We tortured people. I mean, 30 years ago, we would have said that. America wouldn't do that. But we systematically did it. We rationalized it through high-level, you know, legal counsel, albeit fraudulent, lawyering, and no one was held accountable.

Hi, and welcome back to Amicus.

This is Slate's podcast about the law and the courts, the Supreme Court, the rule of law.

I'm Dahlia Lithwick, and I cover those things for Slate.

This weekend marks the 20th anniversary of 9-11.

And as the withdrawal from Afghanistan continues to dominate the headlines, so does the

conversation about this forever war on terror and its implications.

We're going to be talking to one of the lawyers who has been litigating in the extra legal,

extra constitutional spaces created by this war on terror.

Later on in the show, Slate Plus members will get to join Mark Joseph Stern and myself for a conversation

about the Supreme Court's latest shadow doucate activities and what to make of the

court's decision to take up a case involving religious freedom in the execution chamber.

That segment is accessible only to Slate Plus members.

If you are not a member, you can always sign up at slate.com slash amicusplus

and access bonus content like my conversations with Mark

and add free versions of all of the Slate network of podcasts,

and you will never hit a paywall on slate.com.

That is slate.com slash amicus plus.

And as ever, we thank you for supporting the show and the

journalism we do. But first, 9-11 changed the way that we think about absolutely everything,

deemed the most egregious act of international terror. It killed almost 3,000 people,

and changed the way America thought about Muslims, about terrorism, about the Middle East, but also how we started to think about

...