AIDP Blog

I recently visited Google’s Mountain View, CA headquarters to discuss my book Constitutional Limits on Coercive Interrogation. This event took place on August 18, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series.

View my part of the series here on youtube.com.

In The Constitutional Limits of Coercive Investigation, I offer a theoretical analysis and a practical application of coercive interrogation, and in doing so, suggest developing and implementing a hybrid paradigm based on American criminal law, the Geneva Convention, and the Israeli model of trial as the most relevant judicial regime. I offer a unique perspective to the public debate by utilizing a historical analysis of the system of “justice” for African-Americans in the Deep South of the past century to serve as a guide for the constitutional rights and protections which need to be granted or extended to an unprotected class. I then indicate which interrogation methods are within the boundaries of the law by both recommending protection of the detainees and providing interrogators with the tools required to protect America’s vital interests.

Cross-posted on National Security Advisors.

Available now at the Northwestern Law Review website, and appearing in the print edition this Fall is my essay“Beyond Guantanamo, Obstacles and Options.”  Part 1 appears today, and Part 2 will appear this Thursday.  

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA),[1] passed after the Supreme Court’s Hamdan[2] decision was intended to remedy shortcomings in prior military commissions. Implementing the MCA has proven difficult, as observers have witnessed the high profile resignation of the system’s chief prosecutor, and Congressional hearings questioning the future of terrorism trials. These issues were punctuated by the Supreme Court’s Boumediene[3] decision holding that detainees have a Constitutional right to habeas corpus. Observers unfamiliar with the processes involved with the military commissions may have thought that the Boumediene decision would force the administration to forgo military commissions, perhaps opting instead for trials in Article III courts. However, nothing in the decision required such a result.

In fact, just two months after the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision, the trial of Osama bin Laden’s alleged bodyguard Salim Hamdan—the first terrorism-related trial by military commission—concluded in a guilty verdict on charges that he provided material support for terrorism.[4] While lower courts begin to work out the details of the Boumediene decision Hamdan will have a simultaneous opportunity to appeal his conviction, and the legitimacy of the tribunal that tried him. In short, when the dust settles, Congress will again be faced with a need to reform military commissions or to prepare the federal judiciary for terrorism trials. This Essay seeks to contribute to that reform discussion.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING Beyond Guantánamo, Obstacles and Options (Part 1 of 2)

What’s the Exchange Rate?

Amos Guiora, Professor of Law, S.J.Quinney College of Law, The University of Utah

And Martha Minow, Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor, Harvard Law School

We are trying to understand why Israel traded dead Sgt. Ehud Goldvasser and First Sergeant Eldad Regev for live Samir Kuntar, and what it means for Israel and other nations.

Trades in the past reflected the desire to avoid military action.  In 1985, Israel released 1,150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon. Then-Defense Minister Yitzhak explained: “When no military option exists, there is no choice but to enter negotiations and pay a price.”

This time, Israel exchanged five imprisoned known terrorists for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers–although much was made about the possibility that the soldiers were alive. A representative of Hezbollah (the “party of God” is an Iranian-backed Shiite terrorist organization) said “for two years you (Israelis) have wondered what the is the fate of the soldiers” and the camera spun to the sight of two coffins–while 5 terrorist suspects returned–alive-to Lebanon.

In fact, the Israeli government did not tell the public before the exchange, the intelligence community was convinced three days after the attack that the two soldiers were dead.  Indeed, because approximately ten liters of blood had been lost by the soldiers, as found near the command car, the evidence all but established that they were dead.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Olmert argued that the two soldiers must be returned–and initiated the second Lebanon War on that ground. Demonstrating that “no soldier can be left behind”–the ethos commendable in practice–this action also obviously exacted a high price. In the immediate aftermath of the kidnapping, five soldiers were killed in an effort to rescue the two soldiers.

The ultimate exchange of the soldiers’ dead bodies in exchange for the release of Samir Kuntar and four other Lebanese endangers otherwise innocent citizens.  The price may be even higher—as will be the danger to Israeli citizens–if 1000 Hamas terrorists are released in order to free Gilad Shalit–shifting the “exchange rate” even further.

The commitment to leave no Israeli soldier behind–even at such high a price–is a big reason for the recent exchange. Another reason is the truly brilliant advocacy and media campaign by Karnit Goldvasser. Goldvasser’s vow that she will bring her husband home shows admirable personal commitment and extraordinary persuasiveness.

