Over at http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/21/the_olc_torture_memos_thoughts_from_a_dissenter">Foreign Policy's Shadow Government blog, there's a thoughtful post up from Philip Zelikow - no bleeding heart, he - about torture. The whole thing is worth reading, but he makes one point that I think bears highlighting:
There is an elementary distinction, too often lost, between the moral (and policy) question -- "What should we do?" -- and the legal question: "What can we do?" We live in a policy world too inclined to turn lawyers into surrogate priests granting a form of absolution. "The lawyers say it's OK." Well, not really. They say it might be legal. They don't know about OK.
[h/t: Attackerman]
Off The Hook: Just so no one's confused, it was NOT Peter Orszag who swore on the teevee. Though no one could have begrudged him.
And On The Second Day...: ...The Awl scores by enlisting the gorgeous lethality of Chris Lehmann's poison pen, who doles out a colostomy to the eternal self-regard of New York Magazine.
About Those Citigroup "Profits": The incredibly true story of how making up what rules to follow that you are making up as you go along makes it possible to just tell anybody anything anytime anywhere for any reason. (No, what I just said didn't make much sense. Neither do the laws that govern Citigroup, apparently.)
Careful What You Wish For: Now that Dick Cheney's suddenly so into open and public disclosures, it's time to draw up a list of what other secrets should be brought into the light!
[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]