DOCSLIB.ORG

Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- Terrorism Operations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- Terrorism Operations International Center for Transitional Justice CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL POLICY: Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- terrorism Operations An ICTJ Policy Paper November 2009 Carolyn Patty Blum, Lisa Magarrell, Marieke Wierda Cover Image: Redacted page (52) from Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001-October 2003), a May 2004 Special Review by the CIA’s Office of the Inspector General. Portions of that report have been declassified through litigation by the American Civil Liberties Union and other organizations under the Freedom of Information Act. The Bush administration released a few paragraphs and lines of the report in May 2008 and the Obama administration went considerably further in an August 2009 reclassification. Regardless, this page and many others, including all of the In- spector General’s recommendations, remain classified as of this writing. Ques- tions persist about the full scope of abuses under U.S. policies on rendition, de- tention and interrogation. ICTJ’s policy paper relies on declassified information and other reporting to make the case for a thorough criminal investigation of abuses in counterterrorism policy and operations. Such an investigation must include those parts of the “dark side” still hidden from public view. CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CRIMINAL POLICY: Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counter- terrorism Operations November 2009 An ICTJ Policy Paper Carolyn Patty Blum, Lisa Magarrell, Marieke Wierda International Center for Transitional Justice ICTJ New York 5 Hanover Square, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel + 1 917 637 3800 Fax + 1 917 637 3900 About ICTJ About the U.S. Accountability Project The International Center for Transitional Justice works The U.S. Accountability Project develops realistic policy to redress and prevent the most severe violations of hu- options for addressing the serious and systematic man rights by confronting legacies of mass abuse. ICTJ violations of human rights incurred through U.S. coun- seeks holistic solutions to promote accountability and terterrorism operations after September 2001. It makes create just and peaceful societies. For more information, informed analysis and technical assistance available to go to: www.ictj.org. advocates and policy-makers on accountability issues. In undertaking this work, the Project applies ICTJ’s in-depth international experience and draws comparative lessons appropriate to the U.S. context. For more information, go to: www.ictj.org/en/where/region2/2260.html. An electronic edition of this report is available at www.ictj.org ISBN: 978-1-936064-04-5 © International Center for Transitional Justice 2009. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without full attribution. Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counterterroism Operations About the Authors Carolyn Patty Blum is Senior Project Consultant to justice topics. She earned her U.S. law degree in 1979 ICTJ’s U.S. Accountability Project. She also has served and has an LLM from Columbia University. Her human as a consultant to the Center for Constitutional Rights, rights work prior to joining the ICTJ includes representa- Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative and the Center for tion of asylum seekers and migrant farm-workers in the Justice and Accountability. She is an Adjunct Professor United States, human rights documentation and advo- of Law at Columbia University Law School where she cacy work with the non-governmental Human Rights teaches Refugee Law. She was previously a Clinical Commission of El Salvador and verification of peace Professor of Law at the University of California, Berke- agreements in Guatemala as a UN political affairs officer. ley, where she founded Boalt Hall Law School’s Inter- national Human Rights Law Clinic. She has written Marieke Wierda is Director of the Prosecutions extensively on refugee law and human rights and has Program at ICTJ. She is a Dutch citizen born and raised assisted in the litigation of major asylum and human in Yemen. She studied law at Edinburgh and New York rights cases in the United States. Blum is a 1976 University and is a member of the New York Bar. As a graduate of the Northeastern University School of Law. staff member of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, she worked with the judges in Lisa Magarrell directs ICTJ’s U.S. Accountability Project. Chamber. Since joining ICTJ in 2001, she has worked on Since joining ICTJ in 2001 she has worked on truth prosecutions-related issues and transitional justice in commission processes, reparations and justice issues many countries, including extensive engagements in around the world, including in Peru, Ghana, Sierra Le- Sierra Leone, Uganda, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, one, Canada and the United States. She is the co-editor as well as in Colombia, Israel/Occupied Palestinian of The Legacy of Truth—Criminal Justice in the Peruvian Territory, Kenya, Liberia and Sudan. She is the author Transition and has written widely on other transitional or co-author of numerous publications including on the International Criminal Court in Uganda, hybrid tribunals, the trial of Saddam Hussein, and peace and justice issues, including a book on International Criminal Evidence. International Center for Transitional Justice Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank ICTJ law fellows Anh- Clemens, Young Lee, Anik Guha, Geoffrey Moss, Thu Nguyen and Lorna Peterson for their significant Ben Davidson, Russell Zwerin, Tracey Lesetar, Emilie contribution to this paper through