DOCSLIB.ORG

Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process S. HRG. 109–1056 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD: ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JULY 11, 2006 Serial No. J–109–95 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–111 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, pre- pared statement ................................................................................................... 193 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 2 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 221 Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement .............................................................................................................. 219 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 1 WITNESSES Bradbury, Steven G., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C .................................................. 6 Cobb, Paul W. ‘‘Whit’’, Jr., former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Deposition, Washington, D.C .................................................................................................. 54 Collins, Daniel P., former Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, California ............................................. 57 Dell’Orto, Daniel J., Principal Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C ................................. 4 Koh, Harold Hongju, Dean, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut ............ 50 Olson, Theodore B., former Solicitor General of the United States, and Part- ner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C ............................................. 48 Silliman, Scott L., Retired Air Force Judge Advocate, Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security, Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina ................................................................................................................ 55 Swift, Lieutenant Commander Charles D., Office of Military Commissions, Office of Chief Defense Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C ......................................................................................................................... 52 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Steven Bradbury to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Feingold, Feinstein, Kennedy and Specter ........................................................ 72 Responses of Paul W. ‘‘Whit’’ Cobb to questions submitted by Senator Specter 101 Responses of Daniel P. Collins to questions submitted by Senator Specter ....... 105 Responses of Daniel Dell’Orto to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kyl, Feingold, Schumer and Specter ............................... 109 Responses of Harold Hongju Koh to questions submitted by Senator Specter .. 126 Responses of Theodore Olson to questions submitted by Senator Specter ......... 127 Responses of Scott Silliman to questions submitted by Senators Specter, Kennedy and Feingold ......................................................................................... 130 Responses of Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Feingold, Kennedy and Specter ......................................... 139 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Bradbury, Steven G., Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., statement .............................. 158 Cobb, Paul W. ‘‘Whit’’, Jr., former Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Deposition, Washington, D.C., statement .............................................................................. 169 Collins, Daniel P., former Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Partner, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, California, statement .......................... 176 Dell’Orto, Daniel J., Principal Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., statement ............. 186 (III) VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC IV Page Fein, Bruce, former Associate Deputy Attorney General, Bruce Fein & Associ- ates, Washington, D.C., statement ..................................................................... 189 Letter, July 10, 2006 to Senators Specter and Leahy from retired Military ...... 200 Koh, Harold Hongju, Dean, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut, state- ment ...................................................................................................................... 202 Olson, Theodore B., former Solicitor General of the United States, and Part- ner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C., statement ......................... 225 Silliman, Scott L., Retired Air Force Judge Advocate, Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security, Duke University School of Law, Durham, North Carolina, statement ............................................................................................. 247 Swift, Lieutenant Commander Charles D., Office of Military Commissions, Office of Chief Defense Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., statement and attachments ....................................................................... 255 VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD: ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2006 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m., in room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chair- man of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, Sessions, Gra- ham, Cornyn, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, and Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairman SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now proceed to hold a hearing on what response should be made to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on June 29th, a week ago Thursday, which held that the procedures in place for the trial of certain de- tainees in Guantanamo did not satisfy the Constitution of the United States or the Geneva Convention. Shortly after 9/11, Sen- ator Durbin and I introduced relevant legislation, as did Senator Leahy, Senator Graham, and others. The Constitution is explicit under Article I, Section 8 that the Congress has the authority and responsibility to establish the rules of trials of those captured on land or sea. And we are now proceeding to follow the requirements of constitutional and international law, as handed down by the Su- preme Court of the United States, and to do it in a way which will permit us to fairly try those accused of war crimes and will permit us to fairly, appropriately, and judiciously detain enemy combat- ants in accordance with the rule of law. The Judiciary Committee held hearings on Guantanamo in June of 2005. I made a trip to Guantanamo in August of 2005, and we had been working on legislation and had legislation prepared in an- ticipation of the Supreme Court decision, which we thought would require congressional action. And when the Court came down with its decision, it was studied, and we introduced proposed legislation. But it is a very complex matter, and we need to consider proce- dures to determine what is appropriate evidence; whether hearsay should be allowed; perhaps not at trials for war criminals or those charged with war crimes, but perhaps for detainees, the issue of whether a detainee’s statements can be used if there is a question about whether the statements were voluntary or coerced; the right (1) VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:01 Apr 27, 2009 Jkt 043111 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43111.