DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY “GETTING TO THE TRUTH THROUGH A NONPARTISAN COMMISSION OF INQUIRY” Wednesday, March 4, 2009 Written Testimony of Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr. Chief Counsel Supporting the establishment of a nonpartisan, independent Commission of Inquiry to examine our policies and practices in confronting terrorism and to recommend necessary reforms. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law 161 Avenue of the Americas 12th floor - New York, NY 10013 www.brennancenter.org Testimony of Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.1 in Support of a Nonpartisan, Independent Commission of Inquiry Throughout American history, in times of crisis, the executive branch has accumulated significant new powers, some of which have been abused. Crisis always makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that both keep us free and reduce the likelihood of self-defeating mistakes. This nation has, at times, admirably set about correcting its course – realizing, as the dust settles or as previously secret facts are revealed, that constitutional and legal norms have been breached. One such correction, in which I was involved, came in 1975-1976, when an investigation conducted by a Senate Select Committee – known as the “Church Committee” for its Chair, Senator Frank Church of Idaho – revealed intelligence agencies’ excesses in all administrations from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s through Richard M. Nixon’s. The Church Committee found that the intelligence agencies, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and other components of the Defense Department, had exceeded their authority through abusive surveillance and disruption of political activity at home (e.g., trying to provoke Martin Luther King, Jr. to commit suicide) and unwise covert action abroad (e.g., hiring the Mafia to try to assassinate Cuba’s Fidel Castro). While rank and file employees of these agencies directly committed abuses, the most serious 1 Mr. Schwarz is Chief Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. He was Chief Counsel for the United States Senate’s Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee. He is co-author (along with Aziz Huq) of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in a Time of Terror (The New Press, 2007). For many years a litigation partner in a leading New York City law firm, Mr. Schwarz’s other governmental service includes being the Corporation Counsel for New York City, and chairing the New York City Charter Revision Commission and the City’s Campaign Finance Board. Mr. Schwarz’s testimony reflects his own views as well as the views of the Brennan Center. breaches of duty were those of presidents and other senior executive branch officials who, the Committee determined, had the “responsibility for controlling intelligence activities and generally failed to assure compliance with the law.”2 The Church Committee’s investigation illustrated what had been going wrong with our intelligence agencies and led to the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which brought the government’s intelligence practices back in line with our constitutional principles and ensured that intelligence resources were not wasted on inappropriate and counter-productive endeavors. Exposing the truth thus strengthened our democracy and our ability to keep the nation safe. It is time once again for such a searching assessment and self-correction. The unspeakable acts of terrorism that occurred on September 11, 2001 demanded a strong response by our government and a rethinking of our national security policies. All of us would agree that some of the government’s actions in response to 9-11 were necessary and productive. But there is evidence that some of the counter-terrorism policies and practices that were implemented after 9-11 departed from the rule of law and from our nation’s shared values. This country has three choices for how it can respond to that evidence. For the reasons set forth in this testimony, the Brennan Center believes that an independent, non-partisan commission of inquiry to examine our counter-terrorism policies is the best of these options. The first option is simply to do nothing. That approach would be ill-advised at best and dangerous at worst. As an initial matter, there is no question that this country is, 2 Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, Book II, 1 S. REP. NO. 94-755, at 137 (1976). 2 and should remain, a nation of laws. If it is true that our government has operated outside the law in any of its counter-terrorism practices, we want to make sure that these practices are brought back into line with the law and that the problem does not happen again. This process of restoration is necessary, not only to stay true to this nation’s core principles, but also to restore our standing in the eyes of the world as a champion of the rule of law. But in order to implement the changes necessary to fix our policies and guard against future abuses, we have to have all of the facts. As the Chairman of this Committee recently put it, “we must read the page before we turn it.” In addition, we need to understand the consequences of our counter-terrorism policies if we are serious about protecting this country from the threat of terrorism. Elsewhere, I have argued that some of our counter-terrorism policies, such as detaining suspects for years without charge and employing harsh interrogation techniques, have made our country less safe.3 Regardless of whether they have produced useful intelligence in specific cases, they have harmed us, on balance, by giving the Bin Ladens of the world powerful recruiting messages; alienating our allies and making their intelligence services less willing to cooperate with us; and placing our own troops at increased risk of mistreatment if they are captured abroad. We need to have a full understanding of what the effects of our policies have been in order to fix any damage that has resulted and to ensure that our policies going forward serve this nation’s security interests. 