DOCSLIB.ORG

Going Forward: Improving the Legal Advice of National Security Lawyers William J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Going Forward: Improving the Legal Advice of National Security Lawyers William J Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 32 Issue 2 The Pen, the Sword, and the Waterboard: Article 7 Ethical Lawyering in the “Global War on Terroism” 5-1-2009 Going Forward: Improving the Legal Advice of National Security Lawyers William J. Dunn Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation William J. Dunn, Going Forward: Improving the Legal Advice of National Security Lawyers, 32 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 241 (2009), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol32/iss2/7 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GOING FORWARD: IMPROVING THE LEGAL ADVICE OF NATIONAL SECURITY LAWYERS William J. Dunn* Abstract: Attorney General Mukasey was correct when he noted that na- tional security lawyers traditionally oscillate between aggression and timid- ity. Debates about which extreme is “better,” however, miss the larger point; namely, that these cycles are driven by factors that the competent national security lawyer has a duty to understand. Such a thorough knowl- edge allows lawyers in this field to dampen the harmful oscillation and render the best legal advice possible. After identifying factors that affect the rendering of such counsel, the author makes several specific policy rec- ommendations that will assist lawyers—who are “uniquely suited to bear this responsibility” —in this critical task. Introduction The commencement remarks of Attorney General Michael Mu- kasey at Boston College Law School stirred debate about the proper role of a government lawyer in providing legal advice regarding com- plex, challenging, and gravely important issues of national security.1 Attorney General Mukasey provided his vision of how lawyers should “do law” in this environment.2 The premise underlying his vision is that lawyers partake in and contribute to “cycles of timidity and aggression,” where the national security community oscillates between periods of controversial, aggressive energy and risk-averse retrenchment.3 The lesson drawn by the Attorney General and the advice he imparted on * Attorney at the law firm Ropes & Gray, LLP. The author graduated from Boston Col- lege Law School in 2006. Prior to law school, he worked as an intelligence analyst for the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, where he focused on issues of military strategy and doctrine; he served as a crisis analyst and briefer at the National Mili- tary Joint Intelligence Center in the Pentagon. 1 See, e.g., Peter Schworm, Some at BC Seek to Uninvite Mukasey from Commencement, Bos- ton Globe, Mar. 23, 2008, at B5. 2 See Michael B. Mukasey, The Role of Lawyers in the Global War on Terrorism, 32 B.C. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 179, 184 (2009). 3 Id. The Attorney General referenced that term as used by former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith. See Jack Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency 163 (2007). 241 242 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review [Vol. 32:241 the graduating class is that the threat posed by terrorism today raises the stakes too high for national security lawyers to fall back into the role of risk-averse and obstructionist actors.4 The Attorney General provides a valid lesson to aspiring lawyers. Lawyers in all capacities must counsel clients, and the indispensable in- gredient of sound counsel is the ability to render a judgment that not only sets out, but seeks to resolve the balance between the costs and benefits of a particular action.5 A lawyer who advises a client solely based on a worst case scenario does not achieve this balance. In the context of national security issues, the failure to provide sound counsel leads un- necessarily to constraints on governmental actors in the pursuit of le- gitimate and necessary aims.6 These constraints carry costs, as demonstrated by the tragically flawed legal opinions rendered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Security Law Unit. In these opinions, FBI lawyers pre- vented an investigation into Khalid al-Mihdhar by relying on a fictional legal wall between intelligence and criminal agencies that purportedly did not allow the sharing of information.7 Mihdhar had connections with the terrorist bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa and the at- tack against the U.S.S. Cole.8 He later assisted in the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 that was flown into the Pentagon.9 The problem with the Attorney General’s analysis lies not with his description of the proper role of a lawyer as counselor, or even his con- clusion that lawyers cannot recoil in the face of public scrutiny or legal uncertainty into an obstructionist, ultra-conservative position regarding national security law. The Attorney General errs by not looking criti- cally at both the crests and troughs of the “cycles of timidity and aggres- sion.”10 More specifically, the Attorney General myopically focuses on the reactive, dependent side of that historical pendulum without con- sidering the equally—if not more—important lessons that must be drawn from the independent, causation side of governmental over- 4 See generally Mukasey, supra note 2. 