12-23-08 by dugan
It’s great to see a story that puts together the scathing investigative criticism of the Defense Department’s torture-enabling former chief counsel, William Haynes, and Haynes’ new job as chief counsel for Chevron Corp. A report today by Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle doesn’t delve into Chevron’s own human-rights problems, but Ross quotes Haynes’ amoral defense of approving the torture of prisoners in the endless "war on terror."
In defending his recommendations to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Haynes said:
"There is a
paucity of law that was applicable at the time, and my job, as the
lawyer, is not to say no, but to say, ‘Where is the area or discretion
available to the client?’ – in this case, the secretary of Defense. And
that was my determination, and I stand by it."
So with Chevron embroiled in human-rights lawsuits over oilfield pollution in Ecuador, and facing possible appeal of its exoneration in a Nigerian shooting case, Haynes (who walked straight into Chevron after leaving government in February), seems suited to the job. However, it remains to be seen whether failing to clean up Texaco’s toxic stew in the Ecuadoran Amazon can really be defended as an "area of discretion available to my client." And the moral indictment of Haynes in last week’s bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report may be a problem if he goes to court for Chevron:
From the report:
On Nov. 27, 2002, "notwithstanding the serious legal concerns raised
by the military services, Mr. Haynes sent a one page memo to the
secretary, recommending that he approve all but three of eighteen
techniques in the GTMO [Guantanamo Bay] request. Techniques such as stress positions,
removal of clothing, use of phobias (such as fear of dogs) and
deprivation of light and auditory stimuli were all recommended for
approval."— "Secretary Rumsfeld’s December 2, 2002 approval of Mr. Haynes’
recommendation contributed to the use of abusive techniques in
Afghanistan and Iraq."— Haynes’ "effort to cut short the legal and policy review of the
GTMO request was inappropriate and undermined the military’s review
process."— "Further, Mr. Haynes’ reliance on a legal memo produced by GTMO’s
Staff Judge Advocate that military lawyers called ‘legally
insufficient’ and ‘woefully inadequate’ is deeply troubling."
Chevron won’t be happy if its legal arguments end up being called "legally insufficient" and "woefully inadequate" by a civilian judge.
(See more Ecuador photos by Ivan Kashinsky in Time Magazine)