Levin’s remarks were made this morning at a conference at the Washington College of Law at American University addressing the ethical responsibilities of OLC lawyers and how they should be held accountable for authorizing abusive conduct that now appears to have been illegal. “Any government employee is appropriately subject to investigation of their conduct while they’re serving in government,” said Levin, who is now a partner at the law firm White & Case.

Later in the discussion, Levin also said that a truth commission that would investigate and reveal how the lawyers in his office reached their conclusions “would be useful.” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has proposed such a commission, but so far apparently does not have majority support for the idea in Congress. Levin spoke on a panel of experts that included Georgetown Law Professor David Luban, Alliance for Justice president Nan Aron, and Newsweek columnist Stuart Taylor.

“Maybe the [Office of Professional Responsibility] report will give some of the factual basis that will allow people to make judgments about that,” said Levin, referring to the ethics report of the OLC lawyers’ work conducted by a division of the Justice Department which has yet to be released. The report was drafted over several years and completed by the end of the Bush administration. “But I would agree if you could have a serious look at this it would be very valuable.”

Upon completion, the OPR report was sent to its subjects — including former OLC lawyers John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Stephen Bradbury, for their review and comment — and is still under Justice Department and possibly CIA review. It reportedly analyzes the lawyers’ communications with senior government officials and is highly critical of their conduct.

Will the administration be more swayed by an author of books about fighting terrorism than by its own deputy attorney general at the Office of Legal Counsel, Marty Lederman? The choice is stark, and if NPR’s Ari Shapiro is correct that Wittes is planning to reveal proposed legislation on the matter today, and that he has the ear of the Obama administration, then it may ultimately come down to whose view the administration credits more.

Wittes has no formal legal training and has proposed a potentially unconstitutional system of indefinite detention of terror suspects without trial; Lederman is an esteemed constitutional law professor at Georgetown University with eight years of prior experience advising the executive branch from the Justice Department — and he has previously expressed serious concerns about preventive detention.

As Spencer pointed out, before his appointment to the Office of Legal Counsel in the Obama administration, Lederman, in an online colloquy with Wittes, specifically denounced the idea of preventive detention based on the president’s determination of who is dangerous.

“’Dangerousness,’ as such — particularly dangerousness as evidenced primarily by one’s ‘deeply held beliefs’ — is not a constitutionally valid ground, standing alone, to indefinitely incarcerate persons without the protections of a criminal trial,” he wrote in Opinio Juris. “Indeed, even if the dangerousness is demonstrated by past criminal conduct, that is not a permissible ground for noncriminal detention.” He continued that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that deterrence of dangerous people “is a function ‘properly … of criminal law, not civil commitment.’”

Wittes may have a very “pragmatic approach to fighting terrorism,” as NPR describes it. (He’s also in the past proposed a system of “national security courts” that would suspend some of the usual criminal justice procedures — which sounds a lot like the new Obama military commissions proposal.) But it’s worth recalling that we’re in this situation to begin with because the Bush administration, dominated by non-lawyers, had insufficient respect for constitutional parameters.

This situation may be partly due to the lack of leadership in the OLC: Republicans have stalled the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s nominee to head the office, for months now. That may be giving outsiders more say in the administration’s plans than they would ordinarily have.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

As I reported earlier, the 34-year-old computer consultant of Syrian descent was apprehended by U.S. authorities in 2002 while he was changing planes at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, on his way home to Canada after visiting relatives in Tunisia.

After a harsh interrogation without access to counsel in New York, he was flown to Syria against his will, where he was kept in a tiny underground prison cell and tortured until he eventually “confessed” to training for terrorism in Afghanistan; in fact, he’d never even been there.

For those with a strong stomach, here’s the federal district court’s description of Arar’s early days in Syrian detention, which he claims was coordinated with US authorities:

During his first twelve days in Syrian detention, Arar was interrogated for eighteen hours per day and was physically and psychologically tortured. He was beaten on his palms, hips and lower back with a two-inch-thick electric cable. His captors also used their fists to beat him
on his stomach, face and back of his neck. He was subjected to excruciating pain and pleaded with his captors to stop, but they would not. He was placed in a room where he could hear the screams of other detainees being tortured and was told that he, too, would be placed in a
spine-breaking [*11] “chair,” hung upside down in a “tire” for beatings and subjected to electric shocks. To lessen his exposure to the torture, Arar falsely confessed, among other things, to having trained with terrorists in Afghanistan, even though he had never been to Afghanistan
and had never been involved in terrorist activity.

Arar was eventually deemed innocent and returned home to Canada in 2003, where the Canadian government confirmed that he’d done nothing wrong and apologized for its role in his arrest.

With the help of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Georgetown law professor David Cole, in 2004 Arar sued American officials in a U.S. federal court for sending him to Syria to be tortured.  But his case was dismissed on the grounds that an investigation might reveal state secrets and harm national security.  The court also ruled that, as a foreigner deported by immigration authorities, he had no right to challenge his treatment by the United States.

Although a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that Arar has no right to sue federal officials no matter what was done to him, the full court  of appeals in August made the highly unusual decision to re-hear the case.  All 12 active judges of the court are scheduled to hear the arguments from both sides at 3 p.m. in New York.  The argument will stream live on C-Span.org.

For more on the Arar case and the US government’s program of extraordinary rendition, check out Jane Mayer’s excellent piece on the subject in the New Yorker.

“If there’s a Georgetown cocktail party person who, quote, calls himself a conservative, and doesn’t like her, good luck, good luck.”

Is this a thinly-veiled shot at conservative columnist George Will?

Will reportedly told an audience of Senate aides yesterday that Palin is “obviously not qualified to be president” — and previously referred to McCain as “unpresidential” after saying he would fire the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, Christopher Cox.

Never mind that Will is one of the most respected of a dwindling number of true classical conservatives left in this country — McCain appears to be attacking the messenger, rather than addressing the concerns raised by the growing crowd of Palin’s conservative critics. Namely, that Palin’s recent interview performances indicate she has a severe lack of facility with the big issues and is generally unprepared for the big leagues.

So, was McCain attacking Will?

You be the judge.