5 See Lorie M. Graham, Aristotle’s Ethics and the Virtuous Lawyer: Part One of a Study on Le- gal Ethics and Clinical Legal Education, 20 J. Legal Prof. 5, 31–34 (1996). 6 See Goldsmith, supra note 3, at 163. 7 See The 9/11 Commission Report, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 181–82, 231–39, 270–72 (2004). 8 Id. at 151. 9 Id. at 231–40. 10 In his remarks, the Attorney General focuses almost exclusively on the risk-averse side of the “pendulum.” See Mukasey, supra note 2, at 184. 2009] Improving the Legal Advice of National Security Lawyers 243 reaching.11 He errs because he sees the retrenchment of the intelli- gence community and presumably the growth of risk-averse counsel as a choice, rather than an atmosphere forced upon them by a public seeking to right a listing governmental vessel and to recapture rights ceded to claims of necessity.12 When considering both sides of this cycle together, governmental overreaching to achieve temporal objectives reveals itself as short- sighted. By overreaching, the government may address a risk it per- ceives to be genuine.13 If it is accomplished, however, through the use of illegal or unduly aggressive means, the resulting public backlash may not only strip away the excess but also incapacitate the agency or agent.14 In that resulting anemic atmosphere, national security threats continue, but the government is less capable of addressing them.15 As a result, by taking a comprehensive view of this cycle of action and reac- 11 “We cannot afford to invite another ‘cycle of timidity’ in the intelligence commu- nity; the stakes are simply too high.” Id. at 185. 12 In fact, the Attorney General advises that a good lawyer should “tune out all this white noise” and does not address the fact that the public, in response to egregious over- reaching asserts its constitutional voice through demands on its representatives. Id. at 185. 13 Furthermore, history often demonstrates that such risks were not as dire as per- ceived. “After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully real- ized that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to pre- vent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis came along.” William J. Brennan, Jr., The Quest to Develop a Jurisprudence of Civil Liberties in Times of Security Crisis, 18 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 11, 11 (1988). Some noteworthy examples of perceived risks that, with the benefit of hindsight, may be viewed as overreactions include Andrew Jackson’s suspension of habeas corpus and the arrest of Federal District Judge Dominick Hall after the Battle of New Orleans, President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, despite little actual threat to Washington D.C., and the now infamous internment of Japa- nese-Americans after Pearl Harbor where the government argued, among other reasons, that the Japanese-Americans were sending signals to Japanese submarines. See Matthew Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law 35–36 (2006) (describ- ing circumstances surrounding the arrest of Judge Hall); Malick W. Ghachem & Daniel Gordon, From Emergency Law to Legal Process: Herbert Wechsler and the Second World War, 40 Suff. U. L. Rev. 333, 340 (2007) (discussing military justifications for internment of Japa- nese-Americans); David Greenberg, Lincoln’s Crackdown, Slate, Nov. 30, 2001, http://www. slate.com/id/2059132 (detailing Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus). 14 See Goldsmith, supra note 3, at 163. The risk-averse nature of legal advice criticized by the 9/11 Commission was, in many respects, a reaction to the aggressive posturing of William J. Casey—lawyer and President Ronald Reagan’s first Director of the CIA—who went so far as to literally move the Office of the General Counsel for the CIA outside of the headquarters. He followed up this symbolic move with a philosophical and practical shift in President Carter’s anemic intelligence policy. See Dorian D. Greene, Ethical Dilemmas Confronting Intelligence Agency Counsel, 2 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int’l L. 91, 105–06 (1994). 15 See Goldsmith, supra note 3, at 163–64. 244 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review [Vol.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CJR - Iraqgate, by Russ W
