![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
American government memoranda authorising controversial interrogation, detention, and surveillance practices raise questions about the role of legality in shaping post-9/11 counterterrorism. Have policy makers ignored the law and declared a ‘state of exception’? Alternatively, have they attempted to covertly evade rules through ‘plausible deniability’? This article suggests that the ‘Global War on Terror’ has been characterised by a distinctive relationship between legality and security policy. Human rights violations have become official government policy, publicly justified and legally rationalised by top administration lawyers. Yet, for the most part, the law has not been overtly suspended in favour of unmitigated sovereign power. Rather, policy makers have pursued a strategic doctrine of ‘plausible legality’ aimed at securing immunity and legitimacy for abuses, an approach epitomised by the legalisation of torture.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Jason Ralph and Oz Hassan for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Notes
Sanford Levinson, ‘Torture in Iraq and the Rule of Law in America’, Daedalus 133, no. 3 (2004): 5–9; Sanford Levinson, ‘Constitutional Norms in a State of Permanent Emergency’, Georgia Law Review 40, no. 3 (2006): 699–751; William Scheuerman, ‘Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib’, Constellations 13, no. 1 (2006): 108–24.
Alfred McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2006).
Alan Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002). Prof. Dershowitz advocates ‘torture warrants’.
Human Rights First, ‘Torture on TV Rising and Copied in the Field’, http://www.humanrightsfirst.com/us_law/etn/primetime/index.asp (accessed 10 August 2009).
For an excellent discussion of the ‘ticking bomb’ rationale see David Luban, ‘Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb’, Virginia Law Review 91, no. 6 (2005): 1425–61. For an examination of the discursive features of this ‘torture-sustaining reality’, see Richard Jackson, ‘Language, Policy and the Construction of a Torture Culture in the War on Terrorism’, Review of International Studies 33 (2007): 353–71.
Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 44–71.
International Committee of the Red Cross, Regional Delegation for United States and Canada, ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen ‘High Value Detainees’ in CIA Custody, February 14, 2007, 1–40, http://www.nybooks.com/media/doc/2010/04/22/icrc-report.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
Katherine Eban, ‘Rorschach and Awe’, Vanity Fair, 17 July 2007, http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707; Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US Custody, 20 November 2008, I-232, http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
Dana Priest, ‘Wrongful Imprisonment: Anatomy of a CIA Mistake’, The Washington Post, 4 December 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120301476.html (accessed 10 August 2009); Stephen Grey, Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Rendition and Torture Program (New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2006).
The White House, ‘Executive Order 13491: Ensuring Lawful Interrogations’, 22 January 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ensuring-lawful-interrogations (accessed 10 August 2009).
American Civil Liberties Union, ‘Obama Administration Continues Indefinite Detention Policy For Bagram Prisoners’, 23 February 2009, http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38782prs20090223.html (accessed 10 August 2009).
United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, The September 11 Detainees: A Review of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks, 29 April 2003, 1–198, http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009); Anjana Malhotra, ‘Witness to Abuse: Human Rights Abuses Under the Material Witness Law Since September 11’, Human Rights Watch 17, no. 2(G) (2005), http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0605/us0605.pdf.
Center for Constitutional Rights, Factsheet: Military Commissions, http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet:-military-commissions (accessed 10 August 2009).
Associated Press, ‘US Weighs Detainee Court at a Midwest Prison’, The New York Times, 2 August 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/02/us/AP-US-Guantanamo-Detaines.html (accessed 10 August 2009).
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, ‘Remarks by the President on National Security’, 21 May 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/ (accessed 10 August 2009). For an outline of emerging standards see Brad Wiegmann and Mark Martins, Detention Policy Task Force, ‘Memorandum for the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense’, 20 July 2009, 1–5, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/detention072009.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
See note 1 above.
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (New York: Mentor Books, 1965), 425.
Kathleen Arnold, ‘Domestic War: Locke's Concept of Prerogative and Implications for US “Wars” Today’, Polity 39, no. 1 (2007): 1–28; Douglas Casson, ‘Emergency Judgement: Carl Schmitt, John Locke, and the Paradox of Prerogative’, Politics & Policy 36, no. 6 (2008): 944–71; Clement Fatovic, ‘The Political Theology of Prerogative: The Jurisprudential Miracle in Liberal Constitutional Thought’, Perspectives on Politics 6, no. 3 (2008): 487–501.
