All language subtitles for Law and order S20E01 - Memo from the Dark Side

In the criminal justice system

the people are represented
by two separate
yet equally important groups,

the police
who investigate crime

and the district attorneys
who prosecute the offenders.

These are their stories.

This is crazy.
You can't leave.

I can't stay.
Even with the work-study,

I won't make my next
tuition installment.

Taxi!

I'll get you
the money, okay?

I got something
big lined up.

Don't worry about me.
Just take care of yourself.

Excuse me,
you spare something?

Beat it!

Everything's going
to be all right.

I love you.

Call me, okay?

You a Marine?

Yeah.

Here, take it all.
You serious?

Yeah.

Thanks, buddy.

God bless.

Two in the chest.

Student biking through
the alley heard the shots
around 21:10.

Patrol got here quick.

Faculty parking garage.
Not exactly ground zero
for gun crime.

You secure the area?
First thing.

No ins or outs till
you release the scene.

No wallet or ID,
but we've got
a dormitory keycard.

Let's see what else he's got.

Looks like he was
a business major.

Yeah, minoring
in herbology.

Looks like the
campus dope dealer.

Mark his report card "D"
for deceased.

Dealers. Good riddance.

There's a bunch of
Latinos over on 125th,

my guys keep them
off campus.

We're going to need
the security videos
for the garage.

Uh, there's only
one camera.

It covers the exit.

But the rains this summer
knocked it out of commission.

Okay, we'll need a list of all
the faculty who park there.

That I got.

Okay, it's ready.

And your John Doe is...

Hayley Kozlow.

It's Greg. Greg Tanner.

He's been crashing here.

I can't believe this.

How do you know him?

We met at the cafeteria.

He's not a student
or anything. He said he had
a sister here.

He was mature and nice.

Really nice.

His duffel bag
is military issue.

- Was he in the service?
- Yeah.

Um, Greg said he had
nightmares from it.

But we didn't talk much,
you know?

You talk about this?

Oh, my God. If I knew about
that, I swear, he would've
been gone.

Was anyone
giving him trouble?

I don't know.

Last Saturday, I saw him
outside of Rocco's.

He was getting into it
with some Hispanic guy,

but Greg said it was nothing.

We got a winner.

Wait here.
Hey.

The M.E.'s confirming that
there's no stippling
or powder burns on Tanner,

so figure he was shot from
at least three feet away.

Mmm-hmm.

There's a young woman
downstairs, just in
from Pittsburgh,

looks very upset.

That's the sister of our
campus dealer.

Do we have any
progress
to report to her?

Uh, a witness picked out
this guy as someone Tanner
was having a beef with.

Manny Lopez, works with
a drug crew on 125th.

So maybe this was a turf
dispute.

Well, slugs came back
to a.22, but they're
fragmented.

Even if we do find a weapon,
matching ballistics
will be iffy.

All right. Let's go talk
to Ms. Tanner.

Oh, my God, my big brother.

When was the last time
you saw him?

It was two days ago.

I had to leave school.
My financial aid fell through.

Greg said not to go,
that he'd help me.

Megan, how did
he end up living
on campus?

It was because of me.

After he got out
of the service, he had
no place else to go.

My mom's at a home
in Pittsburgh.
She's got Parkinson's.

Dad died when I was 10.

Greg joined the Marines
so he could be like him.

Here.

He never said where
they sent him,

but me and my mom
would get e-mails,

a phone call at Christmas.

Then he showed up at my dorm
one day. He'd been discharged.

But he didn't come back
the same guy.

How was he different?

He got anxious a lot.

He needed help, but I think
he was having problems getting
his Army benefits.

Megan, do you know
what your brother was doing
on campus?

I think auditing classes.

I didn't see him much
the last few weeks.

Why?

We believe
he was dealing drugs.

Oh, God.

Greg.

He met this girl.
I wanted to give him space.
I should've...

Oh, my God, I lost him.

Excuse me.

The last time you saw
your brother,

what did the two of you
talk about?

