台湾校园歌曲
法律职业伦理与法律和道德的分离*
美 布拉德利㊃温德尔著**尹超译***
导论
涉及律师的惊人丑闻当然不是什么新鲜事㊂律师的不当行为导致或加剧了水门事件㊁储蓄和贷款崩溃㊁公司会计惨败（它引起20世纪90年代科技股暴跌），以及无数突出的危害㊂但就其厚颜无耻和惊世骇俗而言，很难超越美国政府精英律师试图逃避国内和国际关于禁止酷刑的法令的做法㊂美国在 9㊃11 袭击后不久对阿富汗的入侵，导致许多可能与基地组织有联系的被拘留者被抓获，他们可能掌握有关该组织结构㊁人员甚至未来恐怖袭击计划的信息㊂因此，布什政府面临一个紧迫的问题，即如何对军方㊁联邦调查局㊁中央情报局以及其他政府人员和民间承包商使用的审讯手段加以限制㊂国防部官员和总统顾问自然会求助于律师，来解释和适用关于囚犯待遇的国内和国际法律规范㊂
由司法部法律顾问办公室（OLC）编写的备忘录被披露给了媒体，并被迅速称为 酷刑备忘录 ㊂这些备忘录讨论了广泛的法律问题，从‘日内瓦公约“对战俘的保护是否扩大到塔利班或基地组织嫌疑人，到总统作为武装部队总司令的权力是否会受到国会将虐待囚犯定为犯罪行为的限制㊂最臭名昭著的一份备忘录总结认为，某些审讯方法可能残忍㊁不人道或有辱人格，但却不属于被禁止的酷刑㊂该备忘录进一步得出结论：即使一个行为被认为是酷刑，它也可能因为自卫或必要而被证明是正当的㊂即使审讯手段在其他
方面会被认为是错误的，作为总司令的总统有单方面的
* ** ***Wendel，W.Bradley， Legal Ethics and the Seperation of Law and Morals， Cornell Law Re-view91（1），November2005，pp.67-128.
布拉德利㊃温德尔，康奈尔大学法学院教授㊂
尹超，中国政法大学法律硕士学院副教授㊂
法律与伦理
第九辑
062权力使政府行为者在酷刑方面免受国内和国际法律的限制㊂①这不是所有人都能引以为豪的法律分析㊂绝大多数刑法㊁国际法㊁宪法和军事法专家的反应是，政府备忘录中的法律分析是错误的，因此律师的建议是不适当的㊂②事实上，在新闻媒体披露了这些备忘录之后，布什政府立即与这些分析撇清了关系，认为这些备忘录 抽象 过于宽泛 ，甚至在某些情况下与政府高层官员实际做出的政策决定毫不相干㊂③令政府更加尴尬的是，备忘录开始向新闻界泄露与阿布格莱布监狱（Abu Gh-
①
②
③
See Memorandum from Jay S.Bybee，Assistant Attorney General，to Alberto R.Gonzales，Coun-l to the President（Aug.1，2002）[hereinafter Aug.1OLC Memo]，in The Torture Papers：The Road to Abu Ghraib172，172（Karen J.Greenberg&Joshua L.Dratel eds.，2005）[hereinafter The Torture Papers].
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Alberto tR Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States Before the the Judiciary，109th Cong.158（2005），available at http：// www.v/congress/nate/natel4chlO9.html（follow PDF hyperlink for S.Hrg.