For instance, see Claudia Aradau and Rens van Munster, ‘Exceptionalism and the “War on Terror”’, British Journal of Criminology 49 (2009): 686–701; David Dyzenhaus, The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Fleur Johns, ‘Guantánamo Bay and the Annihilation of the Exception’, The European Journal of International Law 16, no. 4 (2005): 613–35; Oren Gross and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Jef Huysmans, ‘The Jargon of Exception – On Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society’, International Political Sociology 2 (2008): 165–83; Louiza Odysseos and Fabio Petito, eds, The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal War and the Crisis of Global Order (London: Routledge, 2007); Jason Ralph, ‘The Laws of War and the State of the American Exception’, Review of International Studies 35 (2009): 631–49; Kim Lane Scheppele, ‘Law in a Time of Emergency: States of Exception and the Temptations of 9/11’, Journal of Constitutional Law 6, no. 5 (2004): 1–75; and R.B.J. Walker, ‘Lines of Insecurity: International, Imperial, Exceptional’, Security Dialogue 37, no. 1 (2006): 65–82.
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. Georg Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 5.
Ibid., 6.
Schmitt, Political Theology, 13.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ‘Part the First: A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’, Article XXX, http://malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution#cp10s00.htm (accessed 13 December 2010).
Tracy Strong, ‘The Sovereign and the Exception: Carl Schmitt, Politics, Theology, and Leadership’, foreword to Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, Carl Schmitt, ed. George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), xvii.
Johan Steyn, ‘Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53 (2004): 1–15.
Scheuerman, ‘Carl Schmitt’, 118.
Levinson, ‘Torture in Iraq’, 9.
Scott Horton, ‘State of Exception: Bush's War on the Rule of Law’, Harper's, 2007 July http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/0081595 (accessed 10 August 2009).
Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 2.
Ibid., 6–7.
Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Ibid., 4.
Naomi Wolf, The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2007), 6.
Ibid., 6–13.
Ibid.,10.
House Committee on the Judiciary Majority Staff, Final Report to Chairman John Conyers Jr., Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Related to the Presidency of George W. Bush, 13 January 2009, 9, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/110th/IPres090113.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
John Yoo, War By Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006), 119–20.
Edward Lazarus, ‘How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as “Commander In Chief”? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent’, Findlaw, 5 January 2006, http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060105.html (accessed 10 August 2009).
Jack Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 2007), 208.
Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg, Presidential Power: Unchecked and Unbalanced (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2007), 338.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004); Rasul v. Bush, 542 US 466 (2004); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006); and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 US 723 (2008).
It can be difficult to untangle the theoretical beliefs of certain key individuals and the actual claims of the administration. For instance, John Yoo provocatively responded to a question as to whether any law prevented ‘crushing the testicles of the person's child’ with ‘No treaty’ and ‘I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that’. See Mayer, The Dark Side, 153. While Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos have claimed Article II powers do permit the president to do whatever he wants in wartime, including resort to any interrogation methods deemed fit, the same memos assert that CIA techniques do not amount to torture, leaving such prerogative arguments at the purely hypothetical level. The ‘First Bybee Memo’ written by John Yoo is a particularly notorious example of this extreme logic. See Jay S. Bybee, ‘Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation Under 18 USC §§ 2340-2340A’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 1 August 2002, 1–50, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-gonzales-aug2002.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
Gregory Treverton, Intelligence for an Age of Terror (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 210.
Len Scott, ‘Secret Intelligence, Covert Action, and Clandestine Diplomacy’, Intelligence and National Security 19, no. 2 (2004): 324.
Thomas Powers, Intelligence Wars: American Secret History from Hitler to Al Qaeda (New York: New York Review Books, 2004), 370.
James H. Doolittle, Report on the Covert Activities of the Central Intelligence Agency, 26 July 1954, 2–3, http://www.foia.cia.gov/helms/pdf/doolittle_report.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
The National Security Archive, Electronic Briefing Book No. 255, ‘Kissinger-Rogers Telecon’, 14 September 1970, (italics added), http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB255/19700912-1215-Rogers3.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009)
For example, see John Marks, The Search for the ‘Manchurian Candidate’: The CIA and Mind Control – The Secret History of the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Norton and Company, 1991); McCoy, A Question of Torture; J. Patrice McSherry, Predatory States, Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005); The National Security Archive, Electronic Briefing Book No. 222, ‘The CIA's Family Jewels’, ed. Thomas Blanton, 26 June 2007, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/index.htm; John Prados, Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA (Chicago: Ivan Dee, 2006); and Tim Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (New York: Doubleday, 2007).