He said he'd get me money
for school.

That he was working
on something big.

The woman
has seen it all.

Now one tale of woe
and she suddenly goes soft?

You know,
if she hears you
talking like this,

you're gonna be
eating through a straw.

Now, that's the Lieutenant
I know.

The something big the sister
mentioned could have been
a drug score,

could be how Tanner
got himself into a beef
with the competition.

So they ambush him
in the faculty garage?

Or maybe they followed
him there?

Eh, could be
he was meeting a client.

Professor Pothead.

Take this guy, for example,

a law professor by the name
of Kevin Franklin.

In the garage every day
at 1:00, out by 9:15,

except the day
that Tanner's killed.

Yeah?
Franklin breaks his pattern,

leaves his car in the garage
overnight, drives it out the
next day at noon.

He looks
vaguely familiar.

I might've seen him
around campus.

How about the faculty
garage Wednesday night?
Say, around 9:00?

I wasn't in the garage
Wednesday.

If you'll excuse me,
I have a class of
law students waiting.

Actually,
we have a few more questions.

You'll have to call me later.

Not so fast, Professor.

We believe that you were
in that garage,

maybe to do a little business
with Mr. Tanner.

Business?

Score a little pot for your
weekend barbecue.

Are you kidding me?
I used to work for
the Department of Justice.

Look, we don't care if you
like the occasional joint.

Well, I don't.

And if I saw something,
I assure you, I know
my obligations.

But I wasn't in the garage.

Then tell us why you left
your car there overnight
Wednesday.

I finished teaching my class
around 9:00.

I went to Wordplay
on Amsterdam to buy a book.

What book?

John Rawls'
Theory of Justice,
the new annotated edition.

You buy it?
No. There was a line
at the cashier,

so I walked back
to the garage. But the police
had already sealed it off.

What time was this?

Just after 9:30, I guess.

My wife was waiting up,
so I got a cab
to Grand Central

and caught the last
Metro-North to Hastings.

Right, the new Rawls edition
came in last week.

What kind of traffic
did you have at the register
Wednesday night?

Traffic? You're joking, right?

This place is dead
after dinner.

Dead. Great.

Hey, just ran Kevin Franklin
through the system.

He was arrested in Hastings
last year,

get this, on a CPW.

A CPW. How sweet is that?

Mr. Franklin got into
a fender-bender on North
Street with a Max Epstein.

And the CPW?

Epstein claimed Franklin
flashed a weapon.

That was an exaggeration,
but Franklin was carrying
a piece in a hip holster.

He said he had a carry permit,
but he couldn't produce it,
so the officer took him in.

- Did he have a permit?
- Turns out he did.

Full carry for Westchester,
and a special permit
for New York City.

The charge was dropped.

What kind of weapon
did he have?

.22 caliber
Smith & Wesson.

Sweeter and sweeter.

Franklin's alibi
doesn't hold up.

Plus, he got his
timeline wrong.

Yeah, Franklin said
he couldn't get
his car at 9:30

because the garage
was sealed off,

but the first unit
wasn't on the scene
until 9:45.

So tell me why
he killed Greg Tanner.

Money. Greg told his sister
he was working on
something big.

Our guess is he tried his hand
at blackmail.

Franklin's
a tenure-track
assistant professor of law.

Comes out he's buying pot,
he's got a lot to lose.

Academic post, law license...

None of which adds up
to probable cause
for a warrant for his gun.

We can always say, "Pretty
please with a cherry on top."

Call me when you have
some PC.

Look,
you guys need to tie
Franklin to Tanner.

Calls, meetings,
evidence of bad blood...

I have to take this.

Look, this case won't clear
itself with you guys sitting
on your ass.

Hey.

I never heard Greg mention
a Professor Franklin.

Conflict of Laws.
Civil Rights.
You want to be a lawyer?

Those are Greg's.

Is there anything else up
there that belongs to him?

That folder's not mine.

Hey, I gotta go
to a spin class, okay?

