Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T06:43:10.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethics, Lawyers, and the torture Memoranda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Scott Horton
Scott Horton*
Affiliation:
Columbia University Law School (affiliations for purposes of identification only)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Legal Ethics and the War on Terror: The Role of the Government Lawyer
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 99 , 2005 , pp. 301 - 305
Copyright
copyright © 2005 The American Society of International Law

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.)

References

1 Piest, Dana & Smith, R. Jeffrey Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture, Wash . Post , June 8, 2004, at Al. The document itself was posted next to the web version of this article.Google Scholar

2 Lawyers’ Statement on Bush Administration Torture Memos (Aug. 4, 2004), available at http://www.afj.org/spotlight/0804statement.pdf.

3 American Bar Association, House of Delegates , Resolutions , Aug. 5, 2004

4 5 U.S.C. § 3331 (2004).

5 Model Rules of Prof’ Conduct R. 1.2, 2.1 (2002).

6 Report by the District of Columbia Bar Special Committee on Government Lawyers and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 3 Wash . Law . 53 , 54 (1988 ).

7 A“whistleblower” under this act, 5 U.S.C. ₧ 2302(b)(8) (2000), is shielded for lawfully disclosing information that he or she reasonably believes evidences illegality, gross waste, gross mismanagement, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. If disclosure is specifically prohibited by statute, or by executive order as classified on national security grounds, an employee is only protected if the disclosure is made to the agency chief or delegee, such as an agency inspector general.

8 Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R 2.1 (2002).

9 This legendary remark is quoted in McCandless v. Great Atlantic &Pacific Tea Co., 697 F.2d 198, 201-02 (7th Cir. 1983).

10 Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R . 1.2(d) (2002).

11 United States v. Altstoetter, 3 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No . 10, at 954 (1949).

12 Helmuth James, von Moltke Briefe an Freya 46 (1995) (author”s translation).Google Scholar