Thought crimes?
The NY Times in an editorial today says legal opinions issued by the Justice Department on harsh interrogation methods "... are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values."
The same editorial board would have no such qualms about opinions expressed by ACLU lawyers or other pro bono lawyers that would be issued with the expressed purpose of releasing these same terrorist detainees into our population so they can continue their efforts at mass murder for Allah.
I think the latter would do more damage to innocent Americans.
But if they are going to defend the rights of lawyers to express opinions on one side of the argument they should be consistent when they are making arguments the Times does not like. Otherwise they are going for a system where lawyers who express unpopular legal opinions will be at risk.
The same editorial board would have no such qualms about opinions expressed by ACLU lawyers or other pro bono lawyers that would be issued with the expressed purpose of releasing these same terrorist detainees into our population so they can continue their efforts at mass murder for Allah.
I think the latter would do more damage to innocent Americans.
But if they are going to defend the rights of lawyers to express opinions on one side of the argument they should be consistent when they are making arguments the Times does not like. Otherwise they are going for a system where lawyers who express unpopular legal opinions will be at risk.
Comments
Post a Comment