    CJR - Iraqgate, by Russ W. Baker March/April 1993 | Contents IRAQGATE The Big One That (Almost) Got Away Who Chased it -- and Who Didn't by Russ W. Baker Baker, a member of the adjunct faculty at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, is a free-lance writer who regularly contributes to The Village Voice. Research assistance was provided by Julie Asher in Washington and Daniel Eisenberg in New York. ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop. "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy." Is this accurate? Just about every reporter following the story thinks so. Most say that the so-called Iraqgate scandal is far more significant then either Watergate or Iran-contra, both in its scope and its consequences. And all believe that, with investigations continuing, it is bound to get bigger. Why, then, have some of our top papers provided so little coverage? Certainly, if you watched Nightline or read the London Financial Times or the Los Angeles Times, you saw this monster grow. But if you studied the news columns of The Washington Post or, especially, The New York Times, you practically missed the whole thing. Those two papers were very slow to come to the story and, when they finally did get to it, their pieces all too frequently were boring, complicated,and short of the analysis readers required to fathom just what was going on.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT
    Case 14-2985, Document 88, 12/15/2014, 1393895, Page1 of 64 14-2985-cv IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT In the Matter ofd a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Appellant, —v.— UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT LAURA R. HANDMAN ALISON SCHARY DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 973-4200 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Media Organizations Case 14-2985, Document 88, 12/15/2014, 1393895, Page2 of 64 OF COUNSEL Indira Satyendra David Vigilante John W. Zucker CABLE NEWS NETWORK , INC . ABC, INC . One CNN Center 77 West 66th Street, 15th Floor Atlanta, GA 30303 New York, NY 10036 Counsel for Cable News Network, Counsel for ABC, Inc. Inc. Richard A. Bernstein Andrew Goldberg SABIN , BERMANT & GOULD LLP THE DAILY BEAST One World Trade Center 555 West 18th Street 44th Floor New York, New York 10011 New York, NY 10007 Counsel for The Daily Beast Counsel for Advance Publications, Company LLC Inc. Matthew Leish Kevin M. Goldberg Cyna Alderman FLETCHER HEALD & HILDRETH NEW YORK DAILY NEWS 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor 4 New York Plaza Arlington, VA 22209 New York, NY 10004 Counsel for the American Counsel for Daily News, L.P. Society of News Editors and the Association of Alternative David M. Giles Newsmedia THE E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY 312 Walnut St., Suite 2800 Scott Searl Cincinnati, OH 45202 BH MEDIA GROUP Counsel for The E.W.
    [Show full text]
  • RCFP Comment on Rule 41
    February 17, 2015 1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1250 Washington, D.C. 20005 Members of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules (202) 795-9300 www.rcfp.org Bruce D. Brown Re: Comment of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press on Executive Director [email protected] (202) 795-9301 the Proposed Amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 STEERING COMMITTEE Concerning “Remote Access” Searches of Electronic Storage Media and STEPHEN J. ADLER Electronic Information Reuters SCOTT APPLEWHITE The Associated Press The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (“Reporters WOLF BLITZER CNN Committee”) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed DAVID BOARDMAN Temple University amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure CHIP BOK concerning “remote access” searches of computers and other electronic Creators Syndicate JAN CRAWFORD devices. The amendment was proposed by the Department of Justice and CBS News 1 MICHAEL DUFFY modified by the Committee in April 2014. Time RICHARD S. DUNHAM Tsinghua University, Beijing The Reporters Committee is a voluntary, unincorporated association ASHLEA EBELING Forbes Magazine of reporters and editors dedicated to safeguarding the First Amendment rights SUSAN GOLDBERG and freedom of information interests of the news media and the public. The National Geographic FRED GRAHAM Reporters Committee has provided assistance, guidance, and research in First Founding Member JOHN C. HENRY Amendment and freedom of information litigation since 1970. The Reporters Freelance Committee frequently represents the interests of the press and the public NAT HENTOFF United Media Newspaper Syndicate before Article III courts. The Reporters Committee is concerned that the JEFF LEEN The Washington Post proposed amendment to Rule 41 would intrude on vital constitutional and DAHLIA LITHWICK statutory rights protecting the news media and the free press.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL JOURNAL: What Bush Was Told About Iraq (03/02/2006) 6/18/09 4:28 PM
