This Vanity Fair piece on the JAG lawyers and Gitmo is a must read. There are so many quotes of interest it is hard to find just one to single out, but this one will have to do:
Swift, incensed, sent a series of e-mails to his boss, asking him, “Captain, is this really where we want to ground American legal policy in Guantánamo?” McCarthy and Swift were adversaries in court but friends outside of it. They often jogged together on the base. For Swift, McCarthy was a prosecutor’s prosecutor, trained at Duke Law School and dedicated to justice. He wrote him, “This is kind of like saying that the Dred Scott case was a great decision. Do we really want to go back to a time when slaves cannot seek redress in the court system? It appears to make no sense for the President of the United States to decide whether or not someone is guilty in advance of a trial.” McCarthy e-mailed him back. “I am sure the Department of Defense will do the right thing.”
And it went downhill from there.
*** Update ***
On second thought, this might be the winner:
When Swift examined Yoo’s arguments, he grew anxious. “The only person who could view if the executive powers were necessary was the executive. It made no sense.” When Yoo’s torture memo came out one year later, Swift surmised it was intended to make statements coerced from detainees under torture admissible in court and to provide immunity for the interrogators.
Swift got more and more irritated: “It keeps striking me, all the phrases they are using—’The trials will be full and fair’ … it was, like, huh? They will be ‘full and fair,’ but different. It was, like, if you use this line, maybe we can convince ourselves.”
That resonates with the haggling remark I made yesterday. They know what they are doing does not work, they know we know it does not work, so it appears they are attempting to convince themselves otherwise.