Just don't mess with my stuff.

Got you. Have fun spinning.

Oh...

Look at this.

Course syllabus
for Franklin's
Con Law classes.

And this.

I need your help with the VA.

If you'll just go on record.

I don't know
what you're talking about.

I can't do this
without you.
Please. You owe me.

Get that thing
out of my face.

That bad blood
seems to be about
the Veterans' Administration.

Tanner's sister said
he was having trouble
getting benefits.

Sergeant Tanner
received counseling
for 30 days, post-discharge.

After that, his temporary
benefits lapsed.

What was the
counseling for?

Come on, you know
I can't get into that.

How about what type
of discharge he got?
That's not classified.

He got a 513 discharge,
separation from service

due to a pre-existing
personality disorder.

Pre-existing, meaning whatever
was wrong with him wasn't
service-connected.

Meaning the military's
not on the hook
for his long-term care.

That's how it works.

Oh, man. A guy humps
it for his country
for eight years,

he comes home,
and then Uncle Sam
just kicks him to the curb.

Does that seem fair, Doc?
No.

Not for a soldier
who acquired post-traumatic
stress disorder

from doing guard duty
at Abu Ghraib.

Greg was guarding terrorists?

He said what he saw
kept him up nights.

From the stuff that Tanner
has underlined, looks like
he was preparing a lawsuit

to have his benefits
reinstated.

And he wanted Franklin
to represent him?

Can I get your attention?

Please.

Uh...

Listen, last week,
I was diagnosed with cancer.

It's manageable,
but I have to start treatment
immediately.

I'm telling you this because
I'll be coming and going
more than usual,

and I don't want
any tongues wagging.

Oh, and before I forget,
the Chief of Ds is coming
down hard on the fives,

or should I say
the lack of them.

You're all big boys and girls,
so get them done on time.

Uh, Lieu?

Yeah, what you got?

It looks like Tanner
was after Franklin

to help him sue
the government over
his veteran benefits.

Except Franklin's
a constitutional scholar,
not a benefits expert.

Well, talk to some
of Franklin's colleagues,
see what they know.

Hey, Lieu?
Yeah?

Sorry.

Yeah.

Professor Franklin
never mentioned a Greg Tanner.

I highly doubt that he'd have
anything to do with a drug
dealer.

He's wound tighter
than a Swiss watch.

He sounds pretty tough
to get along with.

He's very competitive.

We're both up for tenure,
except I don't have his fancy
government pedigree.

Not that I'm suggesting
that he's unqualified,
mind you.

Just that he's very
well-connected.

He must be.

Not too many law
professors carry permits
for handguns.

That's because of the work
he did for the Department
of Justice.

What kind of work,
drug enforcement?

No. All I can tell you

is that a number of Bush
administration documents

have recently
been declassified,

including a few memos
that Franklin wrote.

And you didn't hear
it from me.

"Techniques That May Be Used
in Interrogation of High-value
Al-Qaeda Detainees."

Now there's a sexy title.

These de-classified documents
are all about handling
terrorist suspects.

This one says

the President can send
the Army into American
neighborhoods to make arrests.

Now here's one
that Franklin wrote.

"Legal Standards
Governing the Detention
and Interrogation

"of Unlawful Enemy
Combatants,"

the entire playbook
for GITMO and Abu Ghraib.

The playbook that set
the working conditions
for guards like Tanner,

the conditions that caused
his post-traumatic stress.

Tanner might have seen
it that way.

And blame Franklin.
He said Franklin owed him,

maybe this was the payday
Tanner was talking about,

money from Franklin
for his pain and suffering.

There's your bad blood.

And our probable cause
for a search.

Let's go.

Connie, I think we've got
our PC on Franklin.

You guys are about five
minutes late.

Come on in, Detectives.

Professor Franklin
here just confessed
to shooting Greg Tanner.

He even brought the gun.

Professor Franklin
was being stalked

by a mentally disturbed
lunatic who had accosted
him in a stairwell.