    NATIONAL JOURNAL: What Bush Was Told About Iraq (03/02/2006) 6/18/09 4:28 PM ADMINISTRATION What Bush Was Told About Iraq By Murray Waas, National Journal © National Journal Group Inc. Thursday, March 2, 2006 Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources. The first report, delivered to Bush in early October The president received highly classified 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether intelligence reports containing information at Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum odds with his justifications for going to war. tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon. Among other things, the report stated that the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research believed that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons," a view disagreeing with that of other intelligence agencies, including the CIA, which believed that the tubes were intended for a nuclear bomb. The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protect America Act: One Nation Under Surveillance
    Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Volume 29 Number 1 Symposium: Soft Money 4 Article 5 9-1-2008 The Protect America Act: One Nation under Surveillance Shahab Mossavar-Rahmani Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Shahab Mossavar-Rahmani, The Protect America Act: One Nation under Surveillance, 29 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 133 (2008). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol29/iss1/5 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT: ONE NATION UNDER GOD SURVEILLANCE I. INTRODUCTION Early in the morning on December 16, 2005, people across the United States awoke to the smell of freshly brewed coffee and learned that their own government had been spying on them for over three years.1 A New York Times (Times) article revealed that President George W. Bush authorized a secret wiretapping program for the National Security Agency (NSA) in the months following the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks.2 Current and former officials from the Bush Administration discussed the story with journalists from the Times because these officials had legitimate concerns about the legality and oversight of the operation. According to the Times article, "the intelligence agency ha[d] monitored the international telephone calls..
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Dilemmas Facing White House Counsel in the Trump Administration: the Costs of Public Disclosure of Fisa Requests
    LEGAL DILEMMAS FACING WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: THE COSTS OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF FISA REQUESTS Peter Margulies* INTRODUCTION Not every presidential administration can forge a new brand of government lawyering. Historically, government lawyering has swung between two poles: (1) dialogic lawyering, which stresses reasoned elaboration, respect for institutions, and continuity with unwritten norms embodied in past practice; and (2) insular lawyering, which entails opaque definitions, disregard of other institutions, and departures from unwritten norms.1 Because President Trump regularly signals his disdain for institutions, such as the intelligence community, and unwritten norms, such as prosecutorial independence,2 senior lawyers in the White House have added a new mode of legal representation that entails ad hoc adjustments to President Trump’s mercurial decisions and triage among the presidential decisions they will try to temper. Call it: lifeboat lawyering. Lifeboat lawyering, as practiced by Donald F. McGahn II—the first White House Counsel of the Trump administration3—and others, involves * Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law. B.A., Colgate University; J.D., Columbia Law School. I thank Bob Bauer and participants at the Fordham Law Review Colloquium on The Varied Roles, Regulation, and Professional Responsibility of Government Lawyers for comments on a previous draft. For more information on the Colloquium, which was hosted by the Fordham Law Review and the Stein Center for Law and Ethics on October 12, 2018, at Fordham University School of Law, see Bruce A. Green, Lawyers in Government Service—a Foreword, 87 FORDHAM L. REV. 1791 (2019). 1. See Peter Margulies, Reforming Lawyers into Irrelevance?: Reconciling Crisis and Constraint at the Office of Legal Counsel, 39 PEPP.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Brief
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH Case No. 18-MJ-723 (PK) SPECIFIED E-MAIL ACCOUNTS UNOPPOSED BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, AND 21 MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS* IN SUPPORT OF MICROSOFT’S OBJECTIONS TO ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY SECRECY ORDER * A full list of the amici can be found in Appendix A. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is an unincorporated association of reporters and editors with no parent corporation and no stock. ALM Media, LLC is privately owned, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock. The American Society of Magazine Editors is a trade association with no parent corporation and no stock. Association of Alternative Newsmedia has no parent corporation and does not issue any stock. First Look Media Works, Inc. is a nonprofit non-stock corporation organized under the laws of Delaware. No publicly-held corporation holds an interest of 10% or more in First Look Media Works, Inc. Gannett Co., Inc. is a publicly traded company and has no affiliates or subsidiaries that are publicly owned. BlackRock, Inc., a publicly traded company, owns 10 percent or more of Gannett’s stock. The International Documentary Association is a not-for-profit organization with no parent corporation and no stock. Investigative Studios, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation formally affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley. It has no statutory members and no stock. The McClatchy Company is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange American under the ticker symbol MNI.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
    08 CV 3584 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR v. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Civil Action No. Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. This is an action for injunctive and other appropriate reliefunder the Freedom ofInformation Act ("ForA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (collectively "ACLU") seek the immediate processing and release ofrecords plaintiffs requested through the FOIA from defendant Federal Bureau ofInvestigation ("FBI"). 2. Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request ("Request") to the FBI on November 29, 2007, after the Department ofDefense ("DoD") released records to the ACLU in response to a separate FOIA lawsuit that suggested the FBI may be issuing National Security Letters ("NSLs") for the military in DoD investigations. Plaintiffs' Request sought records concerning the FBI's issuance ofNSLs in non-FBI investigations or at the behest ofother agencies such as the DoD. The Request also sought records concerning the FBI's implementation and interpretation ofits power to impose non- disclosure obligations on NSL recipients since Congress amended the NSL statutes in 2006. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 5 U.S.c. § 552(a)(4)(A)(vii). This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in this district under 5 U.S.c.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Intelligence in Covert Operatives
    OVERT ACCEPTANCE: CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE IN COVERT OPERATIVES CHIP MICHAEL BUCKLEY A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mercyhurst University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED INTELLIGENCE RIDGE SCHOOL FOR INTELLIGENCE STUDIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE MERCYHURST UNIVERSITY ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA JANUARY 2015 RIDGE SCHOOL FOR INTELLIGENCE STUDIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE MERCYHURST UNIVERSITY ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA OVERT ACCEPTANCE: CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE IN COVERT OPERATIVES A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mercyhurst University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED INTELLIGENCE Submitted By: CHIP MICHAEL BUCKLEY Certificate of Approval: ___________________________________ Stephen Zidek, M.A. Assistant Professor The Ridge School of Intelligence Studies and Information Science ___________________________________ James G. Breckenridge, Ph.D. Associate Professor The Ridge School of Intelligence Studies and Information Science ___________________________________ Phillip J. Belfiore, Ph.D. Vice President Office of Academic Affairs January 2015 Copyright © 2015 by Chip Michael Buckley All rights reserved. iii DEDICATION To my father. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge a number of important individuals who have provided an extraordinary amount of support throughout this process. The faculty at Mercyhurst University, particularly Professor Stephen Zidek, provided invaluable guidance when researching and developing this thesis. My friends and classmates also volunteered important ideas and guidance throughout this time. Lastly, my family’s support, patience, and persistent inquiries regarding my progress cannot be overlooked. v ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS Overt Acceptance: Cultural Intelligence in Covert Operatives A Critical Examination By Chip Michael Buckley Master of Science in Applied Intelligence Mercyhurst University, 2014 Professor S.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference 2014 with Keynote Speaker Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times
    KILEAK WI S, S, W E IR N E O T R A P D P , I A N T G A , D H G A I C B K , I N A - S G N SURVEILLANCE, SECURITY AND JOURNALISMJOURNALISM ETHICSETHICS THE UW-MADISON CENTER FOR JOURNALISM ETHICS PRESENTS CONFERENCE 2014 WITH KEYNOTE SPEAKER ERIC LICHTBLAU OF THE NEW YORK TIMES MAY 2, 2014 UNION SOUTH The Center for Journalism Ethics Welcome to a day that promises to be filled with thought-provoking discus- Advisory sion of some of the most significant Board issues ever to face journalism and gov- ernment: Who has what obligations to Tom Bier whom in most appropriately resolving Kathy Bissen conflicts between the public’s need James E. Burgess for both information and privacy in a Scott Cohn self-governing society and the need Rick Fetherston to protect citizens and the state from Welcome Peter D. Fox serious harm? from Robert E. Lewis Friedland Drechsel Journalists find themselves at the cen- Martin Kaiser ter of the debate in many ways. They James E. Burgess Jeff Mayers provide a critical conduit for informa- Chair in Journalism Ethics tion the public and sometimes the Jack Mitchell government itself need to develop and John Smalley deploy sound policy. But while gathering information, journal- Carol Toussaint ists may themselves become targets of government surveil- Owen Ullmann lance. And journalists, too, engage in surveillance, since that Richard Vitkus in part is what it means to gather news. New and surrepti- tiously intrusive technological tools are available to all parties, Lee Wilkins and the very definition of journalist and journalism is in flux.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Watches the Watchmen? the Conflict Between National Security and Freedom of the Press
    WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN WATCHES WHO I see powerful echoes of what I personally experienced as Director of NSA and CIA. I only wish I had access to this fully developed intellectual framework and the courses of action it suggests while still in government. —General Michael V. Hayden (retired) Former Director of the CIA Director of the NSA e problem of secrecy is double edged and places key institutions and values of our democracy into collision. On the one hand, our country operates under a broad consensus that secrecy is antithetical to democratic rule and can encourage a variety of political deformations. But the obvious pitfalls are not the end of the story. A long list of abuses notwithstanding, secrecy, like openness, remains an essential prerequisite of self-governance. Ross’s study is a welcome and timely addition to the small body of literature examining this important subject. —Gabriel Schoenfeld Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Author of Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law (W.W. Norton, May 2010). ? ? The topic of unauthorized disclosures continues to receive significant attention at the highest levels of government. In his book, Mr. Ross does an excellent job identifying the categories of harm to the intelligence community associated NI PRESS ROSS GARY with these disclosures. A detailed framework for addressing the issue is also proposed. This book is a must read for those concerned about the implications of unauthorized disclosures to U.S. national security. —William A. Parquette Foreign Denial and Deception Committee National Intelligence Council Gary Ross has pulled together in this splendid book all the raw material needed to spark a fresh discussion between the government and the media on how to function under our unique system of government in this ever-evolving information-rich environment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Underlying Theme of Alan Dershowitz's Writing and Teaching
    Visibility, Accountability and Discourse as Essential to Democracy: The Underlying Theme of Alan Dershowitz's Writing and Teaching The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Alan M. Dershowitz, Visibility, Accountability and Discourse as Essential to Democracy: The Underlying Theme of Alan Dershowitz's Writing and Teaching, 71 Alb. L. Rev. 731 (2008). Published Version http://www.albanylawreview.org/Articles/Vol71_3/71.3.0731- Dershowitz.pdf Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34901211 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ARTICLES VISIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DISCOURSE AS ESSENTIAL TO DEMOCRACY: THE UNDERLYING THEME OF ALAN DERSHOWITZ'S WRITING AND TEACHING Alan M. Dershowitz* I have been writing about the law and justice for half a century. My first published law review piece appeared in 1960 as a student note in the Yale Law Journal.1 Since that time, I have published nearly thirty books and hundreds of articles covering a wide range of legal, philosophical, historical, psychological, biblical, military, educational, and political issues. Until I listened to the excellent papers presented at this conference on my work, I had never realized-at least on a conscious level-that a single, underlying theme, with multiple variations, runs through nearly all of my writings. As a response to those papers, I will seek to articulate that theme, show how it pervades my writing and teaching, identify some of its roots in the teachings of my own mentors, try to defend its fundamental correctness, and point to several weaknesses and limitations that remain to be considered before I complete my life's work.
    [Show full text]