3 See Schwarz & Huq, supra n. 1. I am also appending to this testimony my testimony before the Constitution Subcommittee in its September 16, 2008 hearing on “Restoring the Rule of Law.” That testimony provides further discussion on the need for an independent commission. 3 The second option, championed by some, is to pursue criminal prosecution against those in the government who may have broken the law. This approach has superficial appeal. As Attorney General Holder has acknowledged, no one is above the law; in theory, if crimes were committed here, they should be prosecuted. The problem with this approach is that much of the conduct in question was sanctioned by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. As a result, criminal prosecution is both unlikely to occur and, if it did occur, unlikely to succeed. It might also be unfair in some cases – namely, those in which government actors relied on the opinions and were not in a position to judge the opinions’ legal soundness.4 Even if criminal prosecutions were a desirable and viable option, they would leave important questions unanswered. When official government policies stray from the rule of law, something has gone wrong with the system, and a systemic solution is required. In addition to knowing what happened, we need to know why and how it happened, what institutional failures allowed it to happen, and what steps must be taken to correct those institutional failures. Furthermore, as I have already noted, we need to know what harms have resulted from these actions and what needs to be done to mitigate those harms. These are critical questions for our safety as well as our commitment to the rule of law, and they would not be asked in a criminal proceeding. 4 Of course, going forward, we cannot have a system in which secret and patently unsound OLC opinions are permitted to insulate unlawful conduct. OLC’s role is thus one of the issues that should be considered by the independent commission. If the commission determines that OLC opinions were misused to justify unlawful conduct or otherwise did not meet the professional obligations of the office, it should examine possible reforms to prevent a future recurrence. 4 The best way to get answers to these questions is to pursue the option that the Chairman of this Committee has proposed: an independent commission of inquiry established by Congress. A commission would shed much-needed light on exactly what our counter-terrorism policies have been, including information that even some members of Congress still do not have. To the extent any policies departed from the rule of law, the commission would examine the process by which these policies came into being, including who made the key decisions and whom they consulted – or did not consult. It would go beyond the symptoms – i.e., the policies themselves – and look for the root causes.5 Where appropriate, it would examine the effectiveness of the policies, and it would assess their impact on our national security and foreign relations. Based on what it learned, it would make informed recommendations about the reforms that may be necessary in order to ensure that our counter-terrorism policies respect the law and keep us safe. And it would do one additional thing that neither inaction nor criminal prosecution would do: Where allegations of unlawful or inappropriate conduct prove to be unsupported, it would air the facts and clear the names of those implicated. In short, a commission would enable us to learn from the past without seeking punishment.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Repatriate . . . Then Compensate: Why the United States Owes Reparation Payments to Former Guantánamo Detainees
    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 48 Number 3 Developments in the Law: Election Article 8 Law; Developments in the Law: Law of War Spring 2015 Repatriate . Then Compensate: Why the United States Owes Reparation Payments to Former Guantánamo Detainees Cameron Bell Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the President/ Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Cameron Bell, Repatriate . Then Compensate: Why the United States Owes Reparation Payments to Former Guantánamo Detainees, 48 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 867 (2015). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol48/iss3/8 This Law of War Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REPATRIATE . THEN COMPENSATE: WHY THE UNITED STATES OWES REPARATION PAYMENTS TO FORMER GUANTÁNAMO DETAINEES Cameron Bell* In late 2001, U.S. government officials chose Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as the site to house the “war on terror” detainees. Since then, 779 individuals have been detained at Guantánamo. Many of the detainees have endured years of detention, cruel and degrading treatment, and for some, torture—conduct that violates well-established prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment under both general international law and the law of war.
