DOCSLIB.ORG

Military Commissions in the War on Terror and the Charge of Providing Material Support for Terrorism Dana M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Military Commissions in the War on Terror and the Charge of Providing Material Support for Terrorism Dana M Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 36 Article 1 Number 1 Winter 2013 1-1-2013 Redemption Deferred: Military Commissions in the War on Terror and the Charge of Providing Material Support for Terrorism Dana M. Hollywood Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Dana M. Hollywood, Redemption Deferred: Military Commissions in the War on Terror and the Charge of Providing Material Support for Terrorism, 36 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (2013). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol36/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Redemption Deferred: Military Commissions in the War on Terror and the Charge of Providing Material Support for Terrorism- By MAJOR DANA M. HOLLYWOOD" Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................... 3 II. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: ..................... 10 Military Commissions in the Global War on Terror .. ............ 10 A. The Bush Administration: A New Paradigm................... 10 1. The 2001 AUMF: A Blank Check? . ... ............ 10 2. A Precedent Worth Repeating? Quirin and President Bush's Military Order ................. 22 a. Historical Precedents ............. ......... 22 b. The Past is Present: Analysis of the President's Military Order..................... 27 3. Global Due Process: The Geneva Debate .... ...... 34 a. Unpacking "A Regularly Constituted Court" ......... 34 b. Application of the Geneva Conventions: A Difference Without Distinction .............. 43 4. By The Numbers: An Assessment .................... 55 * As this issue was going to the publisher, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed that Material Support for Terrorism is not an international-law war crime, as argued by the author in this article. See Hamdan v. United States, No. 11-1257, slip op. at 5-6 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, 2012). ** Judge Advocate, United States Army, serving as a Special Victim Prosecutor, Fort Polk, LA. LL.M. 2012, The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, Charlottesville, Virginia; J.D. 2006, William and Mary Law; M.A.L.D.,1999, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University; B.A., 1992, Boston University. Member of the bars of Massachusetts, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Supreme Court of the United States. The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of the United States Army or the Department of Defense. I 2 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 36:1 B. The Obama Administration: Change Proves Elusive.......... 60 1. A Bipartisanship Approach to Bifurcation?....... ...... 60 2. From Complementarity to Competiveness . ........ 61 3. By the Numbers: An Assessment ........ ........ 69 III. A Self-Inflicted Wound: .............................. 72 The Charge of Providing Material Support for Terrorism.............72 A. Origins of the Material Support Provisions: A Tale of Two Statutes ................................. 74 1. A Long and Winding Road ......................... 74 2. The "Watershed Legislative Development of Terrorist Financing Enforcement" .......... ........ 78 a. The Designation Process: "Terrorism Is Whatever the Secretary of State Decides It Is"......79 b. Is Immaterial Material? .......... 82 c. Expressive Association and Personal Guilt.......... 85 B. Developments in the Material Support Provisions: Holder v. HLP .................................. 87 C. A Crime by Any Other Name: MST as a Law of War Violation..................................... 92 1. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction .................. 93 2. Does Saying So Make It So: The Define and Punish Clause ............................. 97 3. A Deferential CMCR Creates a New War Crime..........99 a. International Conventions and Declarations.........101 b. International Criminal Tribunals............ ..... 102 c. Non-United States Domestic Terrorism Laws.......105 d. Historical Precedent for Wrongfully Providing Aid to the Enemy. ................. ...... 105 IV. Conclusions ....................... ............... 108 2012] Military Commissions and the Charge of Material Support for Terror 3 I. Introduction In commemoration of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, syndicated, conservative columnist George F. Will wrote a perspicacious piece entitled Sept. 1I's Self-Inflicted Wounds. Mr. Will's editorial compares American responses to the tenth anniversary of Pearl Harbor with those of 9/11. Although Pearl Harbor heralded America's entry into an inescapable war that would ultimately cost the lives of more than 400,000 citizens,' the nation, recounted Mr. Will, met that solemn ten-year anniversary with little fanfare. As he wrote, "On Dec. 8, 1951, the day after the 10th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the New York Times' front page made a one-paragraph mention of commemorations the day before, when the paper's page had not mentioned the anniversary." 