of thought about international law. there is an austin and realist school that says that nations never obey the law because it is not real mall. there is a utilitarian approach that says that sometimes nation's obey international law but only when it is convenient for them or when it serves their best interest. there is a continent littlest strand which says that countries will generally obey international law out of a sense of legal obligations were compliance pool. and finally there is a process approach that says that nations can be induced to obey from encouragement and prodding of other nations to get in the u.s. government there are debates about whether international law is not all or not. and during the last 20 years as the united states has become the last remaining sole superpower there has been a temptation to become the exception list,

temptation to say we have the strength economically and militarily and international law is inconvenient. it is a constraint we don't need and we don't want. and in that context you have quotes from people like john bolten who was a deputy secretary of state and the permanent representative to the united nations during the bush administration. ..

>> trying to do disapprove the case they said in their book international law is just politics no more on novel or a treaty or a rule of international law of the attitude is regarded non-binding letter. so there are those in the government appealed international law is not real law that is important to the war and terrorism because they thought the united states had to do whatever it had to do to protect us from the terrorist threat dr. 9/11 and also in times of conflict the law must be silent but americans still look at international law that way and it became a problem you want to take that position had to

convince the president to ignore international law with the general population thinks it is real lot? year, and nec the chief counsel of the end of seed during the earlier bush's frustration and during the most recent of frustration with un council representative to the un. it is very frustrating for those that tried to debunk international law criticism of the international law grounds of the united states is notable because of the very nature of the u.s. as a country defined by the law. that is part of a reason why the united states cannot long sustain for policies at odds of international law. americans will not support such policies and they will ask is it legal before they ask any other questions of foreign policy actions in

the context of this huge debate which is still raging on the jon stewart show the author of the white house torture memos was talking about his new book that said international law did not contravene and those that implemented them are not lawbreakers. the consequences we decided to say let's pause and find empirical evidence and find out of policy makers on the inside to perceive international law as real law and paul will tell you how we accomplished that. >> my very first day i was a young day a newly minted lawyer at the time it was dissolving and as i was walking into his office he said you are the new lawyer? i said yes.

please stand in the doorway and he was a chain smoker that he was being polite and says i have global years sown i said i of your lawyer d1 some legal device? he said all i want you to do is tell me that if i don't listen to you i either have to go to jail or i don't have to go to jail. i said richard, no one ever goes to jail for violating public international law and he said great. see you next year and that was the view of many of the foreign service officers i was engaging with that don't come in newt as a lawyer in the back of your mind you want to have my job to provide guidance and you will come in until that the international law is binding and real law when in fact,

it is not. over the course of a the year not only did he allow me to come into his office and offered me a cigarette he came to my office which she had trouble finding on the fifth floor and started to speak out of the lawyer opinion would you do with the debt? croatia seeking international recognition we kind of one to recognize them but not right away. so we were thinking years later you simply say yes it is binding listen to me but the students are asking this question of academics and students don't listen to us so we had to think about had to get your mind into the black box of international

law? if you ask any international lawyer is binding and foreign policy which you have been a foreign policy practitioner is binding as long as it is consistent of my foreign policy objectives a rebel we're bringing together the legal advisor spanning from the carter administration and eventually we can get a ford from the legal adviser of the obama administration and put them together in a very big room it would the different did ministrations and ask them to take your top three and walked through the role that international law played percodan doing so think about was it binding law or something that the foreign services officer secretary of state were bound by? was it clear? oftentimes international law is not that clear can be

binding if it is not clear? did they have an obligation to speak lot to power? did they advise or did they say this is the law and u.s. the president or secretary of state have the obligation to follow this even if it can stranger foreign policy objective to the allocation of debt? find of the this is the most interesting question who was their client? who pays your bills as a legal officer in the department of state? secretary of state? president? the american people? is the client the greater good or international law that is another entity and they have their relationship and responsibility to that? we then put together a piano of non-american and legal

