Are the General Orders of the Chicago Police Department --- the giant binder of rules the CPD sets for the conduct of its employees --- law under this definition?
If an elected official cites an OLC opinion as justification for torture in front of a judge and has a fighting chance of being vindicated, then I consider that OLC opinion to have the "force of the law" irrespective of any conventional technical definition.
In any case, the argument over semantics is uninteresting.
The key question posed by the report and upon which my original comment hinges is whether or not the directives, opinions, judgements, and bills informally described as "secret law" should be made transparent.
I think they should. I don't know what you think because you didn't respond to the question.
Government officials probably cannot cite an OLC opinion in court in front of a judge as justification for torture. That's what my first comment on this thread pointed out. OLC opinions do not create binding precedent, any more than Wesley Snipes's tax lawyer's opinions did for his case.
Do you think that given the potential impact on such issues as torture, extrajudicial killings, and mass surveillance, this growing body of "secret law" should see the light of day? This is the key question.