Well, this is quite remarkable.
In this commentary (via Salon), the lawyer who argued that waterboarding does not constitute "torture" now harshly criticizes another lawyer for arguing that bombing does not constitute "hostilities."
The making of "utterly farcical" arguments of this kind undermines the rule of law, he says.
I agree with that, I'm just wondering when this guy learned it.
He also, if I'm reading this correctly, criticizes the President for using this argument to try to avoid complying with the law -- because instead, he says, the President should just be ignoring the law completely.
My brain hurts.
