Goldsmith and torture

Ted,

Please note the following:

Fulsome is often used to mean “offensively flattering or insincere.” But the word is also used, particularly in the expression fulsome praise, to mean simply “abundant,” without any implication of excess or insincerity. This usage is etymologically justified but may invite misunderstandings in contexts in which a deprecatory interpretation could be made. The sentence I offer you my most fulsome apologies may raise an eyebrow, where the use of an adjective like full or abundant would leave no room for doubt as to the sincerity of the speaker’s intentions.

I’m sure Lowell Fulsome takes no umbrage, either ;-)

There are some specific objections to memos Goldsmith wrote but it certainly looks like he did much more good than harm.

One of the more noteworthy bits of the article was this:

“Addington and Gonzales had both wanted to make [John] Yoo head of the OLC when Bybee went off to take a federal judgeship in March 2003, but Attorney General John Ashcroft balked.”

Lucky for us that Yoo and Ashcroft had a bureaucratic dispute.

Of course, Goldsmith, Comey, and Levin are gone, and Addington’s been promoted, and whoever the new OLC head is doesn’t seem to have any reservations about the NSA program.

I wasn’t trying to be pedantic – since the word has meanings which are pretty close to the opposite of one another, I just was a bit confused about which was intende. Sorry.

Why do they owe him an apology? From what I know, Goldsmith has been completely silent — to the point of refusing comment on the Newsweek piece — on any matters relating to his time in the Bush Administration.

What are they supposed to say, “we’re sorry we believed the public story you have never contradicted?”

As honorable as his time may have been, he has the same problem as Colin Powell: though I know you resisted wrongdoing, you have not done everything in your power to stop the wrong still being done, so how can I praise you?

Max, Seth,

Goldmsith is ethically and legally obligated to keep quiet about the disputes he had within the Bush Administration. It seems quite unfair to blame him for not breaking the law and leaking that information. He tried to stop it, and was kicked out of DOJ for his rebellion, probably giving up a good shot at a judgeship along the way.

This ‘fulsome’ business popped up a while back, strangely enough also in the context of Colin Powell.

Anon,

Your comment makes no sense. Goldsmith was not practicing before a Court, so he was not acting as the officer of any Court. Are you suggesting that a DOJ lawyer with a disagreement about the law has an absolute trump that lets him violate the law whenever he likes? It sounds like exactly the kind of argument that Bush is making, and that Goldmsith himself was fighting against.

I don’t believe getting Goldsmith off the hook – or not quite, depends on how you look at it – is the most important message behind this piece. I know it’s been debated abundantly elsewhere, but I think this part of Newsweek’s article sheds a lot of light on the OLC’s (and specifically, John Yoo’s) modus operandi in the particular case of government-sanctioned torture (note the timing: in the winter of 2002 the CIA sees the need, and asks for legal permission; in August 2002 the relevant memo is produced):

[…] In the winter of 2002, the CIA began catching top Qaeda terrorists—so-called High Value Targets—like Abu Zubaydah. These hard-case jihadists proved resistant to normal methods of interrogation. In the fevered atmosphere of the time, the Bush administration feared a “second wave” attack from Qaeda sleeper cells still inside the United States. The CIA wanted legal permission to use “coercive methods.”
An August 2002 OLC memo, signed by the then head of the OLC—Jay Bybee—but drafted by Yoo, gave the agency what it needed. The controversial document, which became famous as the “torture memo” when it leaked two years later, defined torture so narrowly that, short of maiming or killing a prisoner, interrogators had a free hand. What’s more, the memo claimed license for the president to order methods that would be torture by anyone’s definition—and to do it wholesale, and not just in specific cases. […]

I know, I know, the OLC works on demand, but a timeline so clear, combined with arguments so specious supporting torture, certainly could make for a good point in a special counsel’s indictment.

barry,

I don’t understand. The program was highly classified; indeed, only a handful of people in the entire government knew about it. Leaking classified information is a crime: think Patrick Fitzgerald investigating the leaks about Valerie Plame, and, for that matter, the presently open investigation into who leaked the NSA surveillance program. What more “proof” do you need?

As I understand it, classification can’t be used to cover up crimes. In addition, Goldsmith could have gone to members of Congress who were authorized for oversight.

As a last resort, he could have gone public, and stated that the administration was committing crimes, whose natures he couldn’t reveal due to classification.

All of which, if done during 2004, might have tipped the election.

Sorry for the redundancy, Barry. Our posts passed on the Information Superhighway.

What really steams me about this, and about the NYT’s withholding of the NSA scandals, is that I now believe that there was enough dirt on Bush to have tipped the election. A lot of people deliberately kept silent when they could have made a difference; I give them little or no credit to speak up when it’s too late to make much of a difference.

Follow the links from Laura Rozen:
Why is it that conservatives seem to need the permission of their superiors to have an opinion about the constitutionality of WH policy?
And Lawgal, you haven’t answered the rest of us. Why not a loud and public – and perfectly legal- silence?
‘Courtesy’ to his old friends?

Fuck’em

Lawgirl, it’s been made pretty clear by your citeless claims that you hold most dear the protection and extension of secret presidential power, despite the law.

So there.