HArvard Law students take on Jack Goldsmith’s protection of US torturers

[DogPoundPup]

Recently, Jack Goldsmith wrote a Washington Post op-ed opposing any further investigations or accountability for US torture. Goldsmith is well known as the attorney, who as head of the “Justice” Department Office of Legal Counsel rescinded the Yoo-Bybee memos legalizing torture. Less well known is that, in the process, Goldsmith said that all the actions <"torture" in normal language> were still legal, though the rationales under which they were undertaken were flawed. thus, tortre was fine, but Yoo-Bybee’s legal reasoning was not. Unfortunately, as a consesequence, Goldsmith got an undeserved reputation as an torture opponent. He is now using that reputation to help protect the torturers and keeep their secrets secret.

It has fallen to a few brave Harvard Law School students to denounce Goldsmith’s argument in the Harvard Law Record :

Obama administration must investigate Bush era conduct in the War on Terror

By Katherine Glenn, Anna Myles-Primakoff, and the Board of the HLS Advocates for Human Rights

Last week, Professor Jack Goldsmith published an opinion piece in the Washington Post in which he argued that the Obama administration should not conduct any new investigations into the Bush administration’s authorization of its “harsh, abusive and illegal interrogation program.” Goldsmith, who was an United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush Adminstration, believes that new investigations into this authorization of torture are unnecessary because we already know most of the story behind the approval of this program and, worse, any new inquiries could compromise national security by “spooking” the intelligence community, making them hesitant to undertake important counterterrorism actions. He also believes that those who “made mistakes” have already been held accountable through severe criticism and loss to their reputations and finances.

Goldsmith’s piece has already been critiqued by a number of analysts and commentators. But his article is particularly troubling for some of us at Harvard Law School who do not share his views. It misrepresents the actions that led to the authorization of torture, it ignores the legal significance of those actions, and it neglects the value that proper investigation and punishment of those actions would have.

Continue reading @ http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/12/04/harvard-law-students-take-on-jack-goldsmiths-protection-of-us-torturers/

[midnight]

1. The responsibility of holding the adults in charge, for crimes, has

fallen into the lap of students. I keep wondering were all the attorney's are? We are waiting on students to graduate? I hope that these young ones can navigate this path.

[Dangerously Amused]

2. Ooooh, "severe criticism."

That's a great idea, let's hold torturers accountable by the use of "severe criticism." :eyes:

[noise]

3. The unitary executive theory compliments authoritarianism

Torture is considered a good faith, legal tactic because the President (and other high ranking officials) said so.

You have:

1) Unconditional trust in authority figures.

2. The belief that authority figures like the POTUS should not be constrained by the the rule of law.

3. Anyone who finds 1 and 2 idiotic is considered unpatriotic.

The reason it's all secret is so the public doesn't learn just how full of shit these people really are. Attributing good faith motives to torture is sickening.