RE: GTMO, Torture, renditions, etc.

Todd and all -- We will do so, thanks. As in the pre-election phase, the leads for the DOJ team on these issues will be David Kris and Dawn Johnsen. As in the pre-election phase we will coordinate with Mary to identify issues and further develop options. We will keep you posted. David ________________________________ Hi guys. I was just about to do an email, but Susan beat me to the punch. I talked to David Ogden (leading the DOJ transition) a couple weeks ago and then again tonight. Also talked to Jim Steinberg earlier tonight. David's team is working hard on these issues as is Mary. David and co. were working with Mary during the pre-election phase, and will link up with her again. The DOJ side and the nat sec side should work together with a view toward identifying the key issues (gitmo, torture memos, potential prosecutions, "truth and reconciliation" idea, etc.) and preparing options. At least some of these issues will need to be ready for Day One action, so the ball will need to move forward as promptly as possible. David and Mary, please keep me in the loop so that I can track progress on this and report back to John, Chris, etc. Thanks. ________________________________ Thanks, Chris. Mary De Rosa is doing these issues from nat sec side and is already plugged into DOJ team as I understand it. Is there more we should do, in your view, to ensure appropriate lash-up? Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile ________________________________ Todd et al., I'm writing to ask where we stand with respect to working through the national securities law and civil liberties law concerning the topics above. I believe we agreed that some cross-talk between the National Security team and the DOJ/Domestic team is required, but I don't recall getting to closure on which individuals have the lead. The exchange I had with Susan Rice at the last Board meeting is illustrative of the difficulty. There can be an inherent tension between the national security perspective and the Rule of Law perspective. As we know, this played out in the Bush Administration rather tragically, and the vast majority of legal observers believe that the DOJ participants acted in a manner that -- at a minimum -- violated fundamental ethical and professional principles, if not the Law. As a formal matter, whatever course of policy and action the Obama Administration adopts on these issues, clearance by OLC and the Attorney General will be required, as well as review by White House Counsel. So, I believe the Transition should likewise get the right set of perspectives around a table sooner rather than later. There is another, related issue that deserves some attention: The role of OLC in relation to the State Department Legal Adviser (L). The Bush Administration broke with precedent by shifting more authority to OLC for definitive resolution of questions of international law and treaty interpretation. L was consulted, but the formal lead rested with OLC. Earlier administrations allowed the State Department to have the lead. What will be the practice in the Obama Administration? There are arguments in both directions. It would be good to get this resolved before the appointees are selected. I am interested in these issues, having taught National Security Law. But I know there are several terrific lawyers who could contribute a lot: Eric Holder, Jamie Gorelick, Larry Tribe, Cass Sunstein, Alex Aleinikoff. -- (personal email) Christopher Edley, Jr. Professor and Dean UC Berkeley Law School