The torture lawyers of Washington

David Luban

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107279698.013

8 - The torture lawyers of Washington

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2014

David Luban

Show author details

David Luban: Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Preface

I wrote this chapter for my book Legal Ethics and Human Dignity, a book about the ethics of the legal profession. It provided an extended case study of one of the main themes of that book, the central role that lawyers providing legal advice to clients play in maintaining the rule of law – or, in this case, subverting the rule of law. The chapter had a second purpose as well, pulling together in a single place a substantive history and critique of all the main torture memos available at the time. Its critique of the Bybee and Levin memos overlaps with, but also extends, the arguments detailed in Chapter 3 of this volume, which I also presented in longer form in Karen J. Greenberg’s The Torture Debate in America.

At the time I wrote this chapter, however, not all the torture memos were known. The Bybee memo referred to another secret memo applying its arguments to specific CIA interrogation techniques, which was not made public. In addition, though, the Office of Legal Counsel’s head Steven G. Bradbury wrote three more torture memos in 2005, and these were unknown when I wrote this chapter. One of these memos revisited the secret Bybee–Yoo “techniques” memo, and once again declared that none of the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation techniques amount to torture. The second found that the same would be true even if the techniques were used in combination. And the third found that the techniques, singly or in combination, would not constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment other than torture. These three memoranda – revoked by the Obama administration and then released to the public in 2009 – reach conclusions just as radical as the Bybee–Yoo memoranda, but drew far less criticism. In part that is because the Bradbury memoranda did not include discussions of the commander-in-chief power or of criminal defenses, which were among the most inflammatory portions of the Bybee–Yoo memoranda. But also, the Bradbury memoranda were less obviously tendentious in their handling of legal materials.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Torture, Power, and Law , pp. 197 - 253

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107279698.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Luban, David, “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb,” in Greenberg, Karen J., Ed., The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 55–83Google Scholar

Cole, David’s preface to Cole, The Torture Memos: Rationalizing the Unthinkable (New York Review of Books, 2009)Google Scholar

Cole, ’s article, “The Sacrificial Yoo: Accounting for Torture in the OPR Report,” Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 4 (2010), 455–64.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Karen J. and Dratel, Joshua L., Eds., The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge University Press, 2005).CrossRef Google Scholar

Bethke Elshtain, Jean, “Reflections on the Problem of ‘Dirty Hands,’” in Levinson, Sanford, Ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 77–92, at pp. 87–8.Google Scholar

Luban, David, “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb,” Virginia Law Review, 91 (2005), 1425–61Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Sheridan, Alan, Trans.) (New York: Vintage Books, 1977).Google Scholar

Dennis, Michael J., “Application of Human Rights Treaties Extraterritorially During Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation,” American Journal of International Law, 99(1) (2005), 119–41.CrossRef Google Scholar

Priest, Dana, “US Instructed Latins on Executions, Torture,” Washington Post, Sept. 21, 1996;

McCoy, Alfred W., A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Henry Holt, 2006);Google Scholar

Harbury, Jennifer, Truth, Torture, and the American Way: The History and Consequences of US Involvement in Torture (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Ross, Brian and Esposito, Richard, “CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described,” ABC News, Nov. 18, 2005 ().

Drogin, Bob, “Abuse Brings Deaths of Captives into Focus,” Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2004.

McCoy, Alfred W., “Cruel Science: CIA Torture and US Foreign Policy,” New England Journal of Public Policy, 19 (2005), 209–62, at 219.Google Scholar

Mayer, Jane, “A Deadly Interrogation,” New Yorker, Nov. 14, 2005;

McChesney, John, “The Death of an Iraqi Prisoner,” National Public Radio, All Things Considered, Oct. 27, 2005 ();

Hettena, Seth, “SEAL Acquitted in Iraqi’s Beating,” Boston Globe, May 28, 2005 (

Mayer, Jane, “Outsourcing Torture,” New Yorker, Feb. 5, 2004.

Kleine-Brockhoff, Thomas, “Die CIA hat das Recht, jedes Gesetz zu brechen,” Die Zeit (Hamburg), Dec. 28, 2005Google Scholar

Hawkins, Katherine R., “The Promises of Torturers: Diplomatic Assurances and the Legality of ‘Rendition,’” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 20 (2006), 213–68.Google Scholar

Smith, Craig S. and Mekhennet, Souad, “Algerian Tells of Dark Odyssey in US Hands,” New York Times, July 7, 2006

Golden, Tim, “After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law,” New York Times, Oct. 24, 2004, p. A12.

Suskind, Ron, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America’s Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), p. 62.Google Scholar

Ragavan, Chitra, “Cheney’s Guy,” US News and World Report, May 29, 2006 ( ).

Savage, Charlie, “Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws,” Boston Globe, Apr. 30, 2006

Priest, Dana, “CIA Puts Harsh Tactics on Hold,” Washington Post, June 27, 2004, p. A1.

Moore, Michael S., “Torture and the Balance of Evils,” Israel Law Review, 23 (1989), 280–344, at 323.Google Scholar

Posner, Eric and Vermeule, Adrian, “A ‘Torture Memo’ and Its Tortuous Critics,” Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2004.

Angell, Julie, “Ethics, Torture, and Marginal Memoranda at the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel,” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 18 (2005), 557–70;Google Scholar

Bilder, Richard B. and Vagts, Detlev A., “Speaking Law to Power: Lawyers and Torture,” American Journal of International Law, 98 (2004), 689–95;CrossRef Google Scholar

Clark, Kathleen, “Ethical Issues Raised by the OLC Torture Memorandum,” Journal of National Security Law and Policy, 1 (2005), 455ff.;Google Scholar

Clark, Kathleen and Mertus, Julie, “Torturing the Law: The Justice Department’s Legal Contortions on Interrogation,” Washington Post, June 20, 2004, p. B3;

Kutz, Christopher, “The Lawyers Know Sin: Complicity in Torture,” in Greenberg, The Torture Debate, pp. 241–7;

Radack, Jesselyn, “Tortured Legal Ethics: The Role of the Government Advisor in the War on Terrorism,” University of Colorado Law Review, 77 (2006), 1ff.;Google Scholar

Ramsey, Michael D., “Torturing Executive Power,” Georgetown Law Journal, 93 (2005), 1213ff.;Google Scholar

Vischer, Robert K., “Legal Advice as Moral Perspective,” Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 19 (2006), 225ff.;Google Scholar

Waldron, Jeremy, “Torture and the Common Law: Jurisprudence for the White House,” Columbia Law Review, 105 (2005), 1681–1750;Google Scholar

Wedgwood, Ruth and James Woolsey, R., “Law and Torture,” Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2004;

Bradley Wendell, W., “Legal Ethics and the Separation of Law and Morals,” Cornell Law Review, 91 (2005), 67ff.Google Scholar

Brooks, Peter, “The Plain Meaning of Torture?”, Slate, Feb. 9, 2005 ().

Risen, James, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

Scherer, Michael and Benjamin, Mark, “What Rumsfeld Knew,” Salon.com, Apr. 14, 2006

Benjamin, Mark, “Not So Fast, General,” Salon. com, Mar. 7, 2006 ().

Danner, Mark, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib and the War on Terror (New York Review of Books, 2004).Google Scholar

Kleidman, Daniel, Taylor, Jr. Stuart, and Thomas, Evan, “Palace Revolt,” Newsweek, Feb. 6, 2006.

Marrus, Michael R. and Paxton, Robert O., Vichy France and the Jews (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p. 249.Google Scholar

Pictet, Jean S., Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Geneva: ICRC, 1958), vol. iv, pp. 279, 298, 363.Google Scholar

Stewart, David P., “The Torture Convention and the Reception of International Criminal Law Within the United States,” Nova Law Review, 15 (1991), 449, 461–2.Google Scholar

Beam, Alex, “Greed on Trial,” in Rhode, Deborah L. and Luban, David, Eds., Legal Ethics: Law Stories (New York: Foundation Press, 2005), pp. 287–302, at p. 291.Google Scholar

Morgenbesser, Sidney, “Scientific Explanation,” in Sills, David, Ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Free Press, 1968), vol. xiv, p, 122.Google Scholar

Levinson, Sanford, “Frivolous Cases: Do Lawyers Really Know Anything at All?”, Osgoode Hall Law Review, 24 (1987), 353–78, at 375.Google Scholar

Posner, Richard A., Overcoming Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), p. 91.Google Scholar

Dan-Cohen, Meir, “Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law,” Harvard Law Review, 97 (1984), 625–77.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fish, Stanley, “Anti-Professionalism,” Cardozo Law Review, 7 (1986), 645ff.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 52–3;Google Scholar

Dworkin, , “‘Natural’ Law Revisited,” University of Florida Law Review, 34 (1982), 165–88, at 169–70;Google Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald, “Hard Cases,” in Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), pp. 81, 105–23;Google Scholar

Dworkin, , “No Right Answer?”, in Hacker, P. M. S. and Raz, J., Eds., Law, Morality and Society: Essays in Honour of H. L. A. Hart (Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 58–84.Google Scholar

Tale, Talmudic,” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 79 (2004), 1253–88.

Schauer, Frederick, “Easy Cases,” Southern California Law Review, 58 (1985), 399–440, at 422.Google Scholar

Nourse, Victoria F. and Schacter, Jane S., “The Politics of Legislative Drafting: A Congressional Case Study,” New York University Law Review, 77 (2002), 575–623Google Scholar

Lewis, Anthony, “Making Torture Legal,” New York Review of Books, July 15, 2004.

Mayer, Martin, The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery: The Collapse of the Savings and Loan Industry (New York: Collier Books, 1992), p. 20.Google Scholar

Cloulas, Ivan, The Borgias (Roberts, Gilda, Trans.) (New York: Scholastic Library Publishing, 1989), p. 38.Google Scholar

Moss, Randolph D., “Executive Branch Legal Interpretation: A Perspective from the Office of Legal Counsel,” Administrative Law Review, 52 (2000), 1303ff., at 1318–20.Google Scholar

Wallach, Evan, “Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 45 (2007), 468ff., at 502–3.

Goldsmith, Jack, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration (New York: Norton, 2007), p. 149.Google Scholar

Yoo, John C., War by Other Means: An Insider’s Account of the War on Terror (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006), pp. 184–5.Google Scholar

Barron, David J. and Lederman, Martin S., “The Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb,” part 2, Harvard Law Review, 121 (2008), 941ff.Google Scholar

Luban, David, “On the Commander in Chief Power,” Southern California Law Review, 81 (2008), 477–571, at 507–31.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.