United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1975–1976, Book IV, Part 5: Conclusions, 93, http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports.htm (accessed 10 August 2009).
Treverton, Intelligence for an Age of Terror, 209.
Richard Cheney, interview by Tim Russet, Meet the Press, NBC, 16 September 2001, http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html (accessed 10 August 2009)
Mayer, The Dark Side, 144.
Priest, ‘Anatomy of a Mistake’; Grey, Ghost Plane.
CBC News, ‘Maher Arar’, http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/index.html (accessed 1 September 2010).
Darius Rejali, Torture and Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 8.
Mayer, The Dark Side, 174–5.
Ibid., 250.
Eric Lichtblau, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice (New York: Anchor Books, 2009), 133.
Ibid., 138.
Associated Press, ‘UK: Intelligence Sharing with US Threatened’, The New York Times, 29 July 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/ 2009/07/29/world/AP-EU-Britain-Guantanamo.html (accessed 10 August 2009).
David Kravets, ‘Obama Claims Immunity, As New Spy Case Takes Center Stage’, Wired Magazine, 15 July 2009, http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/jewel (accessed 10 August 2009).
James M. Olson, ‘Intelligence and the War on Terror: How Dirty Are We Willing to Get Our Hands?’, SAIS Review XXVIII, no. 1 (2008): 40.
George W. Bush, Decision Points (New York: Crown Publishers, 2010), 69.
Richard B. Cheney, ‘Remarks by Richard Cheney’, The American Enterprise Institute, 21 May 2009, http://www.aei.org/speech/100050 (accessed 10 August 2009).
Mayer, The Dark Side, 43.
Rosemary Foot, ‘Torture: The Struggle over a Peremptory Norm in a Counter Terrorist Era’, International Relations 20, no. 2 (2006): 137–8.
Stanley Cohen, ‘Government Responses to Human Rights Reports: Claims, Denials, and Counterclaims’, Human Rights Quarterly 18, no. 3 (1996): 529–43.
Ibid., 524.
Ibid., 524–9.
Ibid., 526–8.
Lichtblau, Bush's Law, 7.
Mayer, The Dark Side, 267.
Bybee, ‘Standards of Conduct for Interrogation’, 1.
John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, ‘Executive Power v. International Law’, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 30, no. 1 (2007): 34–5.
Yoo, War by Other Means, 174.
Ibid., 198.
Ibid., 45.
Bush, Decision Points, 68.
Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, 130.
Ibid., 164.
Michael Ratner and the Center for Constitutional Rights, The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: A Prosecution by Book (New York: The New Press, 2008), 189.
Mayer, The Dark Side, 268.
Ratner, The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, 191.
Ibid., 195–6.
Phillippe Sands, The Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 275. Both Ratner and Sands build convincing detailed cases against several high-ranking individuals to establish this point.
Mayer, The Dark Side, 82.
Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Treatment of Detainees.
David Cole, Justice at War: The Men and Ideas that Shaped America's War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2008), xvi.
United States Department of State, Second Periodic Report of the United States of America to the Committee Against Torture, 6 May 2005, 2 Annex http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/45738.htm#annex2 (accessed 10 August 2009).
Alberto Gonzales, ‘Memorandum for the President: Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban’, 25 January 2002, 1–4, http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/documents/20020125.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, A/RES/39/46, Meeting no. 93, 10 December 1984.
Congress insisted on several reservations before ratifying the CAT, which are referenced in OLC arguments. See US Reservations, Declarations, and Understandings, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Cong. Rec. S17486-01, 27 October 1990, http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/tortres.html. For the federal anti-torture statute see Title 18 U.S.C., Chapter 113C, § 2340 (accessed 10 August 2009).
Jay S. Bybee, ‘Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency: Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 1 August 2002, 10, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-bybee2002.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).
Ibid., 10.
Ibid., 10–11.
Ibid., 11.
Ibid., 11.
