Welcome to the December 12, 2014 Post Game Show for Mojo Friday!
TexDem today asks the question "How would it look if someone really wanted to use this type of argument [the Bush doctrine, "my lawyers said it was ok" to cover their ass when they want to do something they know should be illegal, but they get their lawyers to construct a method to "make it legal"?
The issue is not only that lawyers are guns for hire, but the ambiguity and contradictions in the written law, and in the policies and rules established by agencies, means that anyone can find wiggle room for their interpretation. Indeed, this is compounded by the ambiguity, contradictions and now personal opinions that are reflected in case law (as issued by our Supreme Court, for example).
Russell C. Pearce, in 2012, wrote that After the 1960s, the dominant perspective changed as lawyers rejected responsibility for the public good in favor of client advocacy." [MODEL RULE 1.0: LAWYERS ARE MORALLY ACCOUNTABLE] He goes on to say,
"Murray Schwartz and David Luban have described the current standard conception of the lawyer's role as having two elements: "extreme partisanship" on behalf of the client and "moral non-accountability" for the lawyer's actions in pursuit of the client's goals.' As Richard Wasserstrom has noted, under this conception the lawyer becomes "an amoral technician."
No duh!
He then goes on to propose the first rule of robotics, sorry, lawyering:
Model Rule 1.0 would state only that "lawyers are morally accountable for their conduct as lawyers."
Unfortunately, I don't believe that this would solve the problem as it is evident that some lawyers, like some doctors & psychologists, don't seem to have morals conducive to a shared and respectful society. The code of medicine explicitely would call out the medical profession for its involvement in torture and places like Guantanamo Bay ("First, do not harm")
Just today Salon.com published on article on the CIA medics involved in torture, "Report: CIA medics aided, complained about tactics"
“So it begins,” an unnamed medical officer emailed in August 2002 to leaders at CIA’s Office of Medical Services in Virginia after interrogators for the first time used a water dousing technique on a terror detainee.
Personally, I'd like to see us go back to the basics of personal responsibility. If you do it, if you decide it, you're responsible. You made the decision. You may have had advice. It may have been the best advice you could pay for. But you made the decision. You can hold them accountable for their advice of course, but you own it. 'cause chances are awfully good that you are quite aware of the fact that your lawyers went searching for just a way to tell you it was ok to do whatever you wanted to do.
This, after all, is what the republicans seem to hold as a standard of accountability for the poor, the down trodden, immigrants, unemployed, sick, ... and damn near anyone else except themselves.
Let me answer my question, then. Who holds the lawyers accountable? The people who hire and pay them do. After they have been accountable for the actions they've taken, the decisions they've made, based on that advice.
But enough of me. Now for the fun.
Today's Mojo Friday diary is Mojo Friday - The Bush Doctrine - Edition
The Mojo Friday Postgame is a statistical analysis of the Mojo Friday diary that is posted every Friday morning at 10:30 a.m. ET. For further info please check out Jez's 'Official' "Mojo Friday Snecktionary" MKinTN posted a diary to help everyone achieve greater success called How to Succeed at Mojo Friday Without Really Trying.
Congratulations to:
Participation-est: bjedward
Chattiest: TexDem
Generous-est: jennyp
Snecksiest (1): Captain C
Thanks to our most excellent host, TexDem!
Stats will be updated Sunday afternoon. Final stats will be published a week later.
Read More