Yet even to understand why this could work–why the drumbeat of media attention to the captured two IDF soldiers could torque the negotiation and strategic policy of a savvy, experienced nation state, deserves more careful explanation.

At one level, a small nation that has been in an armed conflict since its founding 60 years ago is a family of families, moving between defiant embrace of life and the mourning rituals for both the literal dead and the loss of innocent, carefree lives. The vast majority of families has immediate connections with the military–one child a year away from service; one still serving; a brother just called up for reserve duty; an uncle still recovering from a wrenching time as check-point guard.

What parent wouldn’t want the government to do anything—and everything–to recover a missing soldier-daughter or son?  If a parent is in the drivers’ seat, no price is too high, no measure to risky if there is a chance of recovering the child alive, and even recovering the remains of the cherished family member. Moreover, combat soldiers in recent days have expressed their support the exchange, and noted it is important for them to know that should they fall into captivity the state will do anything to release them.

But what is the obligation of the state when it sends soldier to combat? Does the state owe that individual “everything” should something happen? What are the limits of state obligation? What does “everything” mean? Turn over 1,000 members of Hamas for Gilad Shalit? Or East Jerusalem?

Leaving no one behind was once a source of great pride and confidence. Thirty two years ago (almost to the day) in the 1976 Entebbe raid IDF soldiers rescued Israelis held in Uganda. But today, a policy to “leave no one behind” raises huge questions, as it seems to elevate the state’s obligation far above the soldier’s fellow citizens (and families).  During the Second Lebanon War, Israel seemed to “accept” civilian loss of life more readily than it accepted soldiers dying in battle.

Ultimately, engaging in the exchange for the two bodies heightened risks for civilians.  How so? The very fact of the “exchange” with terrorist organizations Israel shows that that kidnapping pays. By releasing terrorists with a proven “track record” (Hamas will only accept an exchange that includes terrorists who have killed Israelis from both sides of the Green Line) Israel increases the likelihood of new terrorist attacks in the future by the newly released individuals or those who would copy them. According to many experts the 1985 exchange between Israel and Ahmed Gibril contributed to the Intifada for many of the 1,500 active participants.

For the recent exchange alone, the price has already been higher than many would have imagined. Nasarallah embraced Samir Kintar: Lebanon made his return a holiday in Lebanon and both the Prime Minister and the President welcomed him home. Watching the celebration of Samir Kuntar as hero is incomprehensible–after all he killed a father in the presence of his four year girl and then smashed his rifle butt into the little girls head. He is also responsible for the tragic death of that little girl’s two year old sister who was accidentally smothered to death by her mother who-in an effort to prevent her from crying and alerting Kuntar to their hiding place.  Watching the embrace of Kuntar take place simultaneously with the burials of Goldvasser and Regev exacerbated the already difficult question of “what price for an exchange.”

By making the exchange, Israel has demonstrated that it is all negotiable; the only question is at what price. What will be the exchange rate in the future? Is a bargain also to include selling out the state’s obligation to its citizens who are potential targets of terrorism upon the release of convicted terrorists who vow to act again?

Israel’s exchange offers a window onto the desperate desire of ordinary Israeli’s for an end to all the conflict; do anything for the children, even be gullible, even if it’s too hard to stomach street celebrations of a murderer of little children, too unbearable to say nothing can be done to the grieving families of soldiers whom the state put in harm’s way?

In exchange, on an emotional level, all Israelis were with Goldvasser and Regev for one day. But–is Israel stronger strategically? 

Even asking this cruel and painful question especially to anyone whose own family member could be subject to such an exchange is difficult. Talking national security in a strategic sense is all important –except when your own family member is involved. “Leave no one behind” seems the ethos to reconcile national security and family love, but hard headed assessment reveals these two goals are not always reconcilable.

Cross-posted on National Security Advisors

View my article, International Cooperation in Homeland Security.

Abstract

Terrorism against the United States, post-9/11, reaches far beyond the U.S. borders. In order to effectively prevent and react to terrorism within the homeland, the U.S. must think of security internationally. International security efforts touch on key issues such as travel security, border control, immigration, intelligence, and financing terrorism. This article examines the U.S. effort at international cooperation in homeland security by examining security and threat assessment in order to analyze current developments and necessary progress moving forward. Further, this article explores comparative efforts at international cooperation in homeland security by examining Canada, Japan, and the E.U. in terms of security and threat assessment. Finally, this article offers recommendations and articulates criteria by which the U.S. can improve vital efforts at international cooperation in homeland security.

