Kathleen Clark | Washington University in St. Louis (original) (raw)
Address: Sarajevo, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
less
Uploads
Papers by Kathleen Clark
Indiana Law Review, Aug 21, 2019
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
ABSTRACT
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
ABSTRACT
Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law, 2013
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 5, 2011, …, 2011
Mercer L. Rev., 1997
... See KATHLEEN P. BRICKEY, 1 CORPORATE CRIMINAL Liability §§ 3:01-3:11; see also James W. Doig,... more ... See KATHLEEN P. BRICKEY, 1 CORPORATE CRIMINAL Liability §§ 3:01-3:11; see also James W. Doig, Douglas E. Phillips & Tycho Manson, Placing the Burden ... 591 (1996); Henry J. Amoroso, Organizational Ethos and Corporate Criminal Liability, 17 CAMPBELL L. REV. ...
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
J.NAT’L SECT’Y. L. & POL, 2005
This article analyzes the August 1, 2002 Torture Memorandum from the Justice Department's Office ... more This article analyzes the August 1, 2002 Torture Memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and examines the legal ethics implications of that memorandum. It identifies three major inaccuracies in the Torture Memorandum. First, the memorandum incorrectly defines torture so narrowly that the prohibition on torture would apply only when an individual specifically intends to impose the kind of extreme pain that would be associated with organ damage or death. Second, the memorandum inaccurately asserts that a government official indicted for torture would be able to use an affirmative defense to gain an acquittal. Third, the memorandum claims that the Constitution allows the President to authorize torture even though Congress has prohibited it.
The lawyers who wrote the Torture Memorandum appear to have violated two rules of professional ethics: Rule 2.1 requiring lawyers to be candid when they provide clients with legal advice, and Rule 1.4 requiring lawyers to adequately inform their clients. By investigating and - if appropriate - disciplining these lawyers, state bar authorities can hold accountable the lawyers who helped establish the Bush Administration policy of torturing detainees.
Washington Post, Jun 20, 2004
Indiana Law Review, Aug 21, 2019
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
ABSTRACT
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
ABSTRACT
Secrecy, National Security and the Vindication of Constitutional Law, 2013
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 95, No. 5, 2011, …, 2011
Mercer L. Rev., 1997
... See KATHLEEN P. BRICKEY, 1 CORPORATE CRIMINAL Liability §§ 3:01-3:11; see also James W. Doig,... more ... See KATHLEEN P. BRICKEY, 1 CORPORATE CRIMINAL Liability §§ 3:01-3:11; see also James W. Doig, Douglas E. Phillips & Tycho Manson, Placing the Burden ... 591 (1996); Henry J. Amoroso, Organizational Ethos and Corporate Criminal Liability, 17 CAMPBELL L. REV. ...
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
J.NAT’L SECT’Y. L. & POL, 2005
This article analyzes the August 1, 2002 Torture Memorandum from the Justice Department's Office ... more This article analyzes the August 1, 2002 Torture Memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, and examines the legal ethics implications of that memorandum. It identifies three major inaccuracies in the Torture Memorandum. First, the memorandum incorrectly defines torture so narrowly that the prohibition on torture would apply only when an individual specifically intends to impose the kind of extreme pain that would be associated with organ damage or death. Second, the memorandum inaccurately asserts that a government official indicted for torture would be able to use an affirmative defense to gain an acquittal. Third, the memorandum claims that the Constitution allows the President to authorize torture even though Congress has prohibited it.
The lawyers who wrote the Torture Memorandum appear to have violated two rules of professional ethics: Rule 2.1 requiring lawyers to be candid when they provide clients with legal advice, and Rule 1.4 requiring lawyers to adequately inform their clients. By investigating and - if appropriate - disciplining these lawyers, state bar authorities can hold accountable the lawyers who helped establish the Bush Administration policy of torturing detainees.
Washington Post, Jun 20, 2004