Important Revelations from Dan Levin former US Asst Attorney General

Wednesday, June 18, 2008
By Contrast, Here's an Administration Attorney Who Takes His Public Service Seriously -- Important Revelations from Dan Levin


Marty Lederman


In previous posts on this blog, I have been both highly complimentary of much of Dan Levin's work on the torture question while he was head of OLC (see here and here), and, as to one specific aspect of Levin's analysis, sharply critical. Whatever our substantive differences might be, however (and I imagine there are many), it is hard to escape the conclusion that Dan Levin was an OLC attorney of great integrity, honesty, and rigor -- that he took his public service extremely seriously. Which is why he was fired.

Levin's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today was, truly, the polar opposite of Jim Haynes's inexcusable performance yesterday. This is fully reflected in his prepared statement. Levin is measured, respectful of the congressional role and the importance of such oversight hearings, self-effacing, courteous, as forthright as he can be in light of the restrictions placed upon him, direct and unambiguous, generous in his praise and gratitude for those who assisted him at DOJ, fully committed to the best practices of OLC (including widespread consultation and internal debate), and willing to fully accept responsibility for, and to defend the substance of, the decisions that he made.

Although the Committee barely took advantage of Levin's presence (they really ought to take a page from the much more sustained investigation and pointed questioning of the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday -- and from the consistently sharp and effective use of time by Rep. Artur Davis on their own committee), Levin's integrity shined through in his responses to questions, as well, which can be viewed in this C-SPAN video. Even though he was severely (and in my view unjustifiably) constrained in what details he could offer the Committee, Levin tried his best to be direct and responsive to the questions, such that an observer might actually learn things about what happened at DOJ (fancy that).

And learn things we did. Despite the truncated nature of the hearing, Levin testified about several new and important details:

First, as Laura Rozen has already reported, Levin added a codicil to his opening statement that was not included in his written submission, and it's a doozy:
more:http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/by-contrast-heres-administration.html