While many of Yoo's legal arguments were thoroughly lacking in merit, almost all were grounded in some superficially plausible legal proposition. Moreover, the “forward-leaning” nature of the memos, while inconsistent with canons of professional responsibility, was driven by genuine and weighty (if badly misconceived) policy considerations.

Many of Yoo's critics seem to assume, given the intensity of their belief that torture is morally wrong, that the illegality of harsh interrogation techniques must be clear beyond cavil. (Failing that, they seem to demand that lawyers push the envelope in the opposite way, so as to impute criminality to what is morally condemned.) The law, while not really obscure, is more complicated and filled with qualifications than many commentators think.

And it has only become more so, precisely because the country is itself conflicted on the question. Ironically, the memo snippet that sticks in the minds of most people is the “organ failure” standard, but Congress actually ended up adopting that standard in its 2006 amendment to the War Crimes Act (contained in the Military Commissions Act). And even the supposedly scrupled John McCain voted, not only for the MCA, but also to uphold the President's veto of the bill barring CIA use of enhanced interrogation methods. So, unless we want to undertake a sweeping lustration of American public institutions generally, we should get a grip.

While many of Yoo's legal arguments were thoroughly lacking in merit, almost all were grounded in some superficially plausible legal proposition. Moreover, the “forward-leaning” nature of the memos, while inconsistent with canons of professional responsibility, was driven by genuine and weighty (if badly misconceived) policy considerations.

Many of Yoo's critics seem to assume, given the intensity of their belief that torture is morally wrong, that the illegality of harsh interrogation techniques must be clear beyond cavil. (Failing that, they seem to demand that lawyers push the envelope in the opposite way, so as to impute criminality to what is morally condemned.) The law, while not really obscure, is more complicated and filled with qualifications than many commentators think.

And it has only become more so, precisely because the country is itself conflicted on the question. Ironically, the memo snippet that sticks in the minds of most people is the “organ failure” standard, but Congress actually ended up adopting that standard in its 2006 amendment to the War Crimes Act (contained in the Military Commissions Act). And even the supposedly scrupled John McCain voted, not only for the MCA, but also to uphold the President's veto of the bill barring CIA use of enhanced interrogation methods. So, unless we want to undertake a sweeping lustration of American public institutions generally, we should get a grip.

While many of Yoo’s legal arguments were thoroughly lacking in merit, almost all were grounded in some superficially plausible legal proposition. Moreover, the “forward-leaning” nature of the memos, while inconsistent with canons of professional responsibility, was driven by genuine and weighty (if badly misconceived) policy considerations.

Many of Yoo’s critics seem to assume, given the intensity of their belief that torture is morally wrong, that the illegality of harsh interrogation techniques must be clear beyond cavil. (Failing that, they seem to demand that lawyers push the envelope in the opposite way, so as to impute criminality to what is morally condemned.) The law, while not really obscure, is more complicated and filled with qualifications than many commentators think.

And it has only become more so, precisely because the country is itself conflicted on the question. Ironically, the memo snippet that sticks in the minds of most people is the “organ failure” standard, but Congress actually ended up adopting that standard in its 2006 amendment to the War Crimes Act (contained in the Military Commissions Act). And even the supposedly scrupled John McCain voted, not only for the MCA, but also to uphold the President’s veto of the bill barring CIA use of enhanced interrogation methods. So, unless we want to undertake a sweeping lustration of American public institutions generally, we should get a grip.