2 Mr. Will further asserted: The most interesting question is not how America in 2011 is unlike America in 2001 but how it is unlike what it was in 1951. The intensity of today's focus on the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11 testifies to more than the multiplication of media ravenous for content, and to more than today's unhistorical and self- dramatizing tendency to think that eruptions of evil are violations of a natural entitlement to happiness. It also represents the search for refuge from a decade defined by unsatisfactory responses to Sept. 11.3 Although not addressed by Mr. Will, the decision to try suspected terrorists associated with 9/11 by military commissions has arguably been the most unsatisfactory response to the war on terror to date. In a combative memoir published five years after 9/11, John Yoo, "the key architect for the Bush administration's legal response to the terrorist threat," 4 writes that "[m]ilitary commissions have been the Bush administration's most conspicuous policy failure in the war against al Qaeda." 5 Indeed, the numbers 1. See, e.g., ANNE LELAND, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL 32492, AMERICAN WAR AND MILITARY OPERATIONS CASUALTIES: LISTS AND STATISTICS 2 (2010) (calculating that 405,399 U.S. military personnel died during service in World War II). 2. George F. Will, Sept. 1I's Self-Inflicted Wounds, WASH. POST, Sept. 9, 2011, at A15. 3. Id. 4. Michiko Kakutani, What Torture Is and Isn't: A Hard-Liner's Argument, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 31, 2006, at El. 5. JOHN Yoo, WAR BY OTHER MEANS: AN INSIDER'S ACCOUNT OF THE WAR ON TERROR 208 (2006). 4 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 36:1 alone support that supposition. Since President Bush decreed that suspected 9/11 terrorists would be tried by military commissions on November 13, 2001, until he left office on January 20, 2008, military comnuissions convicted three individuals - two of whom are no longer in custody. 6 The Obama Administration's bifurcated approach to Article III courts and military commissions has been similarly ineffectual. Following dissemination of the Guantinamo Review Task Force report mandated by Executive Order (E.O.) 13,492 in the spring of 2010,7 four detainees have pled guilty under the revised Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2009 since commissions were restarted in the spring of 2010.8 The paucity of convictions can be attributed primarily to the lack of an existing legal precedent. Although American use of military commissions predates the founding of the United States, 9 the last employment of military commissions was Franklin Delano Roosevelt's (FDR) decision to try eight Nazi saboteurs in 1942.10 That model - heavily relied upon by the Bush Administration - has routinely been criticized as "a precedent not worth repeating.""l 6. See infra Part II.A.4. 7. Although the joint interagency task force completed its report in January 2010, the Washington Post reported the Administration chose not to send it to select committees on Capitol Hill until late-May 2009 due to the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day, 2009. See, e.g., Peter Finn, Most Guantanamo Detainees Low-Level Fighters, Task Force Report Says, WASH. POST, May 29, 2010, at A03 (noting that "there was little public or congressional appetite for further discussion of its plan to close the military detention center"). 8. See infra Part II.B.3. 9. For an historical overview of the use of military commissions in American history, see Louis FISHER, MILITARY TRIBUNALS & PRESIDENTIAL POWER: AMERICAN REVOLUTION TO THE WAR ON TERROR (2005) [hereinafter FISHER, TRIBUNALS]. See also MAJ Michael 0. Lacey, Military Commissions: A Historical Survey, THE ARMY LAW 41 (Mar. 2002). 10. For an excellent overview of Ex Parte Quirin, see Louis FISHER, NAZI SABOTEURS ON TRIAL: A MILITARY TRIBUNAL AND AMERICAN LAW 161 (2d ed. 2005) [hereinafter FISHER, SABOTEURS]; PIERCE O'DONNELL, IN TIME OF WAR: HITLER'S TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICA (2005); MICHAEL DOBBS, SABOTEURS: THE NAZI RAID ON AMERICA (2004). 11. Louis Fisher, Military Commissions: Problems of Authority and Practice, 24 B.U. INT'L L. J. 15, 16 (2006) ("A close look at Quirin reveals a process and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Leftist Case for War in Iraq •fi William Shawcross, Allies
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 27, Issue 6 2003 Article 6 Vengeance And Empire: The Leftist Case for War in Iraq – William Shawcross, Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq Hal Blanchard∗ ∗ Copyright c 2003 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Vengeance And Empire: The Leftist Case for War in Iraq – William Shawcross, Allies: The U.S., Britain, Europe, and the War in Iraq Hal Blanchard Abstract Shawcross is superbly equipped to assess the impact of rogue States and terrorist organizations on global security. He is also well placed to comment on the risks of preemptive invasion for existing alliances and the future prospects for the international rule of law. An analysis of the ways in which the international community has “confronted evil,” Shawcross’ brief polemic argues that U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were right to go to war without UN clearance, and that the hypocrisy of Jacques Chirac was largely responsible for the collapse of international consensus over the war. His curious identification with Bush and his neoconservative allies as the most qualified to implement this humanitarian agenda, however, fails to recognize essential differences between the leftist case for war and the hard-line justification for regime change in Iraq. BOOK REVIEW VENGEANCE AND EMPIRE: THE LEFTIST CASE FOR WAR IN IRAQ WILLIAM SHAWCROSS, ALLIES: THE U.S., BRITAIN, EUROPE, AND THE WAR IN IRAQ* Hal Blanchard** INTRODUCTION In early 2002, as the war in Afghanistan came to an end and a new interim government took power in Kabul,1 Vice President Richard Cheney was discussing with President George W.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— Extensions of Remarks E1421 HON