advisers from russia, india, china, ethiop ia and the united kingdom and ask them the same question in comparison to contrast. than one reason we thought to go to ask the of the glitter risers it is nice to do empirical research to have 10 people to talk to for your data set club part of the reason is when you look at the academics, it is the debate, what matters what does not matter what should matter but there is surprisingly limited empirical evidence because we're of international law touches our daily lives three few people actually make or process that international law. department hs over 12,000 specialists and they have 150 lawyers for all the questions you keep hearing about and reading

about are dealt with by 12,000 trained specialists relying on a small internal law firm of only 150 lawyers. >> so now we will share with you some of our findings some of them are quite surprising and in some cases may go advisers told us things that are in the book that have never before been recorded in history. stay tuned. of the first finding if there is the spectrum of those to be the international law is binding law then those from the republican and political appointees at democratic political appointees they

all fought international law was real law but the next question is what does that mean? some people say international law israel law because if you violate it under reciprocity other countries will retaliate. just fear of retaliation but the first surprise is the legal of pfizer's said it is more complex not just bilateral retaliation but a systematic reciprocity with the united states violates the law or comes up with a new interpretation but dilutes the outlawed not just the other countries to use it against us in the future, they will that is not in our long-term interest rather they will start using it against each other in the future including our allies part of this for example, the seidman united states in its intervention into kosovo developed something that looked very close to

humanitarian intervention. russia, a couple years later use that as an excuse for going into south ossetia in georgia and perry did the same bank which that the united states and the allies used in 1999. that is the system regressed. them there is of reputation. you may say it is a superpower we are much higher so the diplomatic might should be up there. the one thing you might consider that henry kissinger said it is lonely at the top of there is only one superpower there will be a natural balance. maybe they graph will be tilted a little bit but what we see during some periods of time with the united states is plainly violating international law that would have been the saturation with the white house torture

memos the extraordinary rendition policy and the waterboarding of some individuals up there 175 times or more. at that point* our reputation took such a hit the diplomacy was suffering greatly in the congress recognized this and during the campaign of the last presidency the candidates recognize this also legal advisers some have to recognize there is a reputation that the united states benefits. we're at our strongest diplomatically when we leave by moral example and when we don't, we we can all of that economic and military might and it cost the united states to much unilaterally to do all the things it wants to do if we cannot get the cooperation of other countries have seen as a

lawbreaker. and is a reputation concerned as well. also a general concern for the long term stability of the bank -- legal system. citizens when they travel abroad the military stations abide -- abroad than any other country and we are best protected in the long run by a stable rule of law order in which we can a by example and impose on other countries this is the latest and we don't have to worry about them saying you are ignoring the law so how could you do less of this? if you put this together the legal advisers said we consider this compliance rethink international law is really what does that mean it is right one hunter% of the time? and no. paul mentions the 55 or 65 miles per hour speed limit. law of people ignore the

speed limit and go faster them back. but it is still exerts a poll of there is no-space the mirage of flying around and crash into each other. that is international law. also of all of the kinds of tort, it criminal, international law is like contract law. it is true those of you in the room better lawyers were studying to be with us sometimes businesses will violate their contracts and the lawyers will say you should go ahead under these circumstances and violate the contract. you have to pay a penalty, liquidated damages, pay compensation but it is better than being locked into a bad contract. but if the legal advisor is doing their job they will now with the consequences are and go into the position with their eyes wide open

and that is not what happened with the lawyers who hijacked the legal analysis of that issue and we will talk about more about that in the evening but i will talk they should turn it over to four examples of what the legal advisers told us about where international law did constrain the foreign policy makers. >> one of the things we're most surprised by be perfectly expected for the third tier issues and second-tier issues there would be a binding nature of international law. but quite frankly even after spending all of those years working at the department of state we were genuinely surprised a substantial number of cases there was a primary national security interest for the u.s. government to consider taking a particular action or inaction they believed

was more vague justified in and when advised not to do with the president or secretary of state decided not to pursue that path. i won't go about five minutes with the examples the first is when libya had turned over to the tunisian passports and had killed civilians a book the vienna and rome airport. reagan said they used force read need to have a tit-for-tat approach he was advised by his lawyer that while this may be an appropriate course of action in the future there was currently no legal basis that it had been articulated there would be retaliation in there had not been there notice that we have to come out and be aggressive than

