... what is not explicitly banned is permitted....
Richard Haass is currently the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. His latest book, War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars, will be out May 5.
Recently Haass penned an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, The Interrogation Memos and the Law, in which he argued that "criminalizing legitimate policy differences will paralyze the conduct of foreign policy."
Haass rapidly degenerates into legal haziness, "Law tends to be more gray than black and white."
Apart from the stark black and white issues of human rights ... possibly.
He, Haass, attempts to trivialize the matter of torture, likening it to tax evasion or avoidance:
The memos make the case that what is not explicitly banned is permitted. What comes to mind is the difference between tax evasion and avoidance. The former is illegal whereas the latter is not. The lawyers were making an aggressive case for the terrorism equivalent of avoidance.
I am still wrestling with the the obscure meaning of the sentence, "The lawyers were making an aggressive case for the terrorism equivalent of avoidance."
What might be the terrorism equivalent of "avoidance"?
He then goes on to facetiously state, "The issue is whether those who argued that such techniques were not illegal -- and therefore should be available -- ought to be tried."
Very well! Let us simply hang them forthwith, those writers of memos who argue that torture is not illegal for gross ignorance of international law and American precedent. Wouldn't that serve?
But Haass is to be undeterred:
prosecution of Justice Department officials would have a chilling effect on future U.S. government officials. Few would be brave or foolhardy enough to put forward daring proposals that one day could be judged illegal.
Damnation! I would expect that Justice Department officials would be well aware of what is presently and historically illegal, certainly not to be victimized for proposing something "that one day could be judged illegal."
Oh! Alas! "Prosecution would also set a terrible precedent."
The well-known propensity of America to torture has also set a terrible precedent which has darkened our image throughout the world and gravely hindered our ability to cite our laws as a moral standard.
Haass concludes:
Last, investigation and prosecution would take time and focus away from what this country and its elected and appointed representatives need to focus on. Investigations and trials would constitute an enormous distraction for the Obama administration and the Congress at a time when this country faces a daunting array of international problems (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, climate change, swine flu) and is limited by the effects of a recession that is sure to be both deep and enduring.
But, of course. I am inclined to think that it was the deliberate intent of the Bush administration precisely to litter the trail of governance of the United States with a myriad of horrific international problems, everything Haass lists except possibly swine flu ... (though, I'm sure in time to come we'll find out that Bush and his minions were behind the swine flu frenzy as well...).
And, according to Haass:
Adding risk of prosecution to the mix will make recruiting the best and brightest that much more difficult.
Oh! Spare me! Does that mean we might never again bear the temerity of carrion-eaters such Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the like?