HAYDEN AND MUKASEY TRY TO EVADE THE TORTURE PROBLEM

In order to defend the legality of what any reasonable person would deem illegal interrogation procedures, they lapse into relativism:

Those charged with the responsibility of gathering potentially lifesaving information from unwilling captives are now told essentially that any legal opinion they get as to the lawfulness of their activity is only as durable as political fashion permits. Even with a seemingly binding opinion in hand, which future CIA operations personnel would take the risk? There would be no wink, no nod, no handshake that would convince them that legal guidance is durable. Any president who wants to apply such techniques without such a binding and durable legal opinion had better be prepared to apply them himself.

This isn't simply a matter of changing tastes, it's a matter of what the law requires and that's what Hayden and Mukasey have deliberately avoided, as did Prof. Yoo when he tried to explain the torture memos as a product of circumstances rather than objective legal reasoning.