research and edito- Mathieu, Barrington Dyer, former associates Matthew rial support. Laura M. Olson, President of Blackletter Hogg and Mariko Miki, and research specialist Wilson Consulting, LLC; Melissa Bullen, and Lise Johnson were Addo. Likewise, we extend our thanks to Jennifer L. of particular assistance through their extensive early Hobbs and Collette M. Pollitt, of Simpson Thacher & research. We are very grateful to colleagues including Bartlett, LLP, who were aided by associates Charlene Devon Chaffee; Juan E. Méndez, ICTJ’s President Emeri- Caprio, Kristin Marvin, Jiyoung Sohn and Jodie Sopher. tus; Tom Parker, Amnesty International USA; Claire Tixeire, Fédération Internationale des Droits de l’Homme We also thank the Open Society Institute, the John (FIDH) and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR); and Merck Fund and the individual donors whose support Jonathan Tracy, National Institute of Military Justice of ICTJ’s U.S. Accountability Project made the research (NIMJ), who generously read and provided comments and publication of this paper possible. We note that the on earlier drafts. individuals and institutions referenced here are not in any way responsible for—or necessarily in agreement At ICTJ, Leonardo Filippini and Cristián Correa provided with—the contents of the final paper. helpful information regarding Latin American experi- ences. We were also ably assisted on background issues and discrete research questions by the work of pro bono firms and their dedicated attorneys. We thank associate Scott Roehm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, and his colleagues Lisa Cirando, Natasha Cupp, Yas Raouf, Leah Somoano, Julianne Spears, Tabitha Lundberg, Jenna Prosecuting Abuses of Detainees in U.S. Counterterroism Operations CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 2. The Abuse of Detainees as a System Crime .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 The Crime Base: Effects of the Policy in Various Locations .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Official Knowledge and Responsibility for “Enhanced Interrogation” Policy and Torture ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Principals Committee .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Approval of George W. Bush: Economic and Media Impacts Gino Tozzi Jr
    Wayne State University Wayne State University Dissertations 1-1-2011 Approval of George W. Bush: Economic and media impacts Gino Tozzi Jr. Wayne State University, Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Part of the Mass Communication Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Tozzi Jr., Gino, "Approval of George W. Bush: Economic and media impacts" (2011). Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 260. This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. APPROVAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH: ECONOMIC AND MEDIA IMPACTS by GINO J. TOZZI JR. DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2011 MAJOR: POLITICAL SCIENCE Approved by: _________________________________ Chair Date _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ © COPYRIGHT BY GINO J. TOZZI JR. 2011 All Rights Reserved DEDICATION To my Father ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank my committee chair Professor Ewa Golebiowska for the encouragement and persistence on only accepting the best from me in this process. I also owe my committee of Professor Ronald Brown, Professor Jodi Nachtwey, and Professor David Martin a debt of gratitude for their help and advisement in this endeavor. All of them were instrumental in keeping my focus narrowed to produce the best research possible. I also owe appreciation to the commentary, suggestions, and research help from my wonderful wife Courtney Tozzi. This project was definitely more enjoyable with her encouragement and help.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID J. CYNAMON THOMAS B. WILNER MATTHEW J. MACLEAN COUNSEL OF RECORD OSMAN HANDOO NEIL H. KOSLOWE PILLSBURY WINTHROP AMANDA E. SHAFER SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI L. SHEPHERD 2300 N Street, N.W. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Washington, DC 20037 801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 202-663-8000 Washington, DC 20004 202-508-8000 GITANJALI GUTIERREZ J. WELLS DIXON GEORGE BRENT MICKUM IV SHAYANA KADIDAL SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH CENTER FOR 1350 “I” Street N.W. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20005 666 Broadway, 7th Floor 202-898-5800 New York, NY 10012 212-614-6438 Counsel for Petitioners Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOSEPH MARGULIES JOHN J. GIBBONS MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY GIBBONS P.C. LAW SCHOOL One Gateway Center 357 East Chicago Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 Chicago, IL 60611 973-596-4500 312-503-0890 MARK S. SULLIVAN BAHER AZMY CHRISTOPHER G. KARAGHEUZOFF SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 833 McCarter Highway 250 Park Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 New York, NY 10177 973-642-8700 212-415-9200 DAVID H. REMES MARC D. FALKOFF COVINGTON & BURLING COLLEGE OF LAW 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. NORTHERN ILLINOIS Washington, DC 20004 UNIVERSITY 202-662-5212 DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-0660 PAMELA CHEPIGA SCOTT SULLIVAN ANDREW MATHESON DEREK JINKS KAREN LEE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SARAH HAVENS SCHOOL OF LAW ALLEN & OVERY LLP RULE OF LAW IN WARTIME 1221 Avenue of the Americas PROGRAM New York, NY 10020 727 E.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals
    UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before TOZZI, COOK, and MAGGS1 Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Private First Class LYNNDIE R. ENGLAND United States Army, Appellant ARMY 20051170 Headquarters, III Corps and Fort Hood James Pohl, Military Judge Colonel Clyde J. Tate, II, Staff Judge Advocate (pretrial) Colonel Mark Cremin, Staff Judge Advocate (post-trial) For Appellant: Major Timothy W. Thomas, JA (argued); Colonel Christopher J. O’Brien, JA; Captain Frank B. Ulmer, JA (on brief). For Appellee: Captain Nicole L. Fish, JA (argued); Colonel Denise R. Lind, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Mark H. Sydenham, JA; Major Christopher B. Burgess, JA; Captain Nicole L. Fish, JA (on brief). 10 September 2009 ---------------------------------- MEMORANDUM OPINION ---------------------------------- This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent. TOZZI, Senior Judge: An officer panel sitting as a general court-martial convicted appellant, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of conspiracy to commit maltreatment, four specifications of maltreatment, and one specification of indecent acts with another, in violation of Articles 81, 93, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 893, and 934 [hereinafter UCMJ]. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence of a dishonorable discharge, three years confinement, and reduction to Private E1. The convening authority also waived 1 Judge MAGGS took final action in this case while on active duty. ENGLAND – ARMY 20051170 automatic forfeitures and credited appellant with ten days of confinement credit against the approved sentence to confinement. On appeal, appellant claims, inter alia, that (1) the military judge abused his discretion when he rejected her guilty plea; (2) appellant’s trial defense counsel were ineffective for calling Private (PVT) Charles Graner as a presentencing witness, in the alternative; and (3) information about an Article 15, UCMJ, was erroneously included in the staff judge advocate’s recommendation (SJAR).
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Mental Health Evaluations in the Guantánamo Military Commissions System: an Analysis of All Detainee Cases from Inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 64 (2019) 34–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlawpsy Forensic mental health evaluations in the Guantánamo military commissions system: An analysis of all detainee cases from inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States ABSTRACT Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamo's military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detaineesas“unlawful enemy combatants” who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamo's opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified//For Public Release Unclassified//For Public Release
    UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE --SESR-Efll-N0F0RN-­ Final Dispositions as of January 22, 2010 Guantanamo Review Dispositions Country ISN Name Decision of Origin AF 4 Abdul Haq Wasiq Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 6 Mullah Norullah Noori Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 7 Mullah Mohammed Fazl Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 560 Haji Wali Muhammed Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war, subject to further review by the Principals prior to the detainee's transfer to a detention facility in the United States. AF 579 Khairullah Said Wali Khairkhwa Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 753 Abdul Sahir Referred for prosecution. AF 762 Obaidullah Referred for prosecution. AF 782 Awai Gui Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 832 Mohammad Nabi Omari Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 850 Mohammed Hashim Transfer to a country outside the United States that will implement appropriate security measures. AF 899 Shawali Khan Transfer to • subject to appropriate security measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Omar Khadr's Legal Odyssey: the Erasure of Child Soldier As a Legal
    GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW(DO NOT DELETE) 4/18/2018 1:10 PM OMAR KHADR’S LEGAL ODYSSEY: THE ERASURE OF CHILD SOLDIER AS A LEGAL CATEGORY M. Mehdi Ali* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 348 II. FACTS .............................................................................................. 349 III. LEGAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 351 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENTS ........................................................................ 359 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 367 * J.D., Stanford Law School; M.A., Stanford University; B.A., Stanford University. I am deeply grateful to my parents, Nisar and Mehnaz, and my wife, Sarah, for always encouraging me throughout my academic career. I am also thankful to my siblings, Hadi and Heraa, for their unwavering support, and for their excellent comments and suggestions to an earlier draft of this Article. Lastly, it was a great privilege to work with the editors at the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, and I am indebted to them for their hard work and thoughtful feedback. 347 GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW (DO NOT DELETE) 4/18/2018 1:10 PM 348 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. [Vol. 46:347 I. INTRODUCTION After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. officials warned the American public that they were facing a “new kind of war.”1 The scale of the attacks, conducted by a foreign enemy on the American homeland, allowed the administration to exceed institutional restraints built into the political system. In the name of security, the government launched two wars, rounded up thousands of individuals on the basis of national origin, and dramatically altered long-held notions of liberty and due process.
