Scott Horton Interviews Scott Horton

Scott Horton, March 03, 2009

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Other Scott Horton, international human rights lawyer and contributing editor at Harper’s magazine, discusses the Justice Department’s release of post-9/11 Bush administration legal opinion memos, the assertion of executive supremacy over the first and fourth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the possible scope of unknown Bush legal shenanigans and why blue-ribbon investigative committees aren’t always bipartisan cover-ups.

MP3 here. (31:13)

The Other Scott Horton (no relation) is a New York attorney known for his work in emerging markets and international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict. He lectures at Columbia Law School.

2 Responses to “Scott Horton”

  1. Why is this administration’s spying on anti-war activists any different from Nixon’s?

    Also, the CIA has a long and venerable history of torture, which is documented in Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes, among other places. And the CIA never does “lessons learned” as a matter of policy.

    So it seems to me that the big difference between the W admin and past admins is that (1) W attempted to phoney up a legal rationale, and (2) they got caught sooner than past admins.

    In the case of domestic spying, also a long and venerable CIA history, W just did it more. An issue of quantity and quality (well, that remains to be seen), not whether they did it or not.

    As for the commish idea, Leahy’s hearings this morning were worthless. Sounds like he has a coverup in mind.

    Oh righto. (not) Congress really challenged Allen Dulles’s overthrow schemes. A real standup job that Congress did. /s

  2. Didn’t the Nazis swear and oath to Hitler which was supposedly a superceding oath to a oath to the country?
    If the Republicans took an oath to Bush which would supercede their oath to the Constitution wouldn’t that be treasonous?
    I understand that Bush valued loyalty, but if he values loyalty to himself over loyalty to the country and its principles spelled out in the Constitution then Bush and his administration officials were treasonous or commited perjury by letting another oath supercede their oath of office as spelled out in the Consitution.

Leave a Reply