Rather than print out the whole post, I'd like to invite your attention to Dahlia Lithwick's article on Slate, the on-line magazine (just purchased by the Washington Post), here, on the role of the attorney: water-carrier for his boss, the client, or wise-counselor and guide through the jungle, who tells the client how to avoid the quicksand here and the python over there, hidden by that branch.
If I were president, Ms. Lithwick would be my attorney-general.
Her article is about Pres. Bush's nominee for Attorney-General of the United States, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales may have acted more the water-boy than reliable jungle guide when it came to the 'torture memo', prepared by his Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which seemed to advise that the president was not bound to honor the 'quaint' Geneva Conventions when it came to exercising war powers to protect the Nation.
Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, indefinite detentions without court or counsel at Guantanamo which were later held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and coercive questioning amounting to torture, all followed, calling the country into disrepute. Our military does not condone mistreatment of prisoners, incidentally, knowing all too well about being mistreated as POWs from the Stalags of WWII, to Korea, to Vietnam, and places in between and since. We are the first to complain to the world, quite justifiably, about inhumane treatment of American service men and women who fall into hostile hands.
The question as to whether Mr. Gonzales acted more as water-boy to please his boss, despite the quicksand and the python, or trusted guide, is expected to be an issue in the confirmation hearing over his nomination as chief law enforcement officer of the U.S.
Several former members of the OLC have joined in writing a six-page statement outlining the role of the president's legal advisor, taking the position that trusted jungle guide is the only way to go and not only that, but their opinions ought to be made public.
The statement of the former OLC attorneys is commented upon here, which will bring you to the American Constitution Society article commenting on it, and from there you may proceed by hotlink to the statement itself. The ACS is a Con-Law society established to provide the alternative view to the conservative Federalist Society which is so influential in the appointment process of federal judges who may be in line for elevation to the Supreme Court.
One interesting point made in the statement of former OLC attorneys is that since the Supreme Court has ruled out for itself the giving of advisory opinions (the issue came up in first Pres. George Washington's first term and the Court respectfully declined to answer the question he'd submitted -- no case or controversy pending) the president needs a good lawyer, or law office, to tell him what the law IS. And to make reasonable predictions, which is what lawyers do, about the direction the law is apt to go if an issue comes up, given the best that our law and tradition has to offer a president.
And, I suppose, the worst, 'cuz it ain't all good, then or now, but still may be the law.
What we don't want is our trusty jungle guide leading us in the direction of the quicksand and the python, not to mention the tiger hiding in the grass.