See here. Also, see the Washington Post's editorial criticizing the decision. Its argument is summed up by the following:
Moreover, Mr. Yoo provided legal opinions on what he believed the law allowed the executive to do, but he did not make the final policy decisions. Allowing Mr. Padilla's case to proceed could have a chilling effect on the ability of government lawyers to give candid, good-faith advice for fear of being held personally liable.I've addressed the distinction between advice and policy here. In Yoo's case, that distinction doesn't apply in the usual way, and the Washington Post's editorial is, once again, an utter failure.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment