Dawn Johnsen: Restoring leadership and integrity to the Office of Legal Counsel

Restoring leadership and integrity to the Office of Legal Counsel

By Dawn Johnsen
Friday, June 11, 2010; A17

In 2004, the leak of a controversial memo on the use of torture catapulted the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel into the spotlight. Fallout and debate continue, including in the context of my nomination -- withdrawn this spring -- to head this office. While attention understandably is focused on confirming the president's Supreme Court nominee, the OLC remains, after six years, without a confirmed leader.

It is long past time to halt the damage caused by the "torture memo" by settling on a bipartisan understanding of the proper role of this critical office and confirming an assistant attorney general committed to that understanding.

There is no simple answer to why my nomination failed. But I have no doubt that the OLC torture memo -- and my profoundly negative reaction to it -- was a critical factor behind the substantial Republican opposition that sustained a filibuster threat. Paradoxically, prominent Republicans earlier had offered criticisms strikingly similar to my own. A bipartisan acceptance of those criticisms is key to moving forward. The Senate should not confirm anyone who defends that memo as acceptable legal advice.

The Office of Legal Counsel advises the president and executive branch agencies on the legality of contemplated actions and policies. It ensures that the executive branch follows the law, thereby protecting individual liberty and the structure of our government. Since Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent security challenges facing our nation, the OLC's work has become all the more important.

After the torture memo came to light, I led 19 former OLC lawyers in developing 10 "Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel." We called for a return to long-standing, nonpartisan practice. The results were not flashy proposals for change but the carefully considered consensus of experience. The first principle, from which the others follow: "When providing legal advice to guide contemplated executive branch action, OLC should provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the administration's pursuit of desired policies."

Put plainly, the OLC must be willing to say no to the president under any circumstances. The office does the president no favors by allowing its legal analysis to be twisted by policy or partisan preferences, even in the midst of crisis, as the months after Sept. 11 undoubtedly were.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004117_pf.html

or anyone else involved in human rights abuses. The question is why?

Looking back, I don't find this opinion of his very comforting:

What, if Anything, Does the Nuremberg Precedent Tell Us About the Criminal Culpability of Government Lawyers?
Thursday, May 01, 2008

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-if-anything-does-nuremberg.html

He was part of the Transition Team, btw. Been onboard the whole time.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/01/marty-lederman-joins-office-of-legal.html


Now that Dawn Johnsen is finally "freed" and cleared from the nomination politics, I hope she will return again to speaking up strongly in her areas- and urgently.

It's a real loss for all of us that Ms Johnsen was not confirmed.

more than 4 DU recs now.

the Administration has embraced John Yoo's torture policies. Rendition is still ongoing!

L GORE WON AND WAS ELECTED( NOT SELECTED)
A LOOK AT A DIFFERENT 2010
He would have continued Clinton/Newt Fiscal Policies of Pay Your Way
We would continue to have Surpluses not Debt as far as the eye can see
Debt today would be 6000B not 12000B
2010 Budget would be 3000B not 3800
Unemployment would be 5% not the real 17%.
Food Stamp Roll would be 10% not 40%
Unemployment Insurance Roll would be low
Redistribution of Wealth back to Middle Class would have continued
The top 1% would own 20% not 43% of Total Financial Wealth
He would have continued Taxing the top 1%
Wall Street Regulators would be under experts not Partners In Crime
We would have 400 military bases not 800 worldwide
We would not have two wars
We would not have lost thousands of lives of young youths
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims would still be alive
Thousands of young Muslims would still have legs feet and minds
America would still be the most admired nation on Earth not the most despised
We would go back to behaving as a Christ-Like nation via our national policies
Millions would own homes not foreclosure notices
States would not be laying off hundreds of thousands in such important jobs as
Teaching and Policing California would have a balanced budget
John Kerry would be President.
Sound common sense policies would continue.
clarence swinney-
political historian lifeaholics of America
Old ugly mean honest
author-Lifeaholic-Life story of Workaholic Failure to Lifeaholic Success
author-forthcoming--How Democrats created a Great Middle Class and Conservatives are determined to destroy it
_______

beginning 1/21/09. In fact, it probably would have sufficed to prosecute Rove, Cheney, Yoo, Bybee, and a handful of others, and the rest would have either turned government witness or resigned in haste. Just as when Clinton refused to prosecute GHWB and his accomplices, this refusal to enforce the law will lead to bigger crimes down the road.