Lithwick writes on "A Model of a Modern Attorney General"
Dahlia Lithwick writes in Slate on the proper role of a modern attorney general.
A confirmation fight in a vacuum—one that does not include a good, hard look at what happened to the Justice Department under Gonzales, how to fix it, and the proper role of attorneys and attorneys general in a national security crisis—is a lost chance. . . .
When there's a collision between the duty to protect life and the duty to protect the Constitution, the tie cannot always go to preserving life. Some people may call this empty legalism. [Former deputy attorney general] Comey sees it as promoting the rule of law. . . .Comey concludes that "it takes far more than a sharp legal mind to say 'no' when it matters most. It takes moral character. It takes an ability to see the future. It takes an appreciation of the damage that will flow from an unjustified 'yes.' "
By letting lawyers dominate the conversation about how to fight terror, we lost, according to [executive director of the 9/11 commission] Zelikow, a sense of scope. Legal answers became the final answers, rather than merely informing what should have been broader, more nuanced conclusions.
Written By:Tom Juarez On September 13, 2007 2:06 PM
In slightly over 200 years we've gone from "Give me liberty or give me death" to "Give up your liberty, or you'll die".