    [Show full text]
  • Guantánamo and Its Aftermath
    Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees November 2008 Human Rights Center International Human Rights Law Clinic In partnership with University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees Laurel E. Fletcher Eric Stover with Stephen Paul Smith Alexa Koenig Zulaikha Aziz Alexis Kelly Sarah Staveteig Nobuko Mizoguchi November 2008 Human Rights Center University of California, Berkeley International Human Rights Law Clinic University of California, Berkeley, School of Law In partnership with Center for Constitutional Rights ISBN# 978-0-9760677-3-3 Human Rights Center and International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley Cover photos: Louie Palu/ZUMA Design: Melanie Doherty Design, San Francisco Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley The Human Rights Center promotes human rights and international justice worldwide and trains the next generation of human rights researchers and advocates. We believe that sustainable peace and devel- opment can be achieved only through efforts to prevent human rights abuses and hold those responsible for such crimes accountable. We use empirical research methods to investigate and expose serious viola- tions of human rights and international humanitarian law. In our studies and reports, we recommend specific policy measures that should be taken by governments and international organizations to protect vulnerable populations in times of war and political and social upheaval. For more information, please visit hrc.berkeley.edu. International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law The International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC) designs and implements innovative human rights projects to advance the struggle for justice on behalf of individuals and marginalized communities through advocacy, research, and policy development.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS the Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH
    United States HUMAN Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Copyright © 2011 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org July 2011 ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12 I. Background: Official Sanction for Crimes against Detainees .......................................... 13 II. Torture of Detainees in US Counterterrorism Operations ............................................... 18 The CIA Detention Program .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lawfare and Legal Ethics in Guantánamo
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2008 Lawfare and Legal Ethics in Guantánamo David Luban Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 1092451 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/456 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1092451 60 Stan. L. Rev. 1981-2026 (2008) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons LAWFARE AND LEGAL ETHICS IN GUANTANAMO David Luban* IN TRO DU CTION ..................................................................................................... 198 1 I. B A CKG ROUN D ................................................................................................... 1987 II. THE D TA LAW Y ERS ........................................................................................ 1988 A . The Mechanics ofAccess .......................................................................... 1989 B . Sow ing Mistrust ......................................................................................... 1992 C. Making the Lawyers Look Powerless in Their Clients' Eyes .................... 1997 III. THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS DEFENSE COUNSEL ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS the Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH
    United States HUMAN Getting Away with Torture RIGHTS The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees WATCH Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Copyright © 2011 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA Tel: +1 212 290 4700, Fax: +1 212 736 1300 [email protected] Poststraße 4-5 10178 Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 30 2593 06-10, Fax: +49 30 2593 0629 [email protected] Avenue des Gaulois, 7 1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (2) 732 2009, Fax: + 32 (2) 732 0471 [email protected] 64-66 Rue de Lausanne 1202 Geneva, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 738 0481, Fax: +41 22 738 1791 [email protected] 2-12 Pentonville Road, 2nd Floor London N1 9HF, UK Tel: +44 20 7713 1995, Fax: +44 20 7713 1800 [email protected] 27 Rue de Lisbonne 75008 Paris, France Tel: +33 (1)43 59 55 35, Fax: +33 (1) 43 59 55 22 [email protected] 1630 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20009 USA Tel: +1 202 612 4321, Fax: +1 202 612 4333 [email protected] Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org July 2011 ISBN: 1-56432-789-2 Getting Away with Torture The Bush Administration and Mistreatment of Detainees Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 12 I. Background: Official Sanction for Crimes against Detainees .......................................... 13 II. Torture of Detainees in US Counterterrorism Operations ............................................... 18 The CIA Detention Program .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sacrifice, the Bush Way: from Self to Others by Marc-André Cotton1 This Article Was Published in the Journal of Psychohistory, Vol