If this office intends
to file charges,

my client will be arguing
self-defense.

Of myself and my country.

A plea?

First, you push for a million
in bail, and now you expect
us to take a plea?

We're here as a courtesy,

to give you a chance to drop
this charge before we publicly
embarrass you.

He shot an unarmed war veteran
from three feet away,

and we're the ones
who're supposed
to be embarrassed?

He shot a trained killer
who blamed him
for his mental problems,

demanded money
and then threatened him
when he said no.

It's a perfect case
of self-defense,

except for the running away,
the lying.

All of which evinces
a consciousness of guilt.

Now he can plead
to manslaughter one

or starting tomorrow
a grand jury will hear
all about his deceptions.

No, they won't.

What's that?
A writ of prohibition,

to exclude all statements
my client made to the police

on the grounds that
their interview with him
was custodial

and he should've been
Mirandized.

The judge threw it all out,

his phony alibi, his claims
of not knowing Tanner.

I mean, in short everything
that makes him look guilty.

I can count on the fingers
of one hand the times
I've seen a writ used

to keep evidence out
of the grand jury.

Not just any writ, but one
Franklin dashed off during
a plea conference,

complete with citations,
brilliant.

Any evidence he killed Tanner
for reasons other
than self-defense?

Nothing. The only one
who'd know is Tanner and,
well, he's not talking.

Thanks.
Oh, it's from Franklin.

He's asserting his right
to address the grand jury.

Sure. First get rid
of as many inconvenient facts
as possible,

and then spin what's left into
a self-serving tale.

The law-abiding professor
versus the deranged
drug dealer.

Spin it the other way.

Make Greg Tanner as cuddly
as a week-old puppy.

Greg was smart.

People liked him.

He believed in serving
the greater good.

But when he was over
there, in the war,

something inside him broke.

He suffered from
post-traumatic stress.

That's what a psychiatrist
told him.

He worked in the prisons,

he saw interrogations,

people being hurt,
being hanged in a shower room.

He had nightmares.
He couldn't keep a job.

Mr. Tanner approached me
one night after class.

He told me about his grievance
over his military discharge.

He wanted my help suing
to have his benefits
reinstated.

He thought
because I worked for the
Department of Justice

under the Bush administration,
that I had some special
expertise.

What work specifically
did you do?

I wrote advisory memos

governing the manner
in which suspected
terrorists were held.

Because Mr. Tanner
guarded those detainees,

he thought I had insights
into the conditions

that had caused
his post-traumatic stress.

I told him he needed
a specialist in health care
litigation.

I thought that that
was the end of it,
but a week later,

he confronted me
at the garage.

He was agitated,
he demanded money.

He said that I was responsible
for his mental problems.

I tried to reason with him,
but he wouldn't let me leave.

I was trapped by
this deranged ex-soldier.

Did he actually threaten
to kill you?

I was in fear for my life.
He kept saying,

"You're not leaving."

And then he started
toward me and...

That's...

That's when I shot him.

He fell,

he stopped moving.

What did you do then?
Did you call the police?

Somebody else did.

I wish that I had had
the presence of mind
to stay calm,

but I was in shock.

And it took you four days
to regain your composure

and turn yourself
in to the police?

No. I was in contact
with the police before
the formality of my surrender.

You were "in contact"?
Please describe
those contacts.

Mr. Cutter, I would
be happy to tell
the grand jury

what I discussed
with the police,
but there's a judicial writ

prohibiting me from doing so

because of the misbehavior
of your detectives.

He cooperated from the get-go.
It's the police
who misbehaved.

I let myself get bushwhacked.

Twice.

We got bushwhacked twice.

Tanner's sister
told the police

that he never talked to her
about his service in Iraq.

But she testified that
he witnessed interrogations.

She might've gotten that
from news reports on the case.

No. She said he saw people
hanged in a shower room.

That wasn't in the news.

Thanks.

No bill. The grand jury
bought Franklin's story.

Next stop, Megan Tanner?

