I think ultimately that the courts, and the DOJ, have run roughshod not over M+M, but rather over the interviewees. Those former members of violent organizations did a reasonable thing for a reasonable purpose, speaking candidly in an effort to help future social science researchers understand political violence. That’s a positive effort toward a socially valuable goal, and future participants in political violence won’t make the same choice after this. I agree that this whole mess is bad policy in the executive branch more than it’s bad application of law in the courts.

I do notice the reciprocal nature of the MLATs, and I think in this case that it’s another argument against the way they’re currently applied and controlled. The government of the UK is misusing law enforcement authority to pursue a political vendetta against an enemy of the British state, but don’t worry — it’s totally reciprocal.

If this MLAT request doesn’t result in law enforcement action, then we need to notice, and we need to reconsider. It seems to me that we are about to see clear evidence that MLATs can be instruments for political recrimination dressed up in a police uniform.

Well, I disagree that there is no judicial oversight—a court deciding that you have no privilege to refuse to turn over documents is hardly the same as a court refusing to exercise oversight. To put this another way, your view implies that the US rode roughshod over the rights of M&M, but it’s precisely to the question whether M&M had a right that the government was seeking to violate that the US courts gave careful consideration and detailed reasons for their ultimate conclusion.

You could be right that the Attorney General exercised less political oversight than he should have. The treaty allows him to refuse to comply with a request if he believes that the request would “impair [the United States’s] sovereignty, security, or other essential interests or would be contrary to important public policy,” or in cases of double jeopardy, or if the US regards the offense as “an offense of a political character” or an offense only under military law. These matters are within his discretion, and the remedy for perceived mistakes is, in the end, at the polls.

I also think your view fails to account for the reciprocal character of the MLAT. It’s true that the US government agrees to act as agent for the UK government with only limited grounds for refusing a request. But the UK government also acts on our government’s requests. So we benefit from the treaty to the same extent as we are burdened by it.