    Sacrifice, the Bush Way: From Self to Others by Marc-André Cotton1 This article was published in The Journal of Psychohistory, Vol. 44, No 1, Summer 2016 Abstract: The Walker Bush dynasty has marked the last American century, promoting “corporate democracy” as a means to expand its wealth. As 43rd President of the United States, George Walker Bush’s biography illustrates how the members of our powerful elite sacrifice the inner self of their own children for the sake of political success. In his case, the childrearing violence and emotional neglect he experienced created the psychological basis for his later re-enactments as commander-in-chief in the wake of 9/11. From that standpoint, his intergenerational legacy of trauma bears strong affinities with that of the nation as a whole. This paper examines George W. Bush’s paternal inheritance, the problem of maternal abuse and its subsequent psychic wounds, as well as the impact of an unresolved grief after the loss of his younger sister, Robin. Restaging childhood traumas as a vengeful young adult at Yale, before getting involved in dirty politics, Bush supported unlawful hazing practices. Then, as Governor of Texas he promoted the death penalty and a zero-tolerance approach to juvenile offenders. Controversial decisions of the Bush administration regarding the Enhanced Interrogation Program, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and many others are further scrutinized as collective re-enactments of abuse deeply engrained in American society. A Short History of the Walker Bush Family Like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers, the Walker Bush family belongs to an oligarchy that has largely shaped the last American century.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Society Justice Initiative | Globalizing Torture
    GLOBALIZING TORTURE CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION ENDNOTES GLOBALIZING TORTURE CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION 2 Copyright © 2013 Open Society Foundations. This publication is available as a pdf on the Open Society Foundations website under a Creative Commons license that allows copying and distributing the publication, only in its entirety, as long as it is attributed to the Open Society Foundations and used for noncommercial educational or public policy purposes. Photographs may not be used separately from the publication. ISBN: 978-1-936133-75-8 PUBLISHED BY: Open Society Foundations 400 West 59th Street New York, New York 10019 USA www.opensocietyfoundations.org FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Amrit Singh Senior Legal Officer National Security and Counterterrorism [email protected] DESIGN AND LAYOUT BY: Ahlgrim Design Group PRINTED BY: GHP Media, Inc. PHOTOGRAPHY: Cover photo © Ron Haviv/VII 3 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND METHODOLOGY 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 9 SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 11 SECTION II: THE EVOLUTION OF CIA SECRET DETENTION AND 13 EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION OPERATIONS Extraordinary Rendition 13 Secret Detention and “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” 15 Current Policies and Practices 19 SECTION III: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO 22 CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment 23 Transfer to Torture or Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment 25 Arbitrary Detention and Enforced Disappearance 26 Participation in Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition Operations 27 SECTION IV: DETAINEES SUBJECTED TO POST-SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, 29 CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION SECTION V: FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN 61 CIA SECRET DETENTION AND EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION SECTION VI: CONCLUSION 119 ENDNOTES 120 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was written by Amrit Singh, Senior Legal Officer for the Open Society Justice Initiative’s National Security and Counterterrorism program, and edited by David Berry.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of the Spoken Word, Rather Than Written Prose
    THE RULE OF LAW ORAL HISTORY PROJECT The Reminiscences of Scott Horton Columbia Center for Oral History Columbia University 2013 PREFACE The following oral history is the result of a recorded interview with Scott Horton conducted by Myron A. Farber on November 21, 2012. This interview is part of the Rule of Law Oral History Project. The reader is asked to bear in mind that s/he is reading a verbatim transcript of the spoken word, rather than written prose. VJD Session One Interviewee: Scott Horton Location: New York, NY Interviewer: Myron A. Farber Date: November 21, 2012 Q: This is Myron Farber on November 21, 2012, interviewing Scott Horton for the Columbia University oral history of Guantánamo detention camp and related matters. This is session one. Scott, I was gathering some materials I thought I want to make reference to in this interview and I came upon something that I had acquired a year ago or so. This is an email. The cover is an email from the deputy commander of the Criminal Investigation Task Force [CITF] at Guantánamo, in 2002. On October 28, 2002, he sends an email to headquarters and he attaches to the email minutes that were made of a meeting attended by an official of the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], who is talking about what they need to do down there at Gitmo. At one point, as he says in this email, “Talk of ‘wet towel treatment’ [i.e. waterboarding] which results in the lymphatic gland reacting as if you are suffocating would in my opinion shock the conscience of any legal body looking at using the results of the interrogations or possibly even the interrogators.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of the Torture Lawyers (A Response to Professor Hatfield)
