Rank bias and sheer incompetence infused OPR's investigation. OPR attorneys, for example, omitted a number of precedents that squarely supported the approach in the memoranda and undermined OPR's preferred outcome. They declared that no Americans have a right of self-defense against a criminal prosecution, not even when they or their government agents attempt to stop terrorist attacks on the United States. OPR claimed that Congress enjoyed full authority over wartime strategy and tactics, despite decades of Justice Department opinions and practice defending the president's commander-in-chief power. They accused us of violating ethical standards without ever defining them. They concocted bizarre conspiracy theories about which they never asked us, and for which they had no evidence, even though we both patiently—and with no legal obligation to do so—sat through days of questioning.
Definitely worth a read, though Andrew Sullivan clearly isn't convinced.
3 comments:
People still read Andrew Sullivan? If so, I'm not sure why -- he's been doing little but carrying water for the left for years.
See, e.g., the article you linked, a summary of which could easily be "The OPR report is accurate because they said it was." While he hints at impropriety with the deleted evidence, it's worth taking a look at how long ago that was and who was responsible for keeping those records and if, in fact, they were subject to records retention policies at all.
Frankly, this all looks a little bit witch-hunty for me.
Let me ask you this - would you agree that at some point there has to be some oversight by SOMEBODY when a President's lawyers are CLEARLY misrepresenting the law? I'm not saying I believe that happened here, but if that's the case, who should be the one to make that determination?
It sadly reminds me a lot of the Courts racing to overrule each other in Bush v. Gore using partisan reasoning to chide each other for their partisanship.
I'd put a lot more stock in this if it weren't being pushed by the left for the purpose of making a war criminal out of either President Bush or Yoo/Bybee. That said, the fact that it seems "witch hunty" (a sentiment with which I agree) doesn't mean that there might not be some validity to it. Is this a job for the Courts or is this a political question that courts would normally avoid? Or is it something that in the absence of a neutral arbiter we need to just let the executive branch police themselves?
人逢順境不逞強，身處逆境不示弱。........................................
Post a Comment