the lawyer said you have to tell the bad guys that is the new policy before you can implement it and they did not deploy a airstrikes in that instance but did make a statement in the future they would and they did and the results of futures john d. schlumberger another example which is fairly telling of the up side of international law that it tends to be oddly enough more rational and methodical. after pan am flight one '03 brought down over lockerbie scott lind reality had a policy of use of force in response to retaliation the president was key in doing it against iran and syria that the u.s. government believes was responsible for downing pan am 103 but they

wanted to set up a special tribunal to investigate and in the course of their investigation a pad out the perpetrators were the bn and not syrian and iranian. of the media they came out of the game with the preferred policy approach we have articulate it we would have hit the wrong country. though the goal approach provided the avenue for a more rational thinking and the gathering of the evidence to the legal process. there is also a situation of a cruise ship in the mediterranean hijacked by terrorist and they killed an american and citizen and eventually stopped in egypt and boarded an egyptian plane and ronald reagan deployed fighter planes of an aircraft carrier to intercept the plane. we all remember this as the fighter planes went up and into shoot down the plan there were going to it

landed in italy and these individuals were arrested, detained and behind the scenes the lawyers had said to president reagan yes you can intercept the plane but you cannot shoot it down. so the actual orders to the private were pretense which you can shoot it down make them think you can shoot it down but do not shoot the plane down. they forced the plane to land in the nato air base in italy and became under the jurisdiction of made no. the treaty the related to this the bass said they could only be used for nato activities. this is not a nato activity. the italians surrounded the plane but the americans are on pace and brought them into custody and tried them an italian court for although public knowledge it was kept quiet because

although it was operated by the americans their research jurisdiction under article 32. that constrained the ability to grab them and bring them back to the united states and trained them here. you also find situations where it constrains the justification for using force and the political environment. for instance if you remember the rescue mission of the american medical students in grenada that is not the legal justification that was put out. it was put out in than do the press briefing it was a new wants to legal opinion because it was much better to stand in front of the television camera to save the american military is going down to rescue american citizens and that is the basis for the rest of pulling the troops and -- as

opposed to invited by the former prime minister blah, blah, blah but the problem was the russians were pushing the exact same doctrine and what they used before. the russian citizens we have an obligation to protect them had they pushed the argument beyond the.net-- domestic in the country it wanted to intervene that they were there citizen and needed to go when to protect them so the bigger it -- legal advisor thought they should tone down the legal justification of the u.s.. one last example is the u.s. hostages that the u.s. embassy in teheran. within the carter ministration there is a serious divide about to respond and an offer to put on the table to essentially

drive the u.s. forces of massachusetts avenue to the iranian embassy which is operating in the united states and in a kind other gentler way to have hostages is we trade them and you move on voyages a direct violation of international law and it was legal adviser to convince president carter to quash the proposal and the iranians maintained a diplomatic mission with full diplomatic protection the entire time of the crisis. that gave some degree of moral authority and with the five o one, said day 10 peace accord and the soon to be sudan peace accord. back in 1995 leaders were invited to the peace negotiations that was the instigator of the conflict

that we thought could not have piece in bosnia without having the perpetrators. if you have a piece degree view the of five. weeks before it launched the prosecutor indicted milan a pitch for crimes against humanity in the balkans. they said that is okay we're not a core we're peace negotiators. that the court deal with them later they are still the invited. the legal advisor had to say if they are in diode-- at indicted under the when you cannot bring them to date in ohio and have them participate in the peace process. when you read the various books, they confide at the end of the day the prosecutor, the south african and the hague had one of the most significant impact on the process because the deal needed to be negotiated with