    Copyright 2009 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 104 Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy DEFERENCE TO CLIENTS AND OBEDIENCE TO LAW: THE ETHICS OF THE TORTURE LAWYERS (A RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR HATFIELD) W. Bradley Wendel* I. INTRODUCTION In the early months of the Obama administration, we are learning a great deal more about the previous administration‘s program of using ―en- hanced interrogation techniques‖ on alleged al-Qaeda detainees.1 On April 16, 2009, the new administration released to the public several memos, pre- pared by lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel (―OLC‖) in the administra- tion of George W. Bush, dealing with certain legal aspects of whether detainees in U.S. custody could lawfully be subjected to torture. I and many others have criticized the quality of legal reasoning in previously dis- closed memos,2 and it is now conventional wisdom that something went ter- ribly wrong with the legal advising process in the previous administration, at least with respect to terrorism and national security issues. At the time of this writing, it remains uncertain whether an investigative report of the Jus- tice Department‘s Office of Professional Responsibility (―OPR‖) will be re- leased to Congress, and whether there will be a public version of the report.3 * Professor of Law, Cornell University. 1 See Mark Danner, US Torture: Voices from the Black Sites, NYBOOKS.COM, Apr. 9, 2009, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22530 (link). In a series of blog postings and print articles, Scott Hor- ton and Andrew Sullivan detailed the origin of the euphemism ―enhanced interrogation techniques.‖ See, e.g., Scott Horton, Defending Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, HARPERS.ORG, June 15, 2007, http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/06/hbc-90000279 (link); Andrew Sullivan, Bush’s Torturers Fol- low Where the Nazis Led, TIMESONLINE, Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Detention and Interrogation in the Post-9/11 World
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2008 Detention and Interrogation in the Post-9/11 World Kermit Roosevelt III University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Repository Citation Roosevelt, Kermit III, "Detention and Interrogation in the Post-9/11 World" (2008). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 218. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/218 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DETENTION AND INTERROGATION IN THE POST-9/11 WORLD Kermit Roosevelt III∗ I. Executive Action: The Road to Guantanamo On September 11, terrorists pilot hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Over 3000 Americans are killed. The nation—indeed the world—is stunned. The French paper Le Monde runs a headline: We are all Americans.1 There are candlelight vigils outside the US embassy in Tehran.2 The American government responds immediately. On September 18, Congress passes a joint resolution authorizing the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dangers of Lawfare, 43 Case W
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 43 | Issue 1 2010 The aD ngers of Lawfare Scott orH ton Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Scott orH ton, The Dangers of Lawfare, 43 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 163 (2010) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol43/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. File: Horton 2 Created on: 12/27/2010 5:09:00 PM Last Printed: 4/5/2011 8:08:00 PM THE DANGERS OF LAWFARE Scott Horton* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 164 II. A PERPLEXING NEOLOGISM ................................................................... 169 A. Lawfare at Guantánamo ............................................................... 171 B. Pakistan’s Lawfare Coup ............................................................. 175 C. The Netanyahu Initiative ............................................................... 177 III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Annihilation of Memory and Silent Suffering: Inhibiting Outrage at the Injustice of Torture in the War on Terror in Australia
    University of Wollongong Research Online University of Wollongong Thesis Collection 1954-2016 University of Wollongong Thesis Collections 2016 The annihilation of memory and silent suffering: inhibiting outrage at the injustice of torture in the War on Terror in Australia Aloysia Brooks University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses University of Wollongong Copyright Warning You may print or download ONE copy of this document for the purpose of your own research or study. The University does not authorise you to copy, communicate or otherwise make available electronically to any other person any copyright material contained on this site. You are reminded of the following: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the author. Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may be a copyright infringement. A court may impose penalties and award damages in relation to offences and infringements relating to copyright material. Higher penalties may apply, and higher damages may be awarded, for offences and infringements involving the conversion of material into digital or electronic form. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University of Wollongong. Recommended Citation Brooks, Aloysia, The annihilation of memory and silent suffering: inhibiting outrage at the injustice of torture in the War on Terror in Australia, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, School of Humanities and Social Enquiry, University of Wollongong, 2016.
    [Show full text]