I told the police the truth.
Greg never said anything
to me.

Well, then where did you hear
about this shower room?

My mom needs
to know that Greg
served with honor,

like my dad.

She's very sick

and if she ever found out
that he did that,

well, I don't think
she could take it.

Why? What did he do?

When Greg was living with me,
he made a video diary.

I found it on my computer
after he died.

We walked the detainee
into the shower room.

He was handcuffed
and he was wearing a hood
over his head.

The interrogator told us
to hang him

by his wrists from the bars
of a window, like this,

with his hands behind
his back, up high

so the guy can't kneel or sit,
and all the weight is on
his arms and chest.

The 'gator said the guy

was an unlawful combatant

and under the rules, we could
do whatever we want with him.

We hooked him up and
we left him with the 'gator.

An hour later, the 'gator
called us back in.

He wanted us to reposition
the detainee.

The detainee was
slumped forward.

His arms were almost out
of their sockets,
he wasn't responsive.

Then we took the hood off
his head

and all this blood poured out
of his mouth.

He was...

He was dead.

And those rules,

those damn rules
were wrong.

We had to live by them
and it messed us up.

I found one of the guys
who wrote the rules,
here at the college.

I got to get right with this.

I didn't join the service
to murder people.

Can we confirm this story?

Tanner was stationed
at Abu Ghraib in 2003,

and there was a death that fit
his description in November
of that year.

Yeah, he talks about other
interrogations he witnessed

in Iraq and GITMO,
enhanced interrogations,
water-boardings,

what all kept him up at night.

Maybe that's what was going
through Franklin's mind when
he shot Tanner.

Maybe he thought Tanner
was threatening to implicate
him in a death by torture.

Franklin was bucking
for tenure. Controversy's
the last thing he wanted.

He shot Tanner in a panic,

not to defend his life
but to protect his position.

Forget it. You had your bite
at the grand jury.

Franklin is getting away
with killing Tanner.

This memo he wrote
for the Department of Justice

laid out the legal
architecture

permitting the abuse
of prisoners,

abuse that led directly
to this death in Iraq.

You could argue this memo
is an element in a conspiracy
to commit assault

and depraved
indifference murder.

Someone could try to argue it,
if they had jurisdiction.

Have you looked at the time
stamp on this?

"April 10th, 2003,
1 St. Andrews Plaza."

Franklin was working at
the US Attorney's office
downtown when he wrote it?

Right under our noses.

It's the jurisdictional nexus
we need to prosecute him.

We already have the testimony
of one of his co-conspirators.

Jack, you want to prosecute
a member of the Bush
administration

for assaulting
suspected terrorists?

The word is torturing,

and, yes, it's about time
somebody did.

Draw up a bill of indictment
against Franklin.

Gladly.

The People have met
their jurisdictional
requirement, Mr. Granick.

Your motion's denied.

But, Your Honor,

a conspiracy charge requires
an agreement between
the conspirators.

There is no agreement between
Mr. Tanner and my client

to assault prisoners in 2003.

The agreement is manifest
by the fact
the recommendations

in Mr. Franklin's memo
were conveyed
by intermediaries

to Mr. Tanner in the field
and agreed to by him.

They haven't
connected the dots.

Those intermediaries should
be named in the indictment
as co-conspirators

or the charge is legally
insufficient.

Franklin's daring us to indict
the whole chain of command.

Have you actually read
Franklin's memo?

Cover to cover?
No, not yet.

Read his advice to anyone

worried about being charged
with torture.

"If a defendant has a good
faith belief that his actions

"will not result in prolonged
mental harm,

"he lacks the specific intent
necessary for his actions
to constitute torture.

"A defendant could show that
he acted in good faith

"by surveying
the professional literature

"or consulting with experts.

"Good faith is
a complete defense

"to a charge of torture."

He's telling the interrogators
how to circumvent the law.

Just remember, kids,
if you're going to torture,
read a book first!

They want co-conspirators?

I'll give them
co-conspirators.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Former Secretary of Defense?
Vice-President Cheney?

