law has been traditionally subject to practical limitations. Within the territorial boundaries of a state having a recognized, functioning government presently in the exercise of sovereign power throughout its territory, a violator of the rules of international law could be punished only by the authority of the officials of that state. The law is universal, but such a state reserves unto itself the exclusive power within its boundaries to apply or withhold sanctions.

  16. freepatriot says:

    Obama is the President of ALL AMERICANS

    that means Whitesox fans AND Cubs fans

    so everybody is included

    (wink)

    • JThomason says:

      Thanks. I was hoping that my impression that a lively discourse is what the blog was for was a correct impression. An understanding of who does the heavy lifting around here is not lost on all of us.

  17. JohnLopresti says:

    Prof Hasen voiced acclaim for Lederman’s proclivity for midnight oil authorship, though I would imagine some scourge similarly driving Yoo to pack a thick memo in during 2001-2002, junior partnerly. Balkin himself once recounted ML’s effort often involved days to be sure a post was perfected. Frequently during the hustle of congress by administration people seeking their own version of the law in the making, Lederman would arrive at the blog late nite to post drafts to share the moments prior to the next day’s sessions so analysis would be open source available by early next morning. I think it was one of those posts that saved McCain’s own negotiating points, and likely induced Addington to burnish the signing statement creating waivers across the Potomac.