3 ms·

Please read the report. The term "secret law" is purposefully used with quotes. While not all of the above categories are technically "laws," they often have

Please read the report. The term "secret law" is purposefully used with quotes. While not all of the above categories are technically "laws," they often have the force of law and are significantly influencing the actions of the government and its citizens. Do you think that given the potential impact on such issues as torture, extrajudicial killings, and mass surveillance, this growing body of "secret law" should see the light of day? This is the key question.

tptacek 10y ago
If a law-alike like an OLC opinion isn't recognized by judges, how can it have "the force of law"? Are the General Orders of the Chicago Police Department --- the giant binder of rules the CPD sets for the conduct of its employees --- law under this definition?
- chishaku 10y ago
  If an OLC opinion is the difference between torture and no torture or extrajudicial killing and no extrajudicial killing, it should be public. If an elected official cites an OLC opinion as justification for torture in front of a judge and has a fighting chance of being vindicated, then I consider that OLC opinion to have the "force of the law" irrespective of any conventional technical definition. In any case, the argument over semantics is uninteresting. The key question posed by the report and upon which my original comment hinges is whether or not the directives, opinions, judgements, and bills informally described as "secret law" should be made transparent. I think they should. I don't know what you think because you didn't respond to the question.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    We can agree that OLC opinions authorizing torture are bad without agreeing that they are law. One of the things that makes those OLC decisions bad is that they are lawless: they contravene the law. (The other, obviously, is that torture is inherently wrong). Government officials probably cannot cite an OLC opinion in court in front of a judge as justification for torture. That's what my first comment on this thread pointed out. OLC opinions do not create binding precedent, any more than Wesley Snipes's tax lawyer's opinions did for his case.

tptacek 10y ago

If a law-alike like an OLC opinion isn't recognized by judges, how can it have "the force of law"? Are the General Orders of the Chicago Police Department --- the giant binder of rules the CPD sets for the conduct of its employees --- law under this definition?

chishaku 10y ago
If an OLC opinion is the difference between torture and no torture or extrajudicial killing and no extrajudicial killing, it should be public. If an elected official cites an OLC opinion as justification for torture in front of a judge and has a fighting chance of being vindicated, then I consider that OLC opinion to have the "force of the law" irrespective of any conventional technical definition. In any case, the argument over semantics is uninteresting. The key question posed by the report and upon which my original comment hinges is whether or not the directives, opinions, judgements, and bills informally described as "secret law" should be made transparent. I think they should. I don't know what you think because you didn't respond to the question.
- tptacek 10y ago
  We can agree that OLC opinions authorizing torture are bad without agreeing that they are law. One of the things that makes those OLC decisions bad is that they are lawless: they contravene the law. (The other, obviously, is that torture is inherently wrong). Government officials probably cannot cite an OLC opinion in court in front of a judge as justification for torture. That's what my first comment on this thread pointed out. OLC opinions do not create binding precedent, any more than Wesley Snipes's tax lawyer's opinions did for his case.