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC 2 to counsel, the right to classified information; where the lawyers are JAG officers, they are cleared; where they are private counsel, they are not cleared. It is more complicated. There are many, many questions which
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodore Olson, Conservative Stalwart, to Represent 'Dreamers' In
    Theodore Olson, Conservative Stalwart, to Represent ‘Dreamers’ in Supreme Court By Adam Liptak • Sept. 26, 2019 o WASHINGTON — The young immigrants known as “Dreamers” have gained an unlikely ally in the Supreme Court. Theodore B. Olson, who argued for robust executive power in senior Justice Department posts under Republican presidents, will face off against lawyers from President Trump’s Justice Department in a case over Mr. Trump’s efforts to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation and allows them to work. In an interview in his office, Mr. Olson said he had generally taken a broad view of presidential authority, particularly in the realm of immigration. “Executive power is important, and we respect it,” he said. “But it has to be done the right way. It has to be done in an orderly fashion so that citizens can understand what is being done and people whose lives have depended on a governmental policy aren’t swept away arbitrarily and capriciously. And that’s what’s happened here.” Mr. Olson has argued 63 cases in the Supreme Court, many of them as solicitor general under President George W. Bush. In private practice, he argued for the winning sides in Bush v. Gore, which handed the presidency to Mr. Bush, and Citizens United, which amplified the role of money in politics. But Mr. Olson disappointed some of his usual allies when he joined David Boies, his adversary in Bush v. Gore, to challenge California’s ban on same-sex marriage. That case reached the Supreme Court and helped pave the way for the court’s 2015 decision establishing a constitutional right to such unions.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflicts of Interest in Bush V. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K
    Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship Spring 2003 Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? Richard K. Neumann Jr. Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Richard K. Neumann Jr., Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally?, 16 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 375 (2003) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/faculty_scholarship/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES Conflicts of Interest in Bush v. Gore: Did Some Justices Vote Illegally? RICHARD K. NEUMANN, JR.* On December 9, 2000, the United States Supreme Court stayed the presidential election litigation in the Florida courts and set oral argument for December 11.1 On the morning of December 12-one day after oral argument and half a day before the Supreme Court announced its decision in Bush v. Gore2-the Wall Street Journalpublished a front-page story that included the following: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 76 years old, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 70, both lifelong Republicans, have at times privately talked about retiring and would prefer that a Republican appoint their successors.... Justice O'Connor, a cancer survivor, has privately let it be known that, after 20 years on the high court,'she wants to retire to her home state of Arizona ...
    [Show full text]
  • The Oath a Film by Laura Poitras
    The Oath A film by Laura Poitras POV www.pbs.org/pov DISCUSSION GUIDe The Oath POV Letter frOm the fiLmmakers New YorK , 2010 I was first interested in making a film about Guantanamo in 2003, when I was also beginning a film about the war in Iraq. I never imagined Guantanamo would still be open when I finished that film, but sadly it was — and still is today. originally, my idea for the Oath was to make a film about some - one released from Guantanamo and returning home. In May 2007, I traveled to Yemen looking to find that story and that’s when I met Abu Jandal, osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard, driving a taxicab in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. I wasn’t look - ing to make a film about Al-Qaeda, but that changed when I met Abu Jandal. Themes of betrayal, guilt, loyalty, family and absence are not typically things that come to mind when we imagine a film about Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo. Despite the dangers of telling this story, it compelled me. Born in Saudi Arabia of Yemeni parents, Abu Jandal left home in 1993 to fight jihad in Bosnia. In 1996 he recruited Salim Ham - dan to join him for jihad in Tajikistan. while traveling through Laura Poitras, filmmaker of the Oath . Afghanistan, they were recruited by osama bin Laden. Abu Jan - Photo by Khalid Al Mahdi dal became bin Laden's personal bodyguard and “emir of Hos - pitality.” Salim Hamdan became bin Laden’s driver. Abu Jandal ends up driving a taxi and Hamdan ends up at Guantanamo.