An article from the symposium issue of the Indiana Law Journal on "War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century." The symposium was convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law–Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Cornelia Pillard views the torture scandal as indicative of a more general problem: an executive branch tendency during times of national security crises to view legal constraints as annoying, even harmful, obstacles to effective executive action. One of seven symposium contributors who served in the Department of Justice and signed the Principles to Guide the Office of Legal Counsel, Pillard explores reform aimed at promoting executive branch respect for the law, even in trying times. She advocates changes in intra-executive processes and structures that would allow for greater “dissensus” during legal deliberations and decision making: transparency and the corresponding opportunities for external input, consultation with a range of offices within the executive branch, involvement of career (not just political) government lawyers, and designated “watchdog” entities charged with ensuring executive branch legal compliance. - From Foreword by Prof. Dawn Johnsen