A panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the Justice Department to release a redacted copy of a classified memo outlining the legal basis for drone strikes targeting American citizens overseas.
This seems a very dangerous decision. In essence, the court held that when the President stated that the strikes were “legal,” he waived all claims of attorney-client confidentiality and put the contents of the memo into the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act. The consequence of such logic is absurd: if a lawyer says his client is “innocent” of a crime, it would seem that all conversations the client has with his attorney are now open. It is just as much nonsense as when House Republicans declared that Lois Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment privilege by merely asserting her innocence.
The partisan political wars (and the anti-drone campaign like the Snowden fiascos is partisan, albeit anti-American rather than anti-Republican or anti-Democrat) are threatening to overwhelm the last bastion of neutrality in the American institutional constellation: the legal profession. We already have calls to disbar and even jail lawyers who give legal advice that certain groups disagree with. And now those groups seek to destroy the longstanding institution of attorney-client privilege so that they can force their political preferences even into the most private conversations of public officials trying to fit policy imperatives into a stagnant legal framework.
Graphic via shutterstock.com
Jason is an attorney practicing criminal law, civil litigation, and administrative law. Jason formerly worked as a Resident Instructor of International Relations at Creighton University, focusing on civil-military relations and national security strategy. Jason also served 15 years in the United States Air Force, including service at USSTRATCOM, America’s nuclear-weapons command.
Jason lives in Minnesota with his wife, three sons, three dogs, and three cats.