Tortured legalities

Re “Mukasey’s Paradox,” Opinion, March 4

In this excellent piece, Jonathan Turley writes that the reason given for not prosecuting White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers for their refusal to testify before Congress was that no crime was committed, as they were ordered not to testify by the president.

Does anyone remember the infamous Nuremberg defense that “we were only following orders”?

Jack Redmond

North Hollywood

In his provocative article on Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey’s tortuous and paradoxical logic, Turley might well have mentioned at least one of the attorney general’s kindred spirits on the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia apparently explained to a European audience a few weeks ago that the U.S. Constitution guarantees no protection against torture, provided said torture is not used for punishment.

Scalia seemed to reason that while it may be acceptable to torture a potentially innocent person to extract information, it remains patently unconstitutional to treat a convicted criminal in such a manner.

Although Scalia’s logic may not rise to the level of Mukasey’s paradoxical perfection, it should at least be recognized as a legalistic obscenity worthy of note.

Michael Toohey

Heilig

Venice