109-4）[hereinafter Gonzales Confirmation Hearing]（statement of Harold Hongju Koh，Dean，Yale Law School）（ [I]n my professional opinion，the August1，2002OLC Memorandum is perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read ）；LAWYERS'STATE-MENT ON BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S TORTURE MEMOS（Aug.4，2004），available at ht-tp：///spotlight/0804statement.pdf[hereinafter LAWYERS'STATEMENT]；Kath-leen Clark&Julie Mertus， Torturing the Law：The Justice Department's Legal Contortions on Interrogatio
n， WASH.POST，June20，2004，at B3（criticizing stunning legal contortions in the memos）；Adam Liptak， Legal Scholars Criticize Memos on Torture， N.Y.TIMES，June25，2004，at A14（quoting Cass Sunstein's opinion that the legal analysis in the memos was very low level，very weak，embarrassingly weak，just short of reckless ）；Ruth Wedgewood&R.James Wooly，Opinion， Law and Torture， WALL ST.J.，June28，2004，at A10（concluding that the memos bend and twist to avoid any legal restrictions on torture and ignore or misapply governing law）.For an exceptionally strong reaction by an international law scholar and former military lawyer，e Jordan J.Paust， Executive Plans and Authorizations to Violate International Law Concerning Treatment and Interrogation of Detainees， 43COL-UM.J.TRANSNAT'L L.811，811（2005）（ Not since the Nazi era have so many lawyers been so clearly involved in international crimes concerning the treatment and interrogation of persons de-tained during war ）.
See Amanda Ripley， Redefining Torture：Did the U.S.Go Too Far in Changing the Rules，or Did It Apply the New Rules to the Wrong People？， TIME，June21，2004，at49，49（re-porting that the White Hou considered the torture memos abstract musings rather than policy prescriptions）；Press Briefing，Judge Alberto Gonzales，White Hou Counl et al.（June22，2004），http：//v/news/releas/2004/06/20040622-14.html[hereinafter Gonzal
es Briefing].Even a defender of the majority of the administration's interrogation practices called the August1OLC memo terrifying and horrific， described the definition of torture as extremely narrow[and]hairsplitting， and suggested that the memo was the product of lawyers on a very heavy do of testosterone. See Day to Day：Interview with Heather Mac-Donald （NPR radio broadcast Jan.24，2005），available at http：///templates/ story/story.php？storyld=4464065.
法律职业伦理与法律和道德的分离063
raib）恐怖虐待事件有关的报道和照片证据㊂随后的调查显示，在阿布格莱布和关塔那摩湾（Guantdnamo Bay）以及阿富汗发生了数十起虐囚案件，其中包括五名囚犯在审讯中死亡㊂①在布什总统连任后，司法部悄悄发布了一份替代性分析报告，推翻了它在最具争议的备忘录[2002年8月1日由司法部法律顾问办公室负责人发给白宫法律顾问阿尔贝托㊃冈萨雷斯（Alberto Gonzales）]中关于大部分问题的立场㊂②
是什么导致了备忘录所显示的法律推理质量低下？很难相信作者自身不称职这个解释，因为他们为诸如司法部法律顾问办公室这样的机构工作，而根据传统，这些机构雇用了一些国内最优秀的法律人才㊂更确切地说，原因在于提供法律建议的过程存在严重缺陷，而负责撰写备忘录的律师们专注于绕过对政府行为的法律限制，以至于法律分析完全扭曲㊂例如，只有在外交政策中支持广泛行政权力和单
边主义的人参加了起草过程，律师因为与国务卿科林㊃鲍威尔（Colin Powell）更多边㊁更国际化的态度有关联而被排除在国务院之外㊂③值得注意的是，这些备忘录没有得到司法部刑事司（Justice Department's Criminal Division）律师或者军法总署（Judge Advocate General Corps）职业军事律师的审查，他们本应立即
①②③See The Indep.Panel to Review Def of Der.Det.Operations，Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review Department of Defen Detention Operations （2004）[hereinafter Schlesinger Report]，in The Torture Papers，supra note 1，at 908，914；Report of the International Com-mittee of the Red Cross （ICRC）on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and Other Protected Persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq During Arrest，Internment and Interrogation （2004）[hereinafter ICRC REPORT]，in The Torture Papers，supra note 1，at 383，391-93.See Memorandum from Daniel Levin，Acting Assistant Attorney General，to
James B.Comey，Deputy Attorney
General
1-2（Dec.30，2004）[hereinafter Superding Memorandum]（no-
ting that questions had been raid
regarding the appropriateness
of the
memo's
analysis，
and sta-ting， We decided to withdraw the August 2002Memorandum ），http：//v /olc /
dagmemo.pdf.Notably，this superding memo was issued without a public announcement-be-tween
补充条款
the
Christmas
and
New Year's holidays-a few weeks prior to the Senate confirmation hearings
转身下
on the nomination of former White Hou Counl Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.See also
Jess Bravin， U.S.Revamps Policy on Torture of War Prisoners：Legal Guidance Criticizes Ag-gressiveness of Old Rules，Redefines'Severe Pain， WALL ST .J .，Dec.31，2004，at Al （re-porting that the new memo sharply scaled back the Bush administration's previous legal posi-tion）.