    July 24, 1998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð Extensions of Remarks E1421 (e.g., serious medical emergency for a family action. This regulatory authority is provided NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICEÐ member). In addition, as a threshold matter, to enable Treasury to address issues raised OVER 200 YEARS OF FORECAST- the transfer of structured settlement pay- regarding the treatment of future periodic ING, WARNING AND PROTECTING ment rights must be permissible under appli- payments received by the structured settle- THE AMERICAN PEOPLE cable law, including State law. The Act is ment recipient where only a portion of the not intended by way of the hardship excep- payments have been factored away, the tion to the excise tax or otherwise to over- treatment of the lump sum received in a fac- HON. TIM ROEMER ride any Federal or State law prohibition or toring transaction qualifying for the hard- OF INDIANA restriction on the transfer of the payment ship exception, and the treatment of the IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES rights or to authorize factoring of payment lump sum received in the non-hardship situa- rights that are not transferable under Fed- tion. It is intended that where the require- Thursday, July 23, 1998 eral or State law. For example, the States in ments of section 130 are satisfied at the time Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to general prohibit the factoring of workers' the structured settlement is entered into, my colleagues' attention the outstanding work compensation benefits. In addition, the State the existence of the hardship exception to laws often prohibit or directly restrict trans- the excise tax under the Act shall not be of the National Weather Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Ghailani, Ahmed Khalfan Verdict
    United States Attorney Southern District of New York FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOVEMBER 17, 2010 ELLEN DAVIS, EDELI RIVERA, JESSIE ERWIN PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (212) 637-2600 AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI FOUND GUILTY IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT OF CONSPIRING IN THE 1998 DESTRUCTION OF UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN EAST AFRICA RESULTING IN DEATH Al Qaeda Terrorist And First Guantanamo Detainee To Be Tried In Civilian Court Faces Possible Life Sentence In January PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI was found guilty today for his role in the 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that took the lives of 224 people, including 12 Americans. GHAILANI, 36, a Tanzanian national and the first detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to be tried in a civilian court, was found guilty of conspiring to destroy property and buildings of the United States, following a five week trial before U.S. District Judge LEWIS A. KAPLAN. GHAILANI faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life on this count. GHAILANI was acquitted of the remaining counts against him. "Ahmed Ghailani was today convicted of conspiring in the 1998 destruction of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, causing death as a result," said United States Attorney PREET BHARARA. "He will face, and we will seek, the maximum sentence of life without parole when he is sentenced in January. I want to express my deep appreciation for the unflagging commitment, dedication, and talent of the agents who so thoroughly investigated this case and the prosecutors who so ably tried it." According to the evidence presented at trial, previous court proceedings in this case, and documents filed in Manhattan federal court: GHAILANI was first indicted on December 16, 1998, by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Legal Document
    Case 1:10-cv-00436-RMC Document 49-3 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ) UNION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:1 0-cv-00436 RMC ) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ) ) Defendant. ) -----------------------J DECLARATION OF AMY E. POWELL I, Amy E. Powell, declare as follows: 1. I am a trial attorney at the United States Department of Justice, representing the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. I am competent to testify as to the matters set forth in this declaration. 2. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a document entitled "Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law," dated March 5, 2012, as retrieved on August 9, 2013 from http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/ 2012/ag-speech-1203051.html. 3. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a Transcript of Remarks by John 0. Brennan on April30, 2012, as copied on August 9, 2013 from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy/ with some formatting changes by the undersigned in order to enhance readability. Case 1:10-cv-00436-RMC Document 49-3 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 48 4. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee dated May 22, 2013, as retrieved on August 9, 2013 from http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13 .pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolution, Reform and Regionalism in Southeast Asia