To ensure effective counterterrorism, the U.S. must follow a two step process. First, the U.S. must take measures to protect the homeland. Those measure include: promoting travel security by implementing sophisticated technology; promoting border security by securing the Northern border; implementing intelligence sharing between agencies; creating a coordinated plan to promote travel and border security; undergoing training and simulation, and finally; ensuring institutionalized continuity from one Administration to the next.

After taking action to protect the homeland, the U.S. must use these factors as a foundation on which to establish international cooperation. To establish effective international cooperation in homeland security, the U.S. must take measures including the following: forging international partnerships; sharing intelligence related to travel security; creating a coordinated international security plan; running international training and simulation exercises, and finally; implementing international institutionalized continuity.

Cross posted on National Security Advisors.

Similarly posted on Legal Theory Blog.

Our good friends over at Opinio Juris have rolled out a fantastic new website as part of their partnership with Oxford University Press. (This coming on the same day that the new Convictions blog goes on hiatus). OJ, already the best international law blog on the net, has now upped the ante— perhaps vying for top blawg status against the likes of Volokh and Concurring Opinions. Regardless, the blog looks great, and it’s one more innovative example of why you should send your manuscript to Oxford University Press.

Of course, a blog is only as good as its contributors, and for that matter only as good as its frequent contributors, (I know, I know, we aren’t doing so hot on this mark) Opinio Juris consistently maintains fresh and interesting content from a variety of perspectives. With their new look, they’ve also added the expertise of Ken Anderson (formerly of his own blog Law of War and Just War Theory). I was on an ASIL panel with Ken and was a big fan of his blog, and I’m sure he will be a great addition to an already strong team.

So, a big congrats to Opinio Juris on your newly redesigned blog. Hopefully Volokh’s “green machine” will follow suit.

This is a link to an op-ed published in the Salt Lake Tribune, June 21, 2008  and to be published in the East Valley Tribune, June 22, 2008 that I have co-authored with Dan Barr of Perkins Coie Brown and Bain proposing the establishment of a US domestic terror court. The proposal, based on my testimony earlier this month before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is written in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene.

Cross-posted on National Security Advisors.

Learn more about my casebook, Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism here

I regret that my post is delayed somewhat by travel. I am at present writing from Venice, en route to which I had occasion to do more thinking about the implications of Boumediene than I did for detailed dissection of its precise phraseology. The fortuity of my presence overseas allows me to report the prevailing media spin that Boumediene represents a reestablishment of American law and a repudiation of the U.S. military acting as “jailor, judge, and jury.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt captured the essence of the moral struggle to preserve the American way of life in World War II by telling the nation that “the mighty action we are fighting for cannot be based on a disregard of all things worth fighting for.” The struggle to refine the optimal balance between the president’s duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the constitution and the executive obligation to protect American lives and property may very well be the most enduring question of our time. At its heart, Boumediene rests on the straightforward legal determination by the Court that the Suspension Clause applies to the detainees in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, followed by the rather predictable conclusion that the circumstances motivating the Congressional deprivation of habeas rights to the detainees did not rise to those specified in the constitution itself. Viewed in the stark terms portrayed in the media, the case can be seen as a validation of essential conditions of human liberty against the exercise of raw governmental power. Given that a president who disagrees with the court’s conclusions has publicly stated that he will nevertheless comply with its opinion, Boumediene does represent all that is best about an America dedicated to law and the preservation of life and liberty.

At the same time, there is a vaguely disquieting dimension to the Boumediene decision. The heart of the majority analysis relies on the assumption that the present system of Combatant Status Review Tribunals combined with the oversight and remedial powers of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is inadequate to protect the essential human liberty of the detainees. The factual record indicates otherwise given that far more detainees have been released from Guantanamo than are currently in custody, and the current procedures provide both for periodic individualized reviews as well as a new CSRT when evidence surfaces that could result in a reversal of a previously determined status. By sheer coincidence, the Secretary of Defense recently ordered a new CSRT for Haji Bismullah on the basis of new evidence that could lead to his release. Because the Secretary’s request rendered the prior CSRT a non-final decision, the Solicitor General subsequently requested that the Court remand Bismullah’s case from its pending decision in Gates v. Bismullah. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/sg-letter-re-bismullah-5-8-08.pdf

Although Justice Souter postulates the necessity for the majority opinion on the truism that “some of these petitioners have spent six years behind bars,” the evidence is that the system is indeed working to release those who do not pose a continuing threat to American interests and citizens. Furthermore, the majority establishes constitutional habeas rights, even as it acknowledges that an Article III process will not foreclose further confinement for future petitioners on the sole basis of a hostile status.