See Tim Golden， After Terror，a Secret Reuriting of Military Law， N .Y .TIMES ，Oct.24，2004，at Al；R.Jeffrey Smith &Dan Eggen， Gonzales Helped Set the Cour for Detainees：Justice Nominee's Hearings Likely To Focus on Interrogation Policies， WASH .POST ，Jan.5，2005，at Al.
法律与伦理
第九辑
064认识到对‘日内瓦公约“的适用所作的错误分析㊂①最后，假设 9㊃11 袭击制造了一个规范分水岭，政府律师面临相当大的压力，需要以 前瞻性 的方式思考问题㊂②毫不奇怪，这一不公正程序的结果明显缺乏法律分析，导致政府在它被公开披露后就与其保持距离㊂本文首先讨论了人们对进行这一分析的决定能说些什么，以及律师应如何考虑为酷刑这一道德上令人担忧的问题提供建议㊂具体地说，
我想分析一名律师的情况，其客户要求他就一种在大多数人看来明显是道德错误的行为的可容许性发表意见，或者在可能使客户的目的产生道德异议的情况下，协助安排交易或关系以促进客户的合法利益㊂③这里的一般问题不仅限于酷刑备忘录，甚至
①
②
③
See Golden，supra note6；Neil A.Lewis， Ex-Militay Lawyers Object to Bush Cabinet Nomi-nee， N.Y.TIMES，Dec.16，2004，at A36；Josh White， Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations， WASH.POST，July15，2005，at Al（suggesting that although military lawyers adamantly oppod the administration's approach to compliance with the Geneva Conven-tions，their concerns were ignored by top Defen Department lawyers）；See also Gonzales Con-firmation Hearing，supra note2，at152-54（statement of Admiral John D.Hutson，President& Dean，Franklin Pierce Law Center）.
A small but telling detail in the Superding Memorandum is the statement that [t]he Criminal
Division of the Department of Justice has reviewed this memorandum and concurs in the analysis t forth below. See Superding Memorandum，supra note5，at2.This emingly minor detail gains significance in light of the obrvation that one of the most notable features of American for-eign-policy fiascoes，such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the escalation of the Vietnam War，is that they involved decision-making process in which the desire to achieve unanimity within the group dominated over the motivation to make sound decisions.See Irving L.Janis，Grou-pthink：Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes（2d ed.1982）.The language in the Super-ding Memo evidences that，at least where interrogation policy was concerned，a desire for una-nimity dominated the Bush administration's decision-making process，predictably leading to less-thansound decisions.The administration's choice to exclude State Department，military，and Department of Justice Criminal Division lawyers from the process of developing interrogation policy was a disastrous decision，which led to the groupthink phenomenon of in groups of lawyers producing shoddy legal analysis.
See Golden，supra note6；Smith&Eggen，supra note6.The administration is quite taken with the idea that defen against terrorism is a new paradigm that justifies rethinking prevailing as-sumptions about international and domestic law.，Memorandum from George Bush，Presid
ent of the United States，to Dick Cheney，Vice President et al.（Feb.7，2002）[here-inafter Feb.7，2002Bush Memorandum]，in The Torture Papers，supra note1，at134；Mem-orandum from Alberto R.Gonzales，Counl to the President，to George Bush，President of the United States（Jan.25，2002）[hereinafter Jan.25，2002Gonzales Memorandum]，in The Torture Papers，supra note1，at118；Gonzales Briefing，supra note3.
