Objective Advice

Imagine you're a smart legal mind, saavy in the ways of Washington politics, which is how you've landed yourself a job in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

The White House's chief lawyer comes to you directly, bypassing the deputy attorney general, who is usually notified when the White House has a politically sensitive request for a legal opinion. The White House's chief lawyer asks for you to prepare an opinion about whether the President is, or is not, bound by the Geneva Conventions.

Is it possible to imagine that you would not interpret this as a request to create a rationale that the President NOT be bound by the Geneva Conventions? Really? I mean, wouldn't the default position be, "Of course he is!", so that merely asking the question suggests the desired answer?

And in this administration, famous for dismissing those who don't support the President, and for rewarding loyalty above all, wouldn't you rush to prepare an opinion that freed the President from the Geneva Conventions, and suggested that he could unilaterally ignore any other treaty he wanted to?

A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Tuesday that while Mr. Gonzales personally requested the August opinion, he was only seeking "objective legal advice and did not ask the Office of Legal Counsel to reach any specific conclusion."

Yeah, riiight.