In for a penny,
in for a pound, Mr. Cutter?

The indictments are being
served as we speak,
Your Honor.

Mr. Franklin can consider
the dots connected.

It's absurd. Mr. Cutter
is making a mockery
of the conspiracy statutes.

It's clear who's behind this.

Jack McCoy obviously took
exception to my boss's conduct
of the War on Terror,

and now he's politicizing
this prosecution.

If Mr. Franklin is afraid
a trial might embarrass
his former colleagues,

he's always welcome
to take a plea.

I see no reason
for this indictment
not to proceed.

See you all at trial.

So far so good.
This was nothing.

The real hailstorm's going
to come when those indictments

start landing
on the co-conspirators' desks.

Our clients sent us here
hoping we can talk some sense
into you, Mr. McCoy.

You wouldn't be
the first to try.

You're going to spark
a constitutional crisis,
and that's no threat.

Is that really the valediction
you want for your career?

You let me worry about
my career.

And now, unless you're all
here to talk about a plea,
there's the door.

A plea?

You actually believe that you,
a county D.A., can prosecute
a former Vice-President,

cabinet members,
for their conduct of a war
on foreign soil?

I prosecuted a Chilean colonel
for the murder of
a US citizen in Santiago.

So government officials
who torture prisoners

on American military bases?

Sure, why not?

This is why not.

This is just the beginning.

We'll keep churning them out
until your office is drowning
in motions.

Motions for change of venue,
motions to dismiss,
to suppress.

The trial starts next week.
We'll be lucky to get through
just one of these bricks.

Strawn doesn't
represent everybody.

We'll sever the trials.
We'll try Franklin
and his associates first.

We convict them,

then move up the chain
of command.

Connie, assemble a team,

get them working
on Strawn's motions.

Cards on the table, Jack,

I think we bit off more than
we can chew.

And I'm not even convinced
of our legal standing.

I know.

You value legalities
over ethics,

but sometimes doing
what's ethical
is more important.

You can insult me all
you want, Jack,

but maybe the ethical thing
to do here is to save American
lives.

We're at war with people
who've sworn to kill us
for who we are.

It doesn't matter
if it's civilians, women,
children,

as long as they kill
Americans.

And if we have to use force
to extract the information
we need

to protect ourselves,

well, then maybe that's
the right thing to do.

I see.

Maybe I should find somebody
else to prosecute Franklin.

Oh, no. You can count
on my obsession
with legalities.

If there's a way to prove
that Franklin broke the law,

I'm your man.

It's called
a Palestinian hanging.

It's how the North Vietnamese
tortured Senator John McCain
when he was a POW.

It's one of the stress
positions sanctioned
by Mr. Franklin's memo.

What other harsh techniques
are sanctioned
by Mr. Franklin's memo?

The most well-known
is water-boarding,

where a detainee is held down,

a cloth is placed over
his face and water is poured

over his mouth and nose
to simulate drowning.

And who, if anyone
besides the US military,

has used this interrogation
technique?

The Spanish Inquisition.

And after
the Second World War,

we convicted Japanese
officers of war crimes

for water-boarding
our POWs.

Now you told us that during
your career in the military,

you participated in over
a thousand interrogations.

Did you ever use any
of these harsh techniques?

No, sir. We took down terror
networks with tools
like respect,

rapport, cunning
and deception.

Not the techniques
in this memo?

Besides the fact I have
a moral problem with torture,
it doesn't work, sir.

In fact, it works against us.

It's hypocritical to defend
our values with torture.

That hypocrisy

is the best recruiting
tool you can give
to the terrorists.

Thank you.

I want to be clear,
Mr. Gardner.

If you had a terrorist

who you believed
had information

about a dirty bomb
set to go off

in this city
within 24 hours,

you wouldn't avail yourself
of every possible technique

to extract information
from him?

A man in severe pain
or mental anguish

will say anything
to make it stop.

If you only have
24 hours,

the last thing you want
to do is waste time
chasing down false leads.

