Can We Handle The Truth?
Volume 85, No. 4, Summer 2013
By Louis M. Natali, Jr.

My purpose is not to change the law, at least not now, at this point in the debate. The fact that courts, including the Supreme Court and most federal and state courts, have given such short shrift to arguments opposing deception in interrogation signals that much work needs to be done to lay the groundwork for such a sea of change. So rather than abolish the network of deceptive practices, I want to use the doctrine of containment to ensure that these practices do not grow larger and more accepted.

It took forty-five years for George F. Kennan’s containment doctrine to halt the growth and then bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was done without a single volley being fired across its borders. I am prepared to wait that long, and, realistically, it may take that long.

What I aim to do is challenge the doctrinal and psychological framework that allows for deception. Gradually, appellate courts and scholars may force recognition of the practice’s faulty rationale. Perhaps then courts will begin to dismantle the structure that allows it.

READ ARTICLE…Natali – 85 – L – Rev – 839