milosevich and also by happenstance because of the indictment favorite able to get a peace agreement and get to resolutions about the conflict. the exact same situation replace now the president of sudan is indicted for crimes against humanity and war crimes for qatar and there is a question can you bring him into the peace process of the has been indicted? you see a replay of a law of questions and will it really matter? will they really be deployed on the first type of questions? i have to talk about the fun one's. michael will now tell you all the surprisingly this way in a number of circumstances about a number where they chose not to apply the rule of law

because foreign policy prerogatives were deemed to be so imperative they did not want them to be cluttered by viggo principal. >> usually when that happens it is not that he stated his case and we will do with any way but rather they did not indict the legal adviser. he did not have a seat at the table. legal advisor said that was the most important thing for the process to work for them to be part of the process to weigh in on the process for only four times in the last 80 years they could identify when they were cut out there were very honest and open and candid about this. the first time was when the devastates decided to mind -- mind harbors of nicaragua no legal opinion from the state department lawyers going to the international court of justice and was seen as a train wreck and could have been done so much better if the lawyers were involved so

they said during this discussion. with the iran-contra affair the united states to send bruner to going judy biggert share of a terrorist decided we would negotiate with the iranian hostage-takers and get money from them to ship to the contras that congress said under the amendment there were not allowed and this was because of oliver north that he was later indicted and prosecuted. both legal advisers state department were completely cut out that only brought in at the and to try to clean up the bus. and there was a famous case of a mexican doctor who was involved in the kidnapping and torture of an american agent called kiki. are d.a. agent decided to kidnap and the dim but bring him up and prosecute him but that case went to the

supreme court and they said international law may have been violated but under domestic law we will not dismiss the case but later was because of lack of evidence as a total disaster but the foreign policy applications every country said will the united states kidnap our citizens that is a violation of international law and of a glove pfizer said have they been at the table the united states would not have done that. finally most recently is the case of the white house torture memos. what happened that a law professor from berkeley who was recently hawking his new book together a lawyer for room at the defense department and the vice president's lawyer, am i missing a lawyer? about three lawyers decided to call themselves the work

council and got together and cut out the military lawyers and state department lawyers and roe opinion after opinion that you devastates could do these things like waterboarding and it was not tortured yet they were not experts at the international conventions than made up their own conclusions and send them to the president elect john and said a war by any other name the reason why they cut out the state department lawyers as they were afraid of the president heard what he had to say he would not go along with their conclusions brokerages carry and shows it is very important for the state department lawyers to be there but also they said they recognize they were seen as the people that always said no you cannot do that if they would never be invited to the table but instead seen as created problem solvers and a law of

what we've been in the book is international law is flexible enough to cover up with some pretty creative solutions per examples of the book is the creation of the yugoslavia war crimes tribunal even though the security council under the u.n. charter does not have the power to happen international tribunal it led to the cambodia tribunal and the court and launched a whole new era of accountability all because the state department legal advisor came up with some creative situations and solutions of what they call putting new wine into old bottles and in the book there are countless examples of international law is to be creatively employed an illegal advisers and recognize there are limits to what they could do defined by how our allies would respond and the

international community would respond and how law professes will respond either by teeing and who roi a garmin and other journalists that will respond with the united states announces something that seems so clearly outside of international law. with that as our profits come odierno half-hour into the program will above to hear your questions and thoughts and comments. and ron will share some of the incites we have found. we have a microphone. >> probably a pretty simplistic question but who sets international law? >> it is at the heart of the whole issue where does it come from? international law generally from treaty's come a bilateral contract that they

will have organizations but also from customary international law which is a long-term state practice at a sense of legal obligation. it has been around with us for centuries. modern international law where the nation's state was recognized and the most modern development came after world war ii rehab international tribunals the prosecute individuals. but one say country ratify is a treaty we are bound by that often a treaty has a torture convention that they have to be prosecuted. those people who wrote the white house torture memos are implement them and

waterboarded those have a risk of possible prosecution if the lawyers were to concluded these violated international law and they tried to give them a golden shield. if the lawyer said it is legal how could i be held responsible? that is what the obama administration will be wrestling with. >> you think the bush and administration approach did permanent damage? >> it is interesting you ask that question because there are a number of bush and ministrations lawyers who are concerned about that possibility and surprisingly seeing a reflected in the current administration as well. michael touchstone up idea of customary international law that a number of states