Torture just doesn't work.

No one here's advocating
torture, Mr. Gardner.

We're talking about harsh
techniques.

I know what we're talking
about, sir.

I don't need a memo
to tell me what torture is.

Jack?

David. What a nice surprise.

Come with me,
I'm taking the stairs.
I need the exercise.

So do you, kid.

How're they treating
you in Washington?

Good. The Attorney General's
no Jack McCoy,
but I'm learning a lot.

Jack, they sent me here
to talk to you about
the Franklin case.

They want you
to call it off.

The jury's empanelled,
jeopardy has attached.

They don't care. They want
the charges dismissed against
all the defendants.

I don't get it. The new
administration doesn't
have a dog in this fight.

We can't let state prosecutors
try to hold federal officials
accountable

for their conduct of a war.
It's a bad precedent.

In any event, the Attorney
General's naming a special
prosecutor

to investigate torture claims.

I heard. To go after
the small fry, a couple
of thugs in the field.

What about the policy-makers,
the deciders?

Right. They get
a free pass because

if you go after the previous
administration's dirty
laundry,

the next administration will
go after yours.

That's the precedent
you don't want to set.

It's just politics, Jack.

I don't know what you're
learning over there, David,

but you've forgotten
everything you learned here.

Tell the Attorney General
no deal.

Information is perhaps

the most critical weapon
for defeating the terrorist
threat.

Our success rests
on our ability to extract
that information.

I was asked to advise
the Defense Department
as to the legal standards

governing the interrogation
of terrorist suspects.

I put my findings in a memo

and sent it on
to the relevant parties.

Thank you.

Mr. Franklin, isn't it fair
to characterize the legal
standards

you set governing
the interrogations of suspects
as "anything goes,

"so long as the President
orders it,"

and in his capacity
as Commander-in-chief
in a time of war,

he has the authority to issue
any order he deems
appropriate?

The President can't break
the law.

Well, according to your memo,
what law is the President
bound by in the War on Terror,

the Geneva and Hague
Conventions?

Not applicable because
terrorist detainees
are illegal combatants.

The Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment?

Not applicable to alien
enemy combatants held abroad.

The Eighth Amendment ban
on cruel and unusual
punishment?

Not applicable
because harsh interrogations
are not punishment.

So you are saying, in war,
the President is bound
by no laws?

Yes, in war.

So if he deems he's got
to torture somebody,
for example,

by crushing the testicles
of that person's child,

your memo says
there is no law, no treaty
that can stop him?

Well, it would depend on why
the President thinks he needs
to do that.

Now, your memo justifies
these actions

because the detainees
are not regular soldiers

in a national army
as we understand it,
correct?

Correct. Unlawful enemy
combatants are not entitled
to the usual protections.

Is it too much to assume
they'd be protected by our own
sense of decency?

That's not the task
I was given, Mr. Cutter.

My memo addressed legal,
not ethical standards.

Now, your memo says that,
"Historically, nations
and their sovereigns

"have been free to treat
unlawful combatants
as they wish."

Could you please give us
such an historical example?

Well, off the top
of my head...

What about this example?

The summary execution
of a Vietcong guerilla

by a South Vietnamese general.

Or this,

the torture and murder
of Polish resistance fighters
by the German army?

Is this the historical right
you say the President should
avail himself of?

I didn't invent the right
of sovereigns, Mr. Cutter.
I simply defined it.

The right to do what they want
with unlawful combatants.

Yes.
Unlawful combatants like

the American militia
after King George
declared them rebels?

Yes, like that.

So you would defend the brutal
treatment of American
prisoners

by the British during
the Revolutionary War?

From a legal standpoint, yes.

Mr. Franklin, what is it
about this country that
you don't get?

Withdrawn.

No more questions.

There was a state senator
on just now calling
for your removal as D.A.

You know, that day,

eight years ago, we could
see the towers burn
from Adam's window.

I remember.

Part of me says
I don't care what you do
to these detainees.