    Revolution, Reform and Regionalism in Southeast Asia Geographically, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam are situated in the fastest growing region in the world, positioned alongside the dynamic economies of neighboring China and Thailand. Revolution, Reform and Regionalism in Southeast Asia compares the postwar political economies of these three countries in the context of their individual and collective impact on recent efforts at regional integration. Based on research carried out over three decades, Ronald Bruce St John highlights the different paths to reform taken by these countries and the effect this has had on regional plans for economic development. Through its comparative analysis of the reforms implemented by Cam- bodia, Laos and Vietnam over the last 30 years, the book draws attention to parallel themes of continuity and change. St John discusses how these countries have demonstrated related characteristics whilst at the same time making different modifications in order to exploit the strengths of their individual cultures. The book contributes to the contemporary debate over the role of democratic reform in promoting economic devel- opment and provides academics with a unique insight into the political economies of three countries at the heart of Southeast Asia. Ronald Bruce St John earned a Ph.D. in International Relations at the University of Denver before serving as a military intelligence officer in Vietnam. He is now an independent scholar and has published more than 300 books, articles and reviews with a focus on Southeast Asia,
    [Show full text]
  • Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair's Iraq Decisions
    Foreign Policy Analysis (2006) 2, 289–306 Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decisions STEPHEN BENEDICT DYSON Wabash College The British choice in Iraq has been characterized as ‘‘Tony Blair’s War,’’ with many believing that the personality and leadership style of the prime minister played a crucial part in determining British participa- tion. Is this the case? To investigate, I employ at-a-distance measures to recover Blair’s personality from his responses to foreign policy questions in the House of Commons. I find that he has a high belief in his ability to control events, a low conceptual complexity, and a high need for power. Using newly available evidence on British decision making, I show how Blair’s personality and leadership style did indeed shape both the proc- ess and outcome of British foreign policy toward Iraq. The research reemphasizes the importance of individual level factors in theories of foreign policy, as well as offering a comprehensive explanation of a critical episode. Reflecting upon the decision to attack Iraq, a senior British cabinet minister com- mented that ‘‘had anyone else been leader, we would not have fought alongside Bush’’ (Stephens 2004:234). Is this a valid claim? To put it differently, would an- other occupant of the post of British prime minister, presented with the same set of circumstances, have acted as Tony Blair did? While it has been suggested that whoever is prime minister, the ‘‘special relationship’’ determines that Britain will follow the U.S. lead in all circumstances, there is a good deal of prima facie evidence suggesting that Blair’s distinctive individual characteristics are a crucial factor in explaining the Iraq choices.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 369
    1 Calendar No. 369 107TH CONGRESS "!REPORT 2d Session SENATE 107–150 TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PUR- POSES R E P O R T OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS TO ACCOMPANY S. 1867 TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES MAY 14 (legislative day, MAY 9), 2002.—Ordered to be printed U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 99–010 WASHINGTON : 2002 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:25 May 15, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\SR150.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR150 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio MAX CLELAND, Georgia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM BUNNING, Kentucky MARK DAYTON, Minnesota PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Staff Director and Counsel KEVIN J. LANDY, Counsel RICHARD A. HERTLING, Minority Staff Director JAYSON P. ROEHL, Minority Professional Staff Member DARLA D. CASSELL, Chief Clerk (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 21:25 May 15, 2002 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 E:\HR\OC\SR150.XXX pfrm12 PsN: SR150 Calendar No. 369 107TH CONGRESS REPORT "! 2d Session SENATE 107–150 TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TER- RORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES MAY 14 (legislative day, MAY 9), 2002.—Ordered to be printed Mr.
