Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1097314
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (343)



 


 



True Believers at Law: National Security Agendas, the Regulation of Lawyers, and the Separation of Powers


Peter Margulies


Roger Williams University School of Law

February 24, 2008

Maryland Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2008
Roger Williams University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 73

Abstract:     
Post-September 11 legal events have demonstrated that ideological agendas distort the deliberation required for sound advice about national security. Legal issue entrepreneurs who market a theory without context exalt short-term interests and encourage executive unilateralism. These perils have emerged in a number of recent developments, including the torture memos drafted by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes.

In the post-September 11 legal climate, issue entrepreneurs saw legal constraints as "lawfare" against American interests. The lawfare critics extolled parsimony as a virtue - advancing the lawfare construct to explain as many complex events as possible. However, the lawfare critics failed to recognize that legal constraints can also empower decisionmakers, by checking the executive's tendency to discount reputational and other long-term values.

Unfortunately, existing remedies are not a good fit for the problems caused by issue entrepreneurship. Tort litigation, such as the recent suit by Jose Padilla against John Yoo, risks personalizing the problem and neglecting systemic issues. The informal norms approach suggested by a number of OLC alumni, while offering a number of excellent proposals such as citing and distinguishing adverse authority, has not attracted stakeholders across the political spectrum. A structural reform approach that replaces OLC with an adjudicative entity may produce an inquisitorial tribunal that lacks sharp adversarial inputs and loses influence to more pliable players such as White House counsel.

To transcend these difficulties, lawyers should turn to a model of dialogic equipoise relying on two values: transparency and tailoring. Dialogic equipoise allows the president to take action that is inconsistent with the most accurate reading of sources of authority. However, action must be both interstitial - with a clear exit strategy - and publicly disclosed. To implement the dialogic equipoise model, the Article recommends a blended approach, including a safe harbor for publicly disclosed legal opinions, consideration of institutional consequences, assertion of the least drastic rationale for executive power, and an ex ante role for Inspectors General and OLC in document preservation. This blended regime can reinforce deliberation when exigencies obscure the teachings of prudence.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 72

Keywords: Torture, Terrorism, Office of Legal Counsel

working papers series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 26, 2008 ; Last revised: April 27, 2009

Suggested Citation

Margulies, Peter, True Believers at Law: National Security Agendas, the Regulation of Lawyers, and the Separation of Powers (February 24, 2008). Maryland Law Review, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2008; Roger Williams University School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 73. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1097314 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1097314

Contact Information

Peter Margulies (Contact Author)
Roger Williams University School of Law ( email )
10 Metacom Avenue
Bristol, RI 02809
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,183
Downloads: 209
Download Rank: 80,521
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  343
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.891 seconds