Schedule at a Glance

Panel Names are links, which link to a more detailed description of each panel.

PANEL AND DEBATE DESCRIPTIONS

This panel will examine several competing definitions of freedom. The definitional question will likely raise fundamental questions such as: Is freedom merely the absence of external constraints? Is freedom still possible if the State is not neutral with respect to “the good”? Panelists will be encouraged to argue for their own conceptions of freedom. As a result, the hope is that the major perspectives on freedom, including both deontological (libertarian and liberal egalitarian conceptions) and teleological theories, will emerge. The discussion will provide a necessary orientation for the entire conference by defining and clarifying the (often disputed) terms of the debate.

Return to schedule.

This panel will explore the relationship between identify and freedom. Identity, characterized in terms of both immutable factors (e.g., race and gender) and mutable factors (e.g., class, religion, and political affiliation), seems to be a significant factor in determining one’s expectations, thoughts, and beliefs. A common identity with others creates shared expectations about how one should think, what one may say, or how one should act. As a result, common identity may lead to collective thinking, pressures for conformity, and suppression of speech and action that deviates from shared expectations. In this sense, identity may be viewed as a limitation on individual freedom. On the other hand, common identity may provide a necessary starting point for culture, social norms, and an individual’s view of the world. In this sense, identity may be viewed as providing a necessary condition for human freedom and development. Additionally, what role (if any) should the law have with regard to this relationship between identity and freedom?

Return to schedule.

In recent years the relationship between freedom and virtue has received renewed attention. This debate seeks to explore several fundamental questions: What is the proper relationship between freedom and virtue? Can human societies survive (or flourish) by solely embracing a libertarian conception of liberty? Or does true freedom need to be ordered by the virtues? Does a conservative account of the virtues necessarily restrict individual freedom? Is it possible (as suggested by Frank Meyer’s theory of “fusionism”) to reconcile the libertarian concern for individual liberty with the conservatives’ emphasis on order and virtue? Or are the differences so fundamental that the two theories can never be reconciled? We envision this debate leading to constructive discussions between libertarian and conservative members of the Society.

Return to schedule.

Several important Supreme Court precedents related to the War on Terror and civil liberties were handed down during 2004. These decisions—including Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, and Rasul v. Bush—relate to fundamental issues regarding the separation of powers, due process, and the designation of both American and foreign citizens as enemy combatants. The panelists will consider not only the legal reasoning and conclusions of these important precedents, but also their own legal and policy prescriptions for the Court, Congress, and the President in balancing the security concerns of the War on Terror with the protection of civil liberties.

Return to schedule.

This panel will debate the legal merits of two controversial Justice Department memoranda. First, the panelists will examine the August 1, 2002 memo from Jay S. Bybee to Alberto Gonzales regarding the definition of torture under the 1984 Torture Convention and its applicability to interrogations outside of the United States. The “Bybee memo” concludes that federal law implementing the Torture Convention “proscribes acts inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical” but “[t]hose acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture” and “that certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within [the] proscription against torture.” Second, the panelists will examine the January 9, 2002 memo by John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty regarding the effect of international treaties and federal laws on the treatment of individuals detained by the U.S. Armed Forces during the conflict in Afghanistan. The “Yoo/Delahunty memo” concludes that “[a]ny customary law of armed conflict in no way binds, as a legal matter, the President or the U.S. Armed Forces concerning the detention or trial of members of al Qaeda and the Taliban” even though “the President may still use his constitutional warmaking authority to subject members of al Qaeda or the Taliban militia to the laws of war.” Both memoranda raise fundamental issues regarding the President’s power in interpreting and terminating treaties and Congress’s power in limiting and (perhaps) interfering with the Commander-in-Chief power under Article II.

Return to schedule.

This panel will examine the strategic equities—the costs and benefits—of the use (and corresponding threat) of preemptive action both in the Iraqi theatre and as a general policy of the United States. The Bush doctrine explicitly mentions strategic preemption and assigns it a high priority as a tool of statecraft. While many see preemption as a necessary policy in light of modern security threats, the doctrine remains highly controversial. This panel will debate such questions as: Under what circumstances (if any) should preemptive action be used? Was the use of preemptive action in Iraq justified from a strategic perspective? To what extent should preemptive action be highlighted in our declaratory policy? Has the Bush Administration properly balanced the use of preemption and deterrence with other foreign policy imperatives, e.g., maintaining good relations with our allies and international organizations? The debate will be pertinent not only for analyzing the strategic decisions in Iraq but also for determining the optimal policy for the future.

Return to schedule.