I do not believe that the Court intended its Boumediene reasoning to be read as automatically requiring release of any of the present detainees who do represent a continuing threat to the American constitutional order. The decision nevertheless contains the seeds for profoundly troubling extrapolations. For example, if the requirement for a “competent tribunal” found in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention is distorted in the future to mean an established Article III court, then the hands of the military would be bound with devastatingly deleterious effects on military operations overseas. The negotiating record for the Geneva Conventions and the official Commentary are both clear that the phrase “competent tribunal” was specifically negotiated to be much more operationally flexible than the preexisting domestic court systems. Boumediene cannot be properly read as applying in the context of an international armed conflict wherein the clear mandates of the Geneva Conventions have been applied.

Finally, while Boumediene is portrayed as somewhat inspiring and idealistic, there is a troubling disconnect in its pragmatic implications. In practical terms the majority candidly admits that its decision “does not address the content of the law that governs petitioners’ detention.” I am struck by the immense disconnect between the moral certainty with which the court creates a substantive right that can be gleaned neither from the law of armed conflict nor from any clear precedent, but at the same time creates such enormous uncertainty and moral confusion. There are more than a few federal judges who are today beginning to ponder some of the following important questions as cases begin to be filed: What are the standards of review? Does the voice of military expertise get ANY deference? Are the previous findings of CSRT panels to be completely discounted as if they were mere martinets in the hands of an overweening chief executive? Can any evidence that would be inadmissible hearsay if a specific petitioner were charged criminally provide the basis for continuing detention? What are the limits of the right to petition the court for witnesses on the petitioners’ behalf? Do the normal CIPA provisions apply [which are quite similar to those used in the military commission proceedings] or will a future Court hold that Boumediene requires some more expansive access for detainees to personally assess and rebut extremely sensitive classified information?

In the end, after the inevitable delays caused by debate, deliberation, and development, I am hopeful that the imprimatur of Article III authority actually provides minimal substantive difference. In that event, federal habeas review will have served to validate the professionalism and patriotism of those who have sacrificed the past six years to protect America while respecting legal norms. Boumediene represents a striking reinforcement of our constitutional separation of powers; I pray that the quest to balance civil liberties does not in the end deprive our citizens of their lives or liberties.

Cross Posted at Opinio Juris

The BBC “The World” (radio broadcast) has reported that ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo will begin filing indictments against several top Sudanese Government officials next month, accusing the entire government of playing a role in crimes against civilians in Darfur.

To date the highest level official to be indicted is Ahmed Muhammed Haroon, former Interior Minister.  Rather than surrender Haroon, the Sudanese regime promoted him to Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, where he was placed in charge of the very refugees that he and his troops had assaulted and terrorized.

To listen to the broadcast, which includes an interview with this commentator (Scharf), click http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/18568

The Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone recently ruled that forced marriage is a new category of crime against humanity, reversing the Trial Chamber’s determination that forced marriage was not distinct from the previously recognized crimes against humanity of rape, forced prostitution, and sexual slavery.

“What had occurred here with forced marriage was something very serious and very specific, and wasn’t fully recognized,” Stephen Rapp, the chief prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, told the Christian Science Monitor last week. “It was part of a widespread attack against civilians. Women were being taken as wives without consent, either consent by them … or by family members.”  See http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0610/p06s01-woaf.html

The court’s first rulings on the charges, brought against three members of the notorious Revolutionary United Front, are expected in July.  The decision paves the way for similar charges in northern Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where rights groups have documented the use of bush wives in ongoing conflicts.

In arguing the case for recognizing forced marriage as a new category of crime against humanity, the Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone utilized a memorandum prepared by the Case Western Reserve University School of Law War Crimes Research Office, which I direct.  The memo was subsequently published as Michael P. Scharf and Suzanne Matler, Forced Marriage: Exploring the Viability of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s New Crime Against Humanity, Volume 3 of the Africa Legal Aid Special Book Series: “African Perspectives on International Criminal Justice” (2005), the text of which is available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=824291 .