ABSTRACT
An astonishing feature of the so-called ‘global war on terrorism’ (GWOT) waged by the United States and its allies against Al Qaeda is the prominent role played by lawyers, civilian and military, representing both the US government and the people it has captured.1 The conduct of these lawyers has been a topic of interest to many, both in and out of the legal profession, since the first so-called ‘torture memos’ were released in 2004. It is a subject of international, not merely parochial, interest; as I write these words, a Spanish investigating magistrate is considering whether to proceed with an indictment of the ‘Bush Six’ – six highranking lawyers in the Bush administration who, it is alleged, enabled the torture of Spanish nationals by contriving advice that stripped prisoners of legal protections. I will discuss the ‘torture lawyers’, but also lawyers who represent the prisoners.2 Although most of these are Americans, not all of them are. Some of the leading Guantánamo defence lawyers come from the London-based organization, Reprieve. One lawyer I will discuss, US Marine Major Dan Mori, became a minor celebrity in Australia through his representation of David Hicks. The laws at issue in these cases are by and large international law, and of course Guantánamo has become an international symbol of the rule of law and its absence, a point central to the debate. In any case, the lessons I draw from looking at these lawyers are quite general and, I trust, of use to legal ethicists with no special interest in the US torture debate.