Ibid., 11.
Ibid., 12.
Ibid., 12.
Ibid., 13.
Ibid., 15.
Ibid., 16.
Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General, Special Review: Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001–October 2003), 2003-7123-IG, 7 May 2004, 31–2, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/documents/20040507.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Ibid., 41.
Mayer, The Dark Side, 244.
Ibid., 263.
Central Intelligence Agency Inspector General, Special Review, 69.
Daniel B. Levin, ‘Memorandum for James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 30 December 2004, 2, http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/policy/national/doj-dag_torture-memo_30dec2004.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Daniel B. Levin, ‘Letter for John A. Rizzo, Acting Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 6 August 2004, 1–2, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-rizzo2004.pdf; Steven Bradbury, ‘Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Re: Application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A to Certain Techniques That May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainee’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 10 May 2005, 1–46, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-bradbury2005-3.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Steven Bradbury, ‘Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Senior Deputy General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Re: Application of United States Obligations Under Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture to Certain Techniques That May Be Used in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 30 May 2005, 1–40, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-bradbury2005.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Steven Bradbury, ‘Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Re: Application of Detainee Treatment Act to Conditions of Confinement at Central Intelligence Agency Detention Facilities’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 31 August 2006, 1–26, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-rizzo2006.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Steven Bradbury, ‘Letter for John A. Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 31 August 2006, 1–14, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/letter-rizzo2006.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Steven Bradbury, ‘Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency, Re: Application of the War Crimes Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Certain Techniques that May be Used by the CIA in the Interrogation of High Value al Qaeda Detainees’, US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 20 July 2007, 1–79, http://www.justice.gov/olc/docs/memo-warcrimesact.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Ibid., 13.
United States Department of State, Periodic Report, Article III: Non-Refoulment.
Bush, Decision Points, 69.
2009 In 59 per cent of Americans favoured banning physical torture, down from 66 per cent 2004 in while those who thought this too restrictive rose to 39 per cent from 30 per cent. See World Public Opinion.org, Majority of Americans Approve Complete Ban on Torture, 24 June 2009, http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/617.php?lb=brusc&pnt=617&nid=&id= (accessed 10 August 2009).
Cheney, ‘Remarks’.
Richard B. Bilder and Detlev F. Vagts, ‘Speaking Law to Power: Lawyers and Torture’, The American Journal of International Law 98, no. 4 (2004): 693–4.
Shirley V. Scott, ‘The Political Life of Public International Lawyers: Granting the Imprimatur’, International Relations 21 (2007): 420.
Ratner, The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, 185.
United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Report: Investigation into the Office of Legal Counsel's Memoranda Concerning Issues Relating to the Central Intelligence Agency's Use of ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ on Suspected Terrorists, 29 July 2009, 159–60, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/opr-final.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Dyzenhaus, The Constitution of Law.
Jeremy Waldron, ‘Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House’, Columbia Law Review 105, no. 6 (2005), 1743.
International Commission of Jurists, Assessing Damage, Urging Action: Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, and Human Rights, Geneva, 2009, 1–199, http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/EJP-Report.pdf (accessed 1 September 2010).
Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Treatment of Detainees.
Detainee Treatment Act 2005 of H.R. 2863, Title X, 30 December 2005.
Michael Slackman, ‘Officials Pressed Germans on Kidnapping by CIA’, The New York Times, 8 December 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/statessecrets.html (accessed 13 December 2010).
Giles Tremlett, ‘Wikileaks: US Pressured Spain Over CIA Rendition and Guantánamo Torture’, The Guardian, 1 December 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/wikileaks-us-spain-guantanamo-rendition (accessed 13 December 2010).
David Cole, ‘They Did Not Authorise Torture, But’, The New York Review of Books, 10 March 2010, http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/mar/10/they-did-authorize-torture-but (accessed 1 September 2010).
United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the Office of Legal Counsel, 254.
Ibid., 259.
David Margolis, ‘Memorandum of Decision Regarding the Objections to the Findings of Professional Misconduct in the Office of Professional Responsibility's Report of Investigation into the Office of Legal Counsel's Memoranda Concerning Issues Relating to the Central Intelligence Agency's Use of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” on Suspected Terrorists’, US Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 5 January 2010, 68, http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/opr-margolis.pdf (accessed 13 December 2010).