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 097 246 SO 007 806 AUTHOR Boulding, Elise; Passions, J. Robert TITLE Bibliography on World Conflict and Peace. INSTITUTION American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C.; Consortium on Peace Research, Education, and Development, Boulder, Colo. PUB DATE Aug 74 NOT? 82p. AVAILABLE FROMBibliography Project, c/o Dorothy Carson, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80302 ($2.50; make checks payable to Boulding Projects Fund) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 BC Not Available from !DRS. PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Bibliographies; *Conflict Resolution; Development; Disarmament; Environment; *Futures (of Society); *Global Approach; Instructional Materials; International Education; international Law; International Organizations; *Peace; Political Science; Social Action; Systems Approach; *World Affairs IDENTIFIERS *Nonviolence ABSTRACT This bibliography is compiled primarily in response to the needs of teachers and students in the new field of conflict and peace studies, defined as the analysis of the characteristics of the total world social system which make peace more probable. The introduction includes some suggestions on how to use the bibliography, sources of literature on war/peace studies, and a request to users for criticisms and suggestions. Books, monographs, research reports, journal articles, or educational materials were included when they were:(1) related to conflict management at every social level,(2) relevant to nonviolence, and (3) classic statements in an academic specialization, such as foreign policy studies when of particular significance for conflict studies. A subject guide to the main categories of the bibliography lists 18 major topics with various numbered subdivisions. Th%. main body of the bibliography lists citations by author and keys this to the topic subdivisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching About Big Money in Elections: to Amend Or Not to Amend the U.S
    Social Education 76(5), pp 236–241 ©2012 National Council for the Social Studies Teaching about Big Money in Elections: To Amend or Not to Amend the U.S. Constitution? James M. M. Hartwick and Brett L. M. Levy “Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.” — Will Rogers (1879–1935) Last summer, California and Massachusetts became the sixth and seventh states— activity is independent of the candidates’ along with Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Maryland—to send a campaigns. These cases led to the rise resolution to the U.S. Congress calling for a constitutional amendment to (1) end the of “superPACs.” As long as they do not court’s extension of personhood rights to corporations, and (2) enable the government coordinate with campaigns and do not to definitively regulate campaign finances. This fall, with the bipartisan support of contribute directly to the candidates, its Democratic governor and Republican lieutenant governor, Montana is asking superPACs can raise unlimited funds voters to consider a referendum advising Montana’s congressional delegation to sup- from corporations, non-profits, unions, port such a constitutional amendment. Meanwhile, the current Congress has already and individuals and may spend those considered more than a dozen resolutions to amend the Constitution to strengthen funds to promote their favored political Congress’s ability to limit corporate funding of election activities, and 20 states have candidate or cause. In addition, non-prof- introduced similar resolutions.1 its, like “social welfare” groups (501 [c][4] s), may engage in unlimited non-coordi- Political support is growing.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeus Corpus and Detentions at Guantanamo Bay Hearing Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives
    HABEUS CORPUS AND DETENTIONS AT GUANTANAMO BAY HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 26, 2007 Serial No. 110–152 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 36–345 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Aug 31 2005 12:37 Jan 21, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\WORK\CONST\062607\36345.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas ANTHONY D.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Gideon</I> at Guantánamo
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2013 Gideon at Guantánamo Neal K. Katyal Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1416 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2574839 122 Yale L.J. 2416-2427 (2013) 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 Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons 2416.KATYAL.2427_UPDATED.DOCX7/1/2013 12:47:10 PM Neal Kumar Katyal Gideon at Guantánamo abstract. The right to counsel maintains an uneasy relationship with the demands of trials for war crimes. Drawing on the author’s personal experiences from defending a Guantánamo detainee, the Author explains how Gideon set a baseline for the right to counsel at Guantánamo. Whether constitutionally required or not, Gideon ultimately framed the way defense lawyers represented their clients. Against the expectations of political and military leaders, both civilian and military lawyers vigorously challenged the legality of the military trial system. At the same time, tensions arose because lawyers devoted to a particular cause (such as attacking the Guantánamo trial system) were asked at times to help legitimize the system, particularly when it came to decisions about whether to enter a plea to help legitimize the rickety trial system in operation at Guantánamo. author. Paul & Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Lawyers Be Permitted to Violate the Law?
    MILITARY LAWYERING AT THE EDGE OF THE RULE OF LAW AT GUANTANAMO: SHOULD LAWYERS BE PERMITTED TO VIOLATE THE LAW? Ellen Yaroshefsky* I. INTRODUCTION “Where were the lawyers?” is the familiar refrain in the legal profession’s reflection on various corporate scandals.1 What is the legal and moral obligation of lawyers who have knowledge of ongoing illegality and criminal behavior of their clients? What should or must those lawyers do? What about government lawyers who have knowledge of such behavior? This Article considers that question in the context of military lawyers at Guantanamo—those lawyers with direct knowledge of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, treatment criticized throughout the world as violative of fundamental principles of international law. In essence, where were the lawyers for the government and for individual detainees when the government began to violate the most fundamental norms of the rule of law? This Article discusses the proud history of several military lawyers at Guantanamo who consistently demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the Constitution and to the rule of law. They were deeply offended about the actions of the government they served as it undermined the fundamental premises upon which the country was formed. Their jobs placed them at the edge of the rule of law and caused consistent crises of conscience.2 These military lawyers typically are not * Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Jacob Burns Ethics Center at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Sophia Brill, a brilliant future law student, deserves significant credit for her invaluable work on this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigation Department of the Year Competition
    americanlawyer