to over a period of time under the believe they're obligated to do it if it becomes law. but the opposite is true if states start pulling out of patterns of practice and say it does not apply you begin to erode and watered down international law then you find yourself in circumstances where you want to rely on and use it to achieve your security objective that is one anglo i think one has to be concerned about from a viggo perspective and the other is the moral authority of the united states. i say that cautiously because i have been somewhat skeptical talking about the moral authority how that constrains the other states but what i have been surprised about with the policy group deployed overseas americans and

others are seen differently in the sense of commitment that there is moral authority that americans and others have a search of the averages of power but the moral authority should not be underestimated. that is one of the concerns we are now faced with that a law of four policy we have the military but much more of our form policy and objectives have been accomplished because our commitment to the rule flaw hour allies and deep relationships with other countries much more so than i ever would have thought. that is why is most worried about. >> and would to add paul and i have every savaiko offered a brief before the supreme court. if you're not familiar with the weger case.

they were found on the pakistan border coming given to united states troops and put in guantanamo for the last eight years they have been determined that weger and not a threat to national security come would not associate with cockeyed it was a big mistake. on the other hand, they cannot send them back to china because it they will be persecuted that violates to where there will be persecuted or tortured. the district court says they have to be released into the united states probably we are bumped out for this part of the appeals court said as long as the obama administration says they're trying to find a place for the weger they do not have to be replaced. gabbana administrations as we have tried hard but we

cannot find a place. they are all over the girl but nobody wants these guys. it is not up to the supreme court and they asked of public international to write a brief that would weigh in on a question if the supreme court decides that the weger have to stay in detention forever in violation of international law or the supreme court's own precedent, what would that do to our foreign policy and americans? what will that do to people like paul and i go abroad to train international judges and prosecutors in negotiate peace treaties? so now it goes into detail about the experiences we have had a field that the world does look at the united states very carefully and if we are the moral

leader it gives a great benefit to foreign policy and if we are seen as violating the law it is a detriment for us to accomplish what we want to accomplish include eight americans abroad. >> one of the things that was touched on in the book is short-term and long-term wins for the political persons. what can be done in considering the nature of the political game that is very short? what can be done to make sure people are looking toward the future and what can be done? >> the question is essentially is how do make international law which is somewhat cumbersome with a lengthy process compete with the short-term interest and our political environment?

you make the commitment to the rule of law a short-term political interests. president obama has done this early on and the essentially with the proclamations relating to guantanamo that the commitment to the rule of law is something that the representitive of the united states should commit to rubric of implementing that commitment longer-term is more difficult and has to be sustained by a short-term political interests but you want to take international law into the bookstore and want people to have a part of the platform a general covenant part of course, u.s. commitment to the rule of law but not only in how we interact with each other but with our friends, allies and probably more importantly our adversaries. that political covenant he appeared that with the long

term implementation of that rule of law. next question? >> one of the criticisms of international law that you talk about is the lack of the enforcement branch to make it binding. i was wondering about organizations like enter poll and multilateral covered action is that seen as the executive arm of international law? >> international law works best when there is enforcement built-in. the world trade organization becomes very effective at enforcing trade law because it can rule against the country and give the other countries the right to have retaliatory measures and that brings other countries into compliance very quickly. it some cases like criminal law you have the security council created and criminal

courts but they don't have have -- they have to rely on the cooperation of countries and sometimes the security council to authorize force but that is very aware and sometimes the world bank and imf use the economic system to make it conditional as if in that case of giving serbia one point* $18,000,000,000.2 surrender slow but on the vucevic to the hague that is when it announced the number one trade commodity was slobodan milosevic. [laughter] but anyway it is now an international police force but a clearing house that basically works when there is an arrest warrant has modern day when you go through the airport and show your passport it will buy

