Well ladies and gentlemen, I am finished with my first year of law school. It has been the most difficult thing I’ve done thus far, but I have made it out in one piece. What I really wanted to talk about, however, is unrelated. I recently had a bit of a blow up with this guy I liked, and think that it was largely my fault. While I was upset at something he said, I do not think I handled the situation well. While talking with my friend Bill about this today, he pointed out that I had reacted rather than responded. When I asked what the difference was, he just smiled and said, “it’s subtle.” Mind you, my reaction was fueled in part by alcohol and a late night celebrating the completion of finals, but I can not use these factors as a justification. Bill went on to explain that a response is something measured, something that doesn’t come immediately, but rather is a product of some deliberation. So my question to the readership is, how do you make sure to respond in situations where your first instinct might be to react in a dramatic fashion. What are your techniques for making sure you don’t do or blurt out what you ought not? In the cold sober light of day it is easy to review where one went wrong, but when passion and pride are involved, the animal instincts often spring into play, often overpowering out better nature.
Amazing
15 Soldiers Dead in Iraq 4/09
Following up on my last post and Dan’s comment, I will borrow from a far better wordsmith than myself:
Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect†us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,†torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.
– Frank Rich, NYT, 4/25/09
Rich goes on to propose that the best way forward would be for the DOJ to appoint a panel of non-partisan outsiders, such as retired federal judges, to analyze all the information and set the wheels in motion for the correct prosecution. While I was not a fan of Obama’s initial response, I have come around to understanding that his relative lack of outrage is calculated to ensure that this investigation is handled in a non-partisan manner. The gravity of the information now available is strong enough to stand on its own, and I suspect that many Republicans will end up supporting such an investigative commission.
Torture Memos Utilized Flawed Legal Reasoning
If you have not looked over the torture memos, please do so.
Then, take a look at this video from Philip Zelikow, a high level State Department lawyer during the Bush administration. He authored a memorandum expressing grave concerns with the legal reasoning underlying those torture memos. While a copy of Zelikow’s memorandum is not yet available, a FOIA request has been made and it is likely to surface soon:
Truly Great News
FMI, visit the FRA