"Lawyers love legal reasoning. It promises a clean, clear path through sticky, tricky territory. But legal reasoning can enable grotesque real-world outcomes, like torture, or arresting journalists, or masked government agents detaining and disappearing people. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is in conversation with Joseph Margulies, Professor of Practice of Government at Cornell University. Margulies litigated some of the biggest cases of egregious human rights violations of the post-9/11 "War on Terror", an experience that informed his recent piece in the Boston Review:"
"Margulies litigated some of the biggest cases of egregious human rights violations of the post-9/11 "War on Terror", an experience that informed his recent piece in the Boston Review: The Moral Stupefaction of America. Margulies explains how, when we allow obscure legal language to overshadow moral imperatives, we can end up in very dark places. The line from waterboarding at black sites to executing American citizens in the streets is a straight one."
Legal reasoning offers an appearance of clarity but can facilitate grotesque outcomes such as torture, arresting journalists, and disappearances. Major post-9/11 human-rights cases reveal how obscure legal language can overshadow moral imperatives and produce morally stupefied outcomes. The progression from practices like waterboarding at black sites to the execution of citizens in public follows a direct, disturbing trajectory. Lawyers will draft memos to justify each step along that line. Relying solely on technical legalism can create carefully worded defenses without actually protecting rights when they are most threatened.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]