back up and you could be arrested but interpol itself is not have action. you have targeted killing which is controversial. after the munich olympics israel went down and hunted down the palestinians the killings of the israeli athletes. now we have killings by virtue of a the predator drums that shootdown house fire cruise missiles in is a much broader approach than just shooting somebody on the street did you send a missile to their house many times you will miss the perpetrator or the intelligence is wrong. that is the most controversial area where the obama administration

continues a bush and penetration policy to use the predator droves of a law of countries look at that to say wait a minute you're pushing the boundaries and going bilal -- beyond what it is allowed. >> the book suggested receives to suggest the involvement of the glove pfizer's is essential to our nation's action in the times of crisis and wonders what guarantees there are they would not ask how we can rely on the legal of pfizer's too not be that way? >> one of the things we found surprising is we had pulled the plug advisers in the room together we were focused on answering the question and also wanted it to be a story of the designation of the legal

office for the department of state and said we want them to begin how did you become the number one public international lawyer in the u.s. government? interestingly, all of them were a lawyer's lawyer before they took that position. not a single one of them was a purely political appointee. they had come in from decades from firms of the york, chicago, a surprising number were corporate lawyers they can basically yes when they come in to advise them it is the law. they have that perspective and it was a very refreshing sense as academics and international law didn't you read about books and take our class's?

one current legal advisor from the yale law school but then the other ones were lawyers straight out of the maine law firms and their approach was they were going to be lawyers, and not policy makers and that is important. we have been very lucky in the last four years on that and it could change. there are 8,000 political appointments every time there is a new election but it takes militants to ensure the the divisors are careered lawyers or lawyers lawyers. >> let's be add two things. of like john who was an extremist and higher the position because of his extreme view is a true believer. the glove visor's have to be confirmed by the senate have to go through a public confirmation process that sometimes takes many months

and expose is what their views are ahead of time and often that means they will try to find middle -- model of the road advisers. second to come with the process is that before the issue gets to the legal adviser in past to go through a clearance process and all of the experts of the lower level and the assistant legal advisers have to look at it. looking at this process but there is an issue of the u.s. government where the state department lawyers say one thing and the other lawyers say something else from the justice department it should go to the interagency process where the national security council makes the decision. the only time when it breaks down is when there is a purposeful effort to cut out the lawyers that are supposed to be a part of the

process. the solution is to keep the right lawyers contributing in the way designed almost always works. >> double-a-2 pick up on the question next to you. something that struck me when i was a young warrior at the state department there is a picture of the president, vice president, secretary of state then after the election the next day there replaced by the new president and vice president and secretary of state and everybody said okay. i wanted where the old photos go but in a conference room there is a total of every single viggo of pfizer and this is judge abraham who was a former judge and mrs. monroe one icahn of the washington legal establishment and a sense that l the job is to provide key assistants wear as an the other bureau they

are political appointees. you never find a former assistant secretary of state picture in the office is always the current and that tradition that i think is very important to maintain over the years. >> at what point* is the problems like the torture memos get back to people like george w. bush? will they ever been prosecuted or could he be prosecuted for them and what consequences would be resolved? >> in the old-- there was no criminal problems are penalties if you pile they did international law the starting with nuremberg it had become the case of individuals can be prosecuted for ordering or crimes committed genocide, the torture and among others. this is because they have treaties that say there is a duty to prosecute those

people and in the u.s. has federal statutes to implement the treaty and give authorization. kors it is headed by an attorney general and sometimes he'll use his discretion not to prosecute sometimes those of very controversial like the political decisions to fire surgeon prosecutors because they were or were not prosecuting search and prosecutors who the current obama administration has a real conundrum obama wants to be nelson mandela and look ahead but not behind he knows politically will be divisive and hurt his chances for reelection in the congressman that are running for office in the next election if he has a very strong effort to prosecute the zero lawyers the right the torture memos and individuals who implemented them and even the president you authorizes. instead they have created a special prosecutor and have