    [Show full text]
  • Murat Kurnaz Released from Guantánamo!
    Amnesty International 25 August 2006 AI Index AMR 51/147/2006 Murat Kurnaz had been held for four years and eight months without charge or trial. Guantánamo must be closed! Good News: Murat Kurnaz released from Guantánamo! “Thank God, I am well, but just God that created us knows when I will come back” Murat Kurnaz wrote these words to his family from Guantánamo in March 2002. His dreams of returning home to Germany have only now, finally, been realised. Released from Guantánamo on 24 August 2006, Murat Kurnaz had been held for four years and eight months without charge or trial. The only contact he had been allowed with his family was through heavily censored letters. In a statement, his German lawyer said: “He is now again in the circle of his family. Their joy at embracing their lost son again is indescribable”. Murat’s mother, Rabiye Kurnaz has dedicated these past years to campaigning for her eldest son’s release. In November 2005 she attended an international conference organized by Amnesty International and Reprieve where she spoke of her hopes of being reunited with her son. Now these hopes have become a reality. Murat Kuraz is a Turkish national who was born in Germany in 1982. His prolonged detention in Guantánamo had been complicated by his status – lacking German citizenship, the German authorities had refused his return to Germany. The Turkish authorities had shown little interest in his case. It was only after intense lobbying from his family, lawyers and AI members around the world, including in his home town of Bremen, that the German authorities began to act on his behalf, finally paving the way for his return.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is the Attorney General's Client?
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\87-3\NDL305.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-APR-12 11:03 WHO IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S CLIENT? William R. Dailey, CSC* Two consecutive presidential administrations have been beset with controversies surrounding decision making in the Department of Justice, frequently arising from issues relating to the war on terrorism, but generally giving rise to accusations that the work of the Department is being unduly politicized. Much recent academic commentary has been devoted to analyzing and, typically, defending various more or less robust versions of “independence” in the Department generally and in the Attorney General in particular. This Article builds from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, in which the Court set forth key principles relating to the role of the President in seeing to it that the laws are faithfully executed. This Article draws upon these principles to construct a model for understanding the Attorney General’s role. Focusing on the question, “Who is the Attorney General’s client?”, the Article presumes that in the most important sense the American people are the Attorney General’s client. The Article argues, however, that that client relationship is necessarily a mediated one, with the most important mediat- ing force being the elected head of the executive branch, the President. The argument invokes historical considerations, epistemic concerns, and constitutional structure. Against a trend in recent commentary defending a robustly independent model of execu- tive branch lawyering rooted in the putative ability and obligation of executive branch lawyers to alight upon a “best view” of the law thought to have binding force even over plausible alternatives, the Article defends as legitimate and necessary a greater degree of presidential direction in the setting of legal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Of 4 27/02/2009
    Page 1 of 4 All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition House of Commons Press release: Immediate, 26 February 2009 Andrew Tyrie calls on the Government to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into its involvement in the US rendition programme, following the MOD’s admission that people captured by UK Forces were rendered to Afghanistan for interrogation by the US. “Since the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition was created, I have made a number of specific allegations: that the UK has facilitated rendition; that Diego Garcia was used for this purpose; that our Armed Forces were dragged into rendition.” “Each of these was categorically denied. A recent MOD review of detention practices condemned as ‘baseless’ speculation that the MOD was complicit in rendition. Yet all of them have turned out to be true, confirmed in three Ministerial Statements over the past year, and a High Court judgment.” “US assurances that it does not use torture are unreliable, as the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded in its Human Rights Annual Report published last year.” “Given that all previous assurances have been baseless, we can have no confidence in the ones we are being given now. The Government must now carry out a comprehensive inquiry in order to bring closure to this sorry business.” Ends. Notes to editors The APPG has been investigating this issue since 2007. The Statement today sets out that two people, captured by UK Forces, were rendered to Afghanistan by the US: “Two individuals were captured by UK forces in Iraq. They were transferred to US detention, in accordance with normal practice, and then moved subsequently to a US detention facility in Afghanistan.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jihadi Industry: Assessing the Organizational, Leadership And
