{"id":78,"date":"2010-04-23T10:29:09","date_gmt":"2010-04-23T15:29:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.law.cornell.edu\/library\/2010\/04\/26\/the-torture-lawyers-by-jens-ohlin\/"},"modified":"2010-05-11T07:58:49","modified_gmt":"2010-05-11T12:58:49","slug":"the-torture-lawyers-by-jens-ohlin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.law.cornell.edu\/library\/2010\/04\/23\/the-torture-lawyers-by-jens-ohlin\/","title":{"rendered":"The Torture Lawyers by Jens Ohlin"},"content":{"rendered":"

In “The Torture Lawyers” published at 51 Harv. Int’l L.J. 193 (2010) and available in Scholarship@Cornell Law<\/a>, Cornell Law Professor Jens Ohlin<\/a> examines the use of the justified necessity and excused necessity defenses by government agents who engaged in acts of what many consider to be torture during the Bush Administration. Professor Ohlin then discusses why Bush Administration attorneys who advocated the use of torture and may be considered accomplices in torture cannot successfully use these same defenses under the “flow-down” theory. To counter the objection that attorneys cannot be prosecuted simply for giving advice, Professor Ohlin examines two cases from the Nuremberg trials<\/a>:<\/p>\n