given a limited mandate of the people that have committed acts of torture that are not authorized by the torture memos those people that they're doing things that are even worse than waterboarding there were worse things but unfortunately the obama administration refuses to release a bunch of photographs of things that happened in afghanistan and guantanamo bay and the abu ghraib and the reason they don't want to release those is because it will make the terrorists hate us even more. but the truth is there is stuff in there that would probably create a public outcry for the heads of the people that committed did you visually saw the view would be so disgusted that you have to say the other people have to be brought to justice. i don't know if we will see anybody prosecuted it may be a couple of global people

wendy england and people like that from abu ghraib but personally i think those that manipulated the system and created that according to the bipartisan committee purposely distorted the law knowing you would the to torture they should be held responsible at a minimum with ethics issues with the state bar and a book debt for serious prosecution but i am not confident that the obama administration will proceed. >> i thought i heard you say it was possible. >> can you hurry up and give her the microphone?

>> by the way this is carol, she edited the transcripts and is a big contributor to the of book and helps me with the labs for the board crime tribunal so go ahead with a question. >> i just want to follow by the question about the possible prosecution of people involved in the torture memos. you express the suspicion it will not happen in the united states courts, but other courts around the world late bindery jurisdiction or other arrangement that they would want to take on those people so it might constrain the people's freedom to travel? >> parts of compliance called the international what is a new fear that people have that if they violate it they may not be prosecuted domestically but when they travel abroad they could be prosecuted under

universal jurisdiction they say that any country it gets its hands that has the authority to prosecute we have seen the indictment in several countries and the most recently is united kingdom just announced an indictmenindictmen t of one of the military leaders from israel that was involved in operation cast lead in the gaza so that individuals that i will not travel anywhere because i made be extradited to the united kingdom. will not comment whether they have violated the law but i certainly think we have seen henry kissinger does not travel and where ever since the three pigeons wrote the indictment of kissinger in many countries lobbied complaints and i don't think john is doing a law of traveling other than

the american book speed 11 tour. >> and the back corner. >> we only have two minutes. >> talk about the legal advisers interview nine of them never considered resigning with the advice was not taken into account why do you think these legal in pfizer's did not resign and did they make the correct choice? >> they talk a law in the book of the situation of someone we have had lecture the. the deputy viggo adviser in the united kingdom and wrote a memo to the prime minister, tony blair thomas saying don't invade iraq. tell bush to go pound is say and it would violate international law if best you have a security council resolution of the player did not like that city got

another opinion from the attorney general said it is a close call that go ahead and because of that the united states united states and united kingdom did invade iraq in 2003. she resigned but did not tell anybody why because she felt she gave legal advice and confidence. like a policy maker does when they resign you cannot blaster resignation letter in "the new york times" and you have to keep a secret for a break couple of years later somebody leaked the resignation letter that everybody understood. we asked legal advisers what would you do? everyone said at some point* there might be a duty to resign and they all said if they were per under the circumstances they would consider doing the same thing. why didn't they and the four cases where they work cut out and they were very upset? what do you think? >> they all admitted there

may come an obligation to resign. this goes back to who is the client? we also bought they had a higher obligation to the american people or to be essentially the rule of law. they admitted the thought had crossed their mind but they were caught at -- data-processing and had to come in to manage the crash landing. if they were not there with takeoff they were to get the train back on the track. there were fighting a guard battle within the administration and the realization that sometimes make he put on the track the very first white house

counsel they he was at the center of a number of the carryover issues from the bush administration and i don't know anything about behind-the-scenes but when these things happen they are done quietly. with the lawyers treated as part of being a lawyer and a confide with the attorney-client relationship and does make it complicated. both michael and i serve at the department of state when three of our clients resigned in protest over the u.s. policy in yugoslavia. it look like we provided legal assistance to the officers who open directly to the secretary of state that argue for a different policy in the case of

yugoslavia and the conversation the resignation came up lower those that did not have professional obligations but it is interesting when should a lawyer resign? >> maybe we will think about writing it for the next book level of thank you so much for coming out this evening and we will stick around and do some book signings and if you want to join us later at the nice little irish pub ago have a drink as well. they do to the television audience and to all of you. [applause]