    The Jihadi Industry: Assessing the Organizational, Leadership, and Cyber Profiles Report to the Office of University Programs, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security July 2017 National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence Led by the University of Maryland 8400 Baltimore Ave., Suite 250 • College Park, MD 20742 • 301.405.6600 www.start.umd.edu National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence About This Report The authors of this report are Gina Ligon, Michael Logan, Margeret Hall, Douglas C. Derrick, Julia Fuller, and Sam Church at the University of Nebraska, Omaha. Questions about this report should be directed to Dr. Gina Ligon at [email protected]. This report is part of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) project, “The Jihadi Industry: Assessing the Organizational, Leadership, and Cyber Profiles” led by Principal Investigator Gina Ligon. This research was supported by the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate’s Office of University Programs through Award Number #2012-ST-061-CS0001, Center for the Study of Terrorism and Behavior (CSTAB 1.12) made to START to investigate the role of social, behavioral, cultural, and economic factors on radicalization and violent extremism. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 2 Number 2 Volume 2, No. 2: May 2009 Article 1 Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism Thomas Byron Hunter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Portfolio and Security Analysis Commons pp. 1-52 Recommended Citation Hunter, Thomas Byron. "Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 2, no. 2 (2010) : 1-52. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.2.2.1 Available at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol2/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Targeted Killing: Self-Defense, Preemption, and the War on Terrorism Abstract This paper assesses the parameters and utility of “targeted killing” in combating terrorism and its role within the norm of state self-defense in the international community. The author’s thesis is that, while targeted killing provides states with a method of combating terrorism, and while it is “effective” on a number of levels, it is inherently limited and not a panacea. The adoption and execution of such a program brings with it, among other potential pitfalls, political repercussions. Targeted killing is defined herein as the premeditated, preemptive, and intentional killing of an individual or individuals known or believed to represent a present and/or future threat to the safety and security of a state through affiliation with terrorist groups or individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitchell James 01.16.17.Ptx
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Exhibit 1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SPOKANE - - - SULEIMAN ABDULLAH : SALIM, MOHOMED AHMED : DOCKET NO. BEN SOUD, OBAID ULLAH : (as personal : 2:15-CV-286-JLQ representative of GUL : RAHMAN), : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : JAMES ELMER MITCHELL : and JOHN "BRUCE" : JESSEN, : : Defendants. : - - - Monday, January 16, 2017 - - - Videotaped deposition of JAMES E. MITCHELL taken pursuant to notice, was held at the law offices of Blank Rome, 130 N. 18th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, beginning at 10:13 AM, on the above date, before Constance S. Kent, a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. * * * MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES (866) 624-6221 www.MagnaLS.com Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 176-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 6 Page 8 1 NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are 2 Exhibit 20 Fax, Generic Description 321 of the Process, Bates 2 now on the record. 3 DOJ OLC 1126 through 3 This begins DVD No. 1 in the 1144 4 4 deposition of James Elmer Mitchell Exhibit 21 CIA Comments on the 323 5 in the matter of Salim versus 5 Senate Select Committee James Elmer Mitchell and Bruce -- on Intelligence Report 6 6 on the Rendition, 7 John Bruce Jessen in the United Detention and 8 States District Court for the 7 Interrogation Program 8 Exhibit 22 Document, Bates USA 1629 335 9 Eastern District of Washington.
    [Show full text]