    [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]
  • The Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009): Overview and Legal Issues
    The Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009): Overview and Legal Issues (name redacted) Legislative Attorney August 4, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R41163 The Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009): Overview and Legal Issues Summary On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Military Order (M.O.) pertaining to the detention, treatment, and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism. Military commissions pursuant to the M.O. began in November 2004 against four persons declared eligible for trial, but the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld invalidated the military commissions as improper under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). To permit military commissions to go forward, Congress approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), conferring authority to promulgate rules that depart from the strictures of the UCMJ and possibly U.S. international obligations. Military commissions proceedings were reinstated and resulted in three convictions under the Bush Administration. Upon taking office in 2009, President Obama temporarily halted military commissions to review their procedures as well as the detention program at Guantánamo Bay in general, pledging to close the prison facilities there by January 2010, a deadline that passed unmet. One case was moved to a federal district court. In May 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it was considering restarting the military commission system with some changes to the procedural rules. Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (MCA 2009) as part of the Department of Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2010, P.L. 111-84, to provide some reforms the Administration supported and to make other amendments to the Military Commissions Act, as described in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States
    S. HRG. 105±847 THE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION OCTOBER 6, 1988 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 53±879 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware PAUL COVERDELL, Georgia PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia ROD GRAMS, Minnesota RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California BILL FRIST, Tennessee PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JAMES W. NANCE, Staff Director EDWIN K. HALL, Minority Staff Director (II) CONTENTS Page Rumsfeld, Hon. Donald H., Former Secretary of Defense, Representing the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission .................................................................. 3 (III) THE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1998 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in Room SD- 419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Helms, Coverdell, Hagel, and Grams. The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order. These are the closing throes of a session, and both policy committees are meeting today. I am trying to ascertain whether Joe Biden is out of his yet, and I apologize for my tardiness.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War Authorizations Is Sound Policy Charles D
    LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 256 | JANUARY 6, 2020 EDWIN MEESE III CENTER FOR LEGAL & JUDICIAL STUDIES Why Repealing the 1991 and 2002 Iraq War Authorizations Is Sound Policy Charles D. Stimson he Constitution’s allocation of war powers KEY TAKEAWAYS between the legislative and executive branches is a classic example of the sepa- T 1 The 1991 and 2002 AUMF Against Iraq ration of powers. The Congress has the power to Resolutions remain in force even though declare war but cannot fight the war on its own. The their purpose has been accomplished. President, as commander in chief of the Army and Navy, has (and has uniformly claimed) the authority to use military forces abroad in the absence of specific Repeal would not affect the 2001 AUMF, prior congressional approval.2 This authority derives the primary domestic statutory authority from his constitutional responsibility as commander for the war against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, in chief and chief executive for foreign and military ISIS, or associated forces. affairs. Without money from Congress, however, the President has no ability to fight those conflicts, nor Debating and repealing those war does he have the authority to appropriate funds to pay authorizations is a matter of congres- for those military conflicts on his own. sional hygiene and gets the Congress This tension between the legislative and executive back in the business of exercising its Article I muscles. branches was purposeful, as the Founders anticipated the grave significance of the country’s going to war. This paper, in its entirety, can be found at http://report.heritage.org/lm256 The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, DC 20002 | (202) 546-4400 | heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
    [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]