I don't want to know.

Just protect us.

The problem is,

now we do know.

Yeah, and I'm not sure
that makes a difference.

We're wanted in federal
court tomorrow.

The Attorney General
is asking the court
to issue an order

staying the District
Attorney's prosecution

of Mr. Franklin
and the other defendants.

They can't just step in
and stop the trial.

Under the Supremacy Clause
of the Constitution,

actions taken by federal
officials in pursuit
of foreign policy

are not grist for state
prosecutions.

If those actions are illegal,
as torture clearly is,

there's no overriding
federal interest

in shielding those who enabled
such actions.

All right, gentlemen.

I'll take the motion
under advisement.

I'll issue my ruling
by the end of the day.

In the meantime,
the state trial can proceed.

I never expected this of you.

You're way off
the reservation, Jack.

Damn it, David.

I'm trying to save
the reservation.

We're looking forward,
not backward.

We're not looking to give aid
and comfort to the enemy.

What are you accusing me of?

My client never
tortured anybody.

He never ordered another
or conspired with others
to commit torture.

As a member of the Office
of Legal Counsel

of the Department of Justice
and in service

to his Commander-in-chief,
he was asked to give
a legal opinion.

It might not be the most

brilliant opinion ever
written, but in the end,

it's just that,
a legal opinion.

Whether or not we agree
on the conduct

of the War on Terror,
we can all still agree

that in this country,

you have to actually
commit a crime

to be convicted of one.

Thank you.

This is no simple legal
opinion, ladies and gentlemen.

This is an instruction
on how to commit a crime
and avoid prosecution,

a surgical parsing of words
to draw hair-splitting
distinctions

between severe pain
and extreme pain.

The creation of a special
class of prisoners

who are fair game
for any suffering we might
subject them to.

This is the legal grease

that enabled the conspirators
to commit acts

that are immoral and illegal.

Hanging prisoners

by their wrists until
their lungs collapse
against their ribs,

water-boarding one detainee
over 180 times.

Now, Mr. Franklin's defense
is that he was
just following orders

as a mere lawyer
in the Justice Department.

Well, like all lawyers,

he was employed as the last
and best defense
against injustice,

to use the law as a shield
to protect people.

But instead, he used it
as a sword to injure them.

Where he was sworn
to uphold the Constitution,

he used his legal education
to subvert it,

to shame it

and betray its promise
to the world.

Five days after 9/11,

Vice-President Cheney
told us that we would have
to "work the dark side"

to fight terrorists.

Well, we never imagined
that to mean

that we would cede control
to our own dark side.

The tactics justified
in Mr. Franklin's
memo draw

from the worst
of our nature.

Even in the midst
of the Revolutionary War,

in the midst of the Civil War,

Presidents Washington
and Lincoln

admonished their troops
not to injure their prisoners.

Now, some of you may feel

that it is not the place
of this jury,

or even the People,

to question the actions
of our government officials
during a time of war.

That the premise
of this trial itself
somehow is

treasonous.

I would assure you,

ladies and gentlemen,

it is not disloyal

to hold our officials
to the highest standards
of conduct.

And it is not disloyal

to allow you, the People,
to decide

what you want done
in your name.

Thank you.

Has the jury
reached a verdict?

We have, Your Honor.

The defendant
will stand.

On the first count
of the indictment,

Conspiracy in the...

What's going on, Eddie?

He's a Federal Marshal,
with an order
from the district court.

Bring it here.

The federal court
for the southern district

has issued an order
preempting this prosecution.

The trial is over.

Ladies
and gentlemen of the jury,
thank you for your service.

We're adjourned.

Your Honor,
the jury had a verdict.

There's no verdict until
it's entered in the record.
It's over, Mr. Cutter.

I'll start checking the case
law, see what
our next step is.

You won't find anything.
There's no recourse.

The people who want you out,
Jack, they'll use this
to hammer you.

Good. At the end of the day,
I hope to give them even more
reason to be mad at me.

Come on, Mike.