DOCSLIB.ORG

Libya, “Hostilities,” the Office of Legal Counsel, and the Process of Executive Branch Legal Interpretation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Libya, “Hostilities,” the Office of Legal Counsel, and the Process of Executive Branch Legal Interpretation LIBYA, “HOSTILITIES,” THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, AND THE PROCESS OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH LEGAL INTERPRETATION Trevor W. Morrison∗ The Obama Administration has faced severe criticism for its conclusion that U.S. involvement in the Libya military campaign does not constitute “hostilities” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution1 (WPR). Under the WPR, the U.S. military may not remain engaged in “hostilities” for more than sixty days without congressional authoriza- tion. The Libya operation appeared to cross that point on May 20, but Congress has not provided authorization. The Administration’s theory, which it has now robustly defended in congressional testimony,2 is that the operation complies with the WPR because the U.S. military’s in- volvement has remained below the “hostilities” level since early April, when NATO assumed leadership of the operation. But the theory faces real challenges, especially given recent reports that “American war- planes have struck at Libyan air defenses about 60 times, and remotely operated drones have fired missiles at Libyan forces about 30 times” since NATO took charge of the overall operation.3 Yet whatever one makes of the merits of the issue, there may be a separate ground for concern. According to press reports, the Obama Administration followed a highly unusual process to arrive at its deci- sion on the “hostilities” question.4 I am not yet prepared to accept that these reports (presumably based on leaks from officials with their own self-serving agendas) provide a complete and accurate picture of what happened. But the process issue is very important, and here I want to explore some of its dimensions. In discussing the process issue, I will also address a few points in my ongoing exchange with Professor Bruce Ackerman over legal in- ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. 1 Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973) (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (2006)). 2 See Libya and War Powers: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Foreign Relations, 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Harold H. Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State) (providing a detailed account of the basis for the Obama Administration’s conclusion that U.S. involvement in the Libya operation is consistent with both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution), available at http://foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Koh_Testimony.pdf. 3 Charlie Savage & Thom Shanker, Scores of U.S. Strikes in Libya Followed Handoff to NATO, N.Y. TIMES, June 21, 2011, at A8. 4 See Charlie Savage, 2 Top Lawyers Lose Argument on War Power, N.Y. Times, June 17, 2011, at A1; Michael Isikoff, On Libya, President Obama Evaded Rules on Legal Disputes, Scho- lars Say, msnbc.com (June 21, 2011), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43474045/ns/politics- white_house/t/libya-president-obama-evaded-rules-legal-disputes-scholars-say/. 62 2011] LIBYA AND“HOSTILITIES” 63 terpretation in the executive branch. After devoting much of his book, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic,5 to an attack on the ex- isting structures and processes of executive branch legal interpretation, Ackerman has more recently rallied to the defense of one of the key players in that structure, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). That is a welcome development, though it is unclear how it fits with Ackerman’s broader indictment of the current institu- tional arrangement. In any event, I will show here that although the Administration’s reported decisionmaking process on the “hostilities” question might seem to support Ackerman’s broader argument, the fal- lout from the decision underscores the costs to any presidential adminis- tration of departing from the traditional processes of executive branch legal interpretation. I Deeply rooted traditions treat the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) as the most important source of legal advice with- in the executive branch. A number of important norms guide the provi- sion and handling of that advice. OLC bases its answers on its best view of the law, not merely its sense of what is plausible or arguable.6 To ensure that it takes adequate account of competing perspectives within the executive branch, it