There are many creepy things about the Journal's description of the report - things that leave me with the distinct impression the drafters could have graduated with honors from the University of Berlin's law school, circa 1942. For example:
Civilian or military personnel accused of torture or other war crimes have several potential defenses, including the "necessity" of using such methods to extract information to head off an attack, or "superior orders," sometimes known as the Nuremberg defense: namely that the accused was acting pursuant to an order and, as the Nuremberg tribunal put it, no moral choice was in fact possible." (emphasis added.)
Now I have to admit: The idea of using the Nuremberg trial as a field guide for committing war crimes and getting away with it has never occurred to me before. But then, I'm not a Bush administration legal appointee. It's probably worth remembering, though, that the Nuremberg Tribunal wasn't particularly impressed by the "I was only following orders" routine: 12 defendents hanged, 3 sentenced to life, 4 given long prison sentences, only 3 acquitted. If I were Donald Rumsfeld, I don't think I'd like those odds.
[...]
Raving paranoia? Go back and read that bit about "authority to set aside the laws is inherent in the president." You just might be hearing more about that, one of these days.
| 