The term client here conceals some complexity.Where federal government lawyers are con-cerned，the law of lawyering is nebulous regarding the identity of the clientsuch lawyers repre-nt.Indeed，courts and disciplinary agencies may regard a government lawyer's client as any of the following：a particular agency，an agency official，the executive branch of the（转下页注）
法律职业伦理与法律和道德的分离065 也不限于政府律师的建议，还包括那些代表从事道德上错误行为的个人和公司的律师，以及寻求法律建议以避免其行为法律后果的个人和公司的律师㊂①法律职业伦理的核心问题之一就是道德考量在法律咨询和规划中应该发挥的作用㊂也许，就像有些人所争论的那样，咨询过程基本上是 道德对话 （moral conversation）的体现，所以道德应该是律师考虑的最重要的因素㊂②另一方面，律师的咨询角色可能存在于一种 更小的道德世界 中，③在这个世界中道德与被评估的法律问题无关㊂在这两种选择中，律 （接上页注
③）government，
the
United States
as a whole，
or
the public
形容年轻
interest.
See，
<，
Catherine J.Lanctot， The Duty of Zealous Advocacy and the Ethics of the Federal Government Lawyer：The Three Hardest Questions， 64S .CAL .L .REv .951，981-82（1991）；Nelson
Lund， The President as Client and the Ethics of the President's Lawyers， 61L .&CONTEMP .PROBS .65，70-71（1998）[hereinafter Lund，President as Client]；Geoffrey P.Miller， Governm
ent Law-yers'Ethics in a System of Checks and Balances， 54U .CHI .L .REV .1293，1294-98（1987）.Specifically with regard to OLC lawyers，there is also controversy over how the lawyer's role should be understood，with positions arrayed on a continuum between litigation-style advocacy
on the
one hand and neutral，
judge-style reasoning on the other.See John O.
McGinnis， Models of the Opinion Function of the Attorney General：A Normative，Descrip-tive，and Historical Prolegomenon， 15CARDOZO L .REV .375，376-77（1993）；Ran-梦见打电话
dolph D.Moss， Executive Branch Legal Interpretation：A
Perspective from
the Office of Legal
Counl， 52ADMIN .L .REV .1303，1305-06（2000）.In terms of the client-identity ques-
tion，however，
it is
generally
礼貌的英语ttled that OLC lawyers in particular，as oppod to government lawyers in general，owe their loyalty and an obligation to render advice to an identifiable govern-
ment official：namely，the President （
although how
independent
自制果汁
that
面膜的功效advice
must be，and
whether it can be slanted in the direction the President desires，is still a matter of some controver-sy）.See Moss，supra，at 1316-17.Thus，when I u the term client in connection with the torture memos，I refer to the President and his top-level advisors.① Notably，however，
lawyers reprenting clients who retain them to provide a defen against civil or criminal charges after the client is accud of wrongdoing are outside the scope of the issue here.There are numerous differences between advising on the legality of conduct ex ante and de-fending the client ex post，and the ethical constraints on the lawyer's reprentation vary consider-ably as a result.See generally W.Bradley Wendel， Professionalism as Interpretation， 99NW .
U .L .REV .1167（2005）[hereinafter Wendel，Interpretation ]（arguing for this distinction）.② See，e.g.，Thomas L.Shaffer &Robert F.Cochran，JR.，Lawyers，Clients，and Moral Respon-sibility 66-67（1994）；Stephen L.Pepper， Lawyers'Ethics in the Gap Between Law and Jus-tice， 40S .TEX .L .REV .181，190（1999）（ When the gap between law and justice is signifi-cant，it ought to be part of the lawyer's ethical
responsibility to
clarify to the client that he or she has a moral choice in the matter ）；Thomas L.Shaffer， Inaugura
l Howard Lichtenstein Lecture
in Legal Ethics：Lawyer Professionalism as a Moral Argument， 26GONZ .L .REV .393（1991）；Thomas
L.Shaffer，
Legal Ethics and
the Good
Client， 36
CATH .U .L .REV .319（1987）.③ This metaphor is borrowed from Christine M.Korsgaard，Creating the Kingdom of Ends 296
（1996）.Alan H.Goldman，The Moral Foundations of Professional Ethics （1980），advances a similar notion，analyzing role-differentiated morality in professional ethics in terms of creating a simplif [ied]moral niver， id.at 23.