typically requests and fully considers the views of other affected agencies before answering the questions put to it. Critically, once OLC arrives at an answer, it is treated as binding within the executive branch unless overruled by the Attorney General or the President. That power to overrule, moreover, is wielded extreme- ly rarely — virtually never. As a result of these and related norms, and in spite of episodes like the notorious “torture memos,” OLC has earned a well-deserved reputation for providing credible, authoritative, tho- rough and objective legal analysis. The White House is one of the main beneficiaries of that reputa- tion. When OLC concludes that a government action is lawful, its con- clusion carries a legitimacy that other executive offices cannot so readily provide. That legitimacy is a function of OLC’s deep traditions and unique place within the executive branch. Other executive offices — be they agency general counsels or the White House Counsel’s Office — do ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5 BRUCE ACKERMAN, THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC (2010) [herei- nafter DECLINE AND FALL]. 6 Importantly, “its” best view of the law reflects the fact that, as an executive branch legal of- fice, OLC accords particular weight to its own past legal opinions as well as other executive branch precedents and, more broadly, that it may be more protective of executive prerogatives than are non-executive actors. See Trevor W. Morrison, Stare Decisis in the Office of Legal Counsel, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1448, 1502 (2010) (discussing consistency between OLC’s obligation to seek its best view of the law and the “generally pro-executive tenor in OLC’s opinions”). 64 HARVARD LAW REVIEW FORUM [Vol. 124:42 not have decades-long traditions of providing legal advice based on their best view of the law after fully considering the competing posi- tions; they have not generated bodies of authoritative precedents to in- form and constrain their work; and they do not issue legal opinions that, whether or not they favor the President, are treated as presumptively binding within the executive branch. (Nor should those other offices mimic OLC; that is not their job.) Because the value of a favorable le- gal opinion from OLC is tied inextricably to these aspects of its work, each successive presidential administration has a strong incentive to re- spect and preserve them. In a recent book, Professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule call this sort of thing “executive self-binding, whereby executives com- mit themselves to a course of action that would impose higher costs on ill-motivated actors.”7 Admittedly, Posner and Vermeule do not appear to recognize that treating OLC’s advice as presumptively binding is a form of executive self-binding. Indeed, as described below, they do not think OLC advice warrants any such treatment. Yet signaling and maintaining a willingness to treat OLC’s legal advice as presumptively binding enhances the credibility of a president’s claims of good faith and respect for the law, which in turn can help generate public support for his actions. That is precisely the point of executive self-binding: to foster credibility in circumstances where, “[f]or presidents, credibility is power.”8 II In Decline and Fall and related writings, Ackerman attacks the current state of legal interpretation within the executive branch, espe- cially the roles played by OLC and the White House Counsel’s Office. Ignoring the incentives in favor of executive self-binding, Ackerman ar- gues that excesses like the “torture memos” are not abusive anomalies but are instead the inevitable (and sure to be repeated) products of an institutional setup that cannot be trusted to produce serious, good faith legal analysis, especially on issues of presidential power. In a review of Decline and Fall,9 I argue that Ackerman greatly overstates things. Although I acknowledge that the current institution- al arrangement is not perfect and that some reforms are worth contem- plating, I maintain that the evidence does not support the claim that the current setup cannot be relied upon to provide credible, good-faith legal ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7 ERIC A. POSNER & ADRIAN VERMEULE, THE EXECUTIVE UNBOUND: AFTER THE MADISONIAN REPUBLIC 137 (2011). 8 Id. at 153. 9 Trevor W. Morrison, Constitutional Alarmism, 124 HARV. L. REV. 1688 (2011) (reviewing ACKERMAN, DECLINE AND FALL). 2011] LIBYA AND“HOSTILITIES” 65 analysis as a general matter. In fact, the existing arrangement has proved itself remarkably reliable over the years. OLC’s traditional role — and the commitment of successive administrations to retaining that role — is the key to that reliability. In a June 21 op-ed harshly criticizing the decision-making process on the “hostilities” question, Ackerman appears to shift ground. He lambasts the process in this case precisely because he says it did not treat OLC’s legal analysis as presumptively binding and thus drastical- ly departed from “traditional legal process the executive branch has de- veloped to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.”10 The prob- lem, in other words, is not the traditional institutional arrangement for the provision of legal advice within the executive branch, but the ap- parent departure from that arrangement in this case. To the extent Ackerman now sees OLC’s traditional role as something worth preserv- ing, not abolishing,11 he and I are very much in agreement. III But what actually happened in this case? Was there a significant departure from tradition? If so, what was it? The press reports certain- ly depict an anomalous process: OLC — backed by [Attorney General Eric] Holder — concluded that sus- tained U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018
    Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law I. Introduction On January 25, 2017, President Trump repeated his belief that torture works1 and reaffirmed his commitment to restore the use of harsh interrogation of detainees in American custody.2 That same day, CBS News released a draft Trump administration executive order that would order the Intelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD) to review the legality of torture and potentially revise the Army Field Manual to allow harsh interrogations.3 On March 13, 2018, the President nominated Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, and Gina Haspel to replace Mr. Pompeo as Director of the CIA. Mr. Pompeo has made public statements in support of torture, most notably in response to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2014 report on the CIA’s use of torture on post-9/11 detainees,4 though his position appears to have altered somewhat by the time of his confirmation hearing for Director of the CIA, and Ms. Haspel’s history at black site Cat’s Eye in Thailand is controversial, particularly regarding her oversight of the torture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri5 as well as her role in the destruction of video tapes documenting the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques.6 In light of these actions, President Trump appears to be signaling his support for legalizing the Bush-era techniques applied to detainees arrested and interrogated during the war on terror.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative National Security
    ARTICLES Administrative National Security ELENA CHACHKO* In the past two decades, the United States has applied a growing num- ber of foreign and security measures directly targeting individualsÐ natural or legal persons. These individualized measures have been designed and carried out by administrative agencies. Widespread appli- cation of individual economic sanctions, security watchlists and no-¯y lists, detentions, targeted killings, and action against hackers responsible for cyberattacks have all become signi®cant currencies of U.S. foreign and security policy. Although the application of each of these measures in discrete contexts has been studied, they have yet to attract an inte- grated analysis. This Article examines this phenomenon with two main aims. First, it documents what I call ªadministrative national securityº: the growing individualization of U.S. foreign and security policy, the administrative mechanisms that have facilitated it, and the judicial response to these mechanisms. Administrative national security encompasses several types of individualized measures that agencies now apply on a routine, inde®- nite basis through the exercise of considerable discretion within a broad framework established by Congress or the President. It is therefore best understood as an emerging practice of administrative adjudication in the foreign and security space. Second, this Article considers how administrative national security integrates with the presidency and the courts. Accounting for administra- tive national security illuminates the President's constitutional role as chief executive and commander-in-chief and his control of key aspects of * Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School (Fall 2019); Post-doctoral Fellow, Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania; S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School; LL.B., Hebrew University of Jerusalem (2014).
    [Show full text]
  • Change and Structure in the Law of Armed Conflict After September 11 Peter Margulies
    Marquette Law Review Volume 95 Article 13 Issue 4 Summer 2012 The ogF of War Reform: Change and Structure in the Law of Armed Conflict After September 11 Peter Margulies Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Peter Margulies, The Fog of War Reform: Change and Structure in the Law of Armed Conflict After September 11, 95 Marq. L. Rev. 1417 (2012). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol95/iss4/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 18 - MARGULIES (DO NOT DELETE) 7/9/2012 10:27 PM THE FOG OF WAR REFORM: CHANGE AND STRUCTURE IN THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 * PETER MARGULIES Salim Hamdan’s conviction in a military commission for material support of Al Qaeda separates utilitarians, who generally defer to state power, from protective theorists, who seek to shield civilians by curbing official discretion. Utilitarians view military commissions as efficient means for trying suspected terrorists. Protective theorists criticize the amorphous nature of material support charges. The clash between utilitarians and protective theorists colors other issues, including “enhanced” interrogation and limits on targeting. Protective theorists merit praise for their scrutiny of interrogation. In contrast, utilitarians have trivialized interrogation abuses. However, protective theorists’ scrutiny of states is burdened by hindsight bias.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruce Ackerman
    BOOK REVIEW CONSTITUTIONAL ALARMISM THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC. By Bruce Ackerman. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2010. Pp. 270. $25.95. Reviewed by Trevor W. Morrison∗ INTRODUCTION The Decline and Fall of the American Republic is a call to action. Professor Bruce Ackerman opens the book with the claim that “some- thing is seriously wrong — very seriously wrong — with the tradition of government that we have inherited” (p. 3). The problem, he says, is the modern American presidency, which he portrays as recently trans- formed into “an especially dangerous office” (p. 189 n.1) posing “a se- rious threat to our constitutional tradition” (p. 4). Ackerman urges us to confront this “potential for catastrophic decline — and act before it is too late” (p. 11). Concerns of this kind are not new. Indeed, in some respects De- cline and Fall reads as a sequel to Professor Arthur Schlesinger’s 1973 classic, The Imperial Presidency.1 Ackerman writes consciously in that tradition, but with a sense of renewed urgency driven by a convic- tion that “the presidency has become far more dangerous today” than in Schlesinger’s time (p. 188). The sources and mechanisms of that purported danger are numerous; Decline and Fall sweeps across jour- nalism, national opinion polls, the Electoral College, civilian-military relations, presidential control of the bureaucracy, and executive branch lawyering to contend that “the foundations of our own republic are eroding before our very eyes” (p. 188). ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Professor of Law, Columbia University. For helpful comments on earlier drafts, I thank Akhil Amar, David Barron, Ariela Dubler, Jack Goldsmith, Marty Lederman, Peter Margulies, Gillian Metzger, Henry Monaghan, Rick Pildes, Jeff Powell, John Witt, and participants in faculty workshops at Vanderbilt University and the University of Washington.
    [Show full text]
  • The Protean Take Care Clause
    ARTICLE THE PROTEAN TAKE CARE CLAUSE JACK GOLDSMITH† & JOHN F. MANNING†† INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1835 I. THE CASE LAW ........................................................................ 1839 A. The Removal Power ................................................................... 1839 B. Standing Doctrine ...................................................................... 1844 C. Prosecutorial Discretion ............................................................... 1847 D. Legislative Supremacy and the Antidispensation Principle ................ 1848 E. Presidential “Completion Power” ................................................... 1851 II. “TAKE CARE” QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT ............................ 1853 A. (Non)interpretation of the Take Care Clause .................................. 1853 1. Text and Structure .............................................................. 1854 2. Interpretive Canons ............................................................ 1859 3. History and Constitutional Meaning ................................... 1861 B. Consistency and Line Drawing ..................................................... 1863 CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 1867 INTRODUCTION Most of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution sets forth mundane presidential responsibilities or powers. Section 3 prescribes the President’s duty “from time to time” to report to Congress on “the State of the Union”
    [Show full text]
  • The Contributions of the Obama Administration to the Practice and Theory of International Law
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLI\57-2\HLI205.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-OCT-16 13:24 Volume 57, Number 2, Spring 2016 The Contributions of the Obama Administration to the Practice and Theory of International Law Jack Goldsmith* My aim in this essay is to give a tour of the horizon of the Obama admin- istration’s international law record in order to identify the distinctiveness of its approach and to tie it in to some general themes in international and foreign relations law. Due to his upbringing and education, Barack Obama came to the Presi- dency with a cosmopolitan outlook and an informed commitment to inter- national law. This attitude differed sharply from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was suspicious of international law and generally viewed it as an obstacle to the exercise of American power. By contrast, Obama devoted a chapter of his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope to international relations and made plain that he understood international law intimately and viewed it as a constructive force in international relations.1 He criticized the view that “international law [was] an encroachment on American sovereignty [and] a foolish constraint on America’s ability to impose its will around the world”—a position that Obama associated with Henry Cabot Lodge, but one that might also describe the early Bush administration.2 And Obama argued it was “in America’s interest to work with other countries to build up international institutions and promote international norms . because the more international norms were reinforced and the more America sig- naled a willingness to show restraint in the exercise of its power, the fewer the number of conflicts that would arise.”3 On the campaign trail Obama gave voice to this attitude when he criticized the Bush administration for its weak compliance with U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law in Black and White
    INTERNATIONAL LAW IN BLACK AND WHITE Daniel Bodansky* I. INTRODUCTION Is the study of international law an art or a science? Can the role of international law be explained by general rules, with predictive value? Or does it require the exercise of judgment, in order to account for the richness and complexity of international life? Traditionally, international lawyers have gravitated to the latter view, analyzing issues in an essentially ad hoc and eclectic manner. In their controversial new book, The Limits of International Law,1 Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner argue forcefully for a more scientific approach, relying on the methodology known as "rational choice theory." The book makes many specific claims about the limits of international law. But its ambition to develop an overarching theory of international law, which reduces the role played by international law to a few simple explanatory models, is perhaps its most distinctive feature. In his work on the sociology of law, Max Weber identified three complementary perspectives on law, which he called the dogmatic, the ethical and the sociological:2 9 The dogmatic (or as we would now say, "doctrinal") perspective takes law as a given-a dogma, as Weber put it-and seeks to ascertain what it says. It focuses on doctrinal questions: Did the invasion of Iraq violate the U.N. Charter? Does the treatment by the United States of detainees at Guantanamo violate customary and treaty obligations prohibiting torture? Does international law prohibit significant transboundary pollution, or require states to take precautionary actions against potentially irreversible threats to the environment? * Robert and Emily Woodruff Chair of International Law, University of Georgia School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open Letter on the Question of Torture
    1 Torture, Aggressive War & Presidential Power: Thoughts on the Current Constitutional Crisisi Thomas Ehrlich Reifer October 2009 Abstract: This chapter analyses the intersection of torture, aggressive war and Presidential power in the 21st century, with particular attention to the current Constitutional crisis and related international humanitarian/human rights law, including treaties signed and ratified by the U.S., from the Geneva Conventions to the U.N. Convention Against Torture. America's embrace of a ªliberal culture of tortureº af1ter 9/11 is examined, as well as the road leading from Bagram Air Base to Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib. Prospects for change are also analyzed, in light of revelations about the role of both the Democrats and Republicans in policies of torture, extraordinary rendition and aggressive war, past and present. For Sister Dianna "Why is there this inability to reckon with the moral and spiritual facts?"ii ªThe abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of `a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.ºiii 2009 initially brought sharp relief to torture abolitionists in the U.S. and around the world, as President Obama, in his first week in office, signed three executive orders 1) closing Guantanamo in a year 2) creating a task force to examine policies towards prisoners caught up in the ªwar on terrorº and 3) mandating lawful interrogations in compliance with the Army Field Manual and thus international agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • 20121211 IACHR Petition FINAL
    TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF JOSE PADILLA and ESTELA LEBRON BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITH A REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING ON THE MERITS By the undersigned, appearing as counsel for petitioners UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Steven M. Watt Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY, 10004 F/(212)-549-2654 P/(212)-519-7870 Hope Metcalf Ingrid Deborah Francois, Law Student Intern Sheng Li, Law Student Intern Alaina Varvaloucas, Law Student Intern Allard K. Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic Yale Law School 127 Wall St. New Haven, CT 06520 P/(203)-432-9404 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3 I. Petitioner Estela Lebron ............................................................................................................................................. 3 II. Seizure, Detention, and Interrogation of Jose Padilla ................................................................................... 3 A. Initial Arrest and Detention Under the Material Witness Act .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Extraordinary Rendition and the Torture Convention
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2006 Extraordinary Rendition and the Torture Convention David Weissbrodt University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Amy Bergquist Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David Weissbrodt and Amy Bergquist, Extraordinary Rendition and the Torture Convention, 46 VA. J. INT'L L. 585 (2006), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/283. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Extraordinary Rendition and the Torture Convention t DAVID WEISSBRODT AMY BERGQUISTt 1. Extraordinary Rendition Violates the Convention Against Torture and the Federal Torture Statute .................................... 599 A. U.S. Acceptance of the Convention Against Torture ...... 600 B. Scope of the Statutory Prohibition of Torture ................. 606 C. Extraordinary Rendition Constitutes a Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Torture ........................................ 611 D. Defenses of Extraordinary Rendition Are Inadequate ..... 621 II. Mechanisms in U.S. Law Can Challenge the Practice of Extraordinary Rendition ............................................................ 625 A . Crim inal Prosecution ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Office of Legal Counsel and Torture: the Law As Both a Sword and Shield
    Note The Office of Legal Counsel and Torture: The Law as Both a Sword and Shield Ross L. Weiner* And let me just add one thing. And this is a stark contrast here because we are nation [sic] of laws, and we are a nation of values. The terrorists follow no rules. They follow no laws. We will wage and win this war on terrorism and defeat the terrorists. And we will do so in a way that’s consistent with our values and our laws, and consistent with the direction the President laid out.1 —Scott McClellan, Spokesman to President George W. Bush, June 22, 2004 * J.D., expected May 2009, The George Washington University Law School; B.A., 2004, Colgate University. I would like to thank Kimberly L. Sikora Panza and Charlie Pollack for reading early drafts and guiding me on my way. I am indebted to the editors of The George Washington Law Review for all of their thoroughness and dedication in preparing this Note for publication. Finally, thank you to my parents, Tammy and Marc Levine, and Howard and Patti Weiner, for all their hard work. 1 Press Briefing, White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales, Dep’t of Defense (“DoD”) Gen. Counsel William Haynes, DoD Deputy Gen. Counsel Daniel Dell’Orto, and Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Gen. Keith Alexander (June 22, 2004) [hereinafter Press Briefing], available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/06/ 20040622-14.html. February 2009 Vol. 77 No. 2 524 2009] The Law as Both a Sword and a Shield 525 Introduction On September 11, 2001, nineteen men, each a member of al- Qaeda,2 hijacked and crashed four airplanes, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Advising Clients After Critical Legal Studies and the Torture Memos
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 11-2011 Advising Clients after Critical Legal Studies and the Torture Memos Milan Markovic Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Milan Markovic, Advising Clients after Critical Legal Studies and the Torture Memos, 114 W. Va. L. Rev. 109 (2011). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/344 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ADVISING CLIENTS AFTER CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES AND THE TORTURE MEMOS Milan Markovic* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 110 II. THE MODEL RULES, ENFORCEMENT, AND WHY LAWYERS OBEY .............. 114 A. The Underenforcement of ProfessionalResponsibility Rules 114 B. Compliance and Self-Interest ...................... 117 III. MODEL RULE 2.1 AND THE PROBLEM OF COMPLIANCE ....... ........ 119 IV. THE TORTURE MEMO CONTROVERSY AND RULE 2.1 ................ 124 A. Background ............................ ...... 125 B. The OPR Report ......................... ...... 128 1. The Investigation and OPR's Standards .... ...... 128 2. The OPR's Findings .................... ..... 130 C. The Margolis Memo ....................... ..... 132 1. Standards Applied .................. ........ 133 2. Application to Yoo..... ..................... 135 V. THE MARGOLIS MEMO's FLAWED ACCOUNT ................ ...... 137 A. Reliance on Indeterminacy ..............................137 B. Does Margolis's Account of Rule 2.1 Follow from the Ethical Rules?......................................139 C. Social Utility.............................. 141 VI. AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF RULE 2.1 ..............................
    [Show full text]