B.
Nobody's saying what they did is a good thing. But people
shouldn't be misled with the idea that those lawyers can go
to jail for torture. Investigated? Sure. But under no
theory of law can writing a legal opinion make a person
guilty of torture.
C.
There's a level of criminality here that should be
investigated. How can we know whether or not they committed
a crime if we don't know what happened? Their motivation?
The chain of events on those days? All that. It's not about
going to jail at this point. It's about restoring the rule
of law. If lawyers are allowed to do what they did with no
response, just business as usual--
D.
Business that led to torture.
C.
The ultimate tyranny.
F.
I believe we do have the means for justice. I think the new
Attorney General is a good lawyer. Hopefully they'll appoint
a prosecutor who is a good lawyer.
B.
All I'm saying is that in criminal law, you need a criminal
statute. A crime needs a statute. The statute needs to say
exactly what conduct is criminal and what penalty is
possible.
G.
Otherwise it's unconstitutional as a violation of due
process. This is first-year law school stuff.
A.
So the lawyers can say they were just drafting an opinion the
President sought, and the President can say he was just doing
what the lawyers said was legal?
G.
It's immoral, but it's not illegal.
(Double Beat.)
(Actor rises to address audience.)
ACTOR
And this is where things rest. The big question unanswered.
Where's the crime? (Thumbing to A.-G.) The thing they don't
know, is that the crime is in regards to the oath of office.
It's a crime to advocate--
A.
What?
(Actor is somewhat stunned, A.-G. await
reply.)
A. (CONT'D)
(to Actor)
Go ahead, tell us.
C.
We've been waiting years to have this discussion.
Nobody's saying what they did is a good thing. But people
shouldn't be misled with the idea that those lawyers can go
to jail for torture. Investigated? Sure. But under no
theory of law can writing a legal opinion make a person
guilty of torture.
C.
There's a level of criminality here that should be
investigated. How can we know whether or not they committed
a crime if we don't know what happened? Their motivation?
The chain of events on those days? All that. It's not about
going to jail at this point. It's about restoring the rule
of law. If lawyers are allowed to do what they did with no
response, just business as usual--
D.
Business that led to torture.
C.
The ultimate tyranny.
I believe we do have the means for justice. I think the new
Attorney General is a good lawyer. Hopefully they'll appoint
a prosecutor who is a good lawyer.
B.
All I'm saying is that in criminal law, you need a criminal
statute. A crime needs a statute. The statute needs to say
exactly what conduct is criminal and what penalty is
possible.
G.
Otherwise it's unconstitutional as a violation of due
process. This is first-year law school stuff.
A.
So the lawyers can say they were just drafting an opinion the
President sought, and the President can say he was just doing
what the lawyers said was legal?
G.
It's immoral, but it's not illegal.
(Double Beat.)
(Actor rises to address audience.)
ACTOR
And this is where things rest. The big question unanswered.
Where's the crime? (Thumbing to A.-G.) The thing they don't
know, is that the crime is in regards to the oath of office.
It's a crime to advocate--
A.
What?
(Actor is somewhat stunned, A.-G. await
reply.)
A. (CONT'D)
(to Actor)
Go ahead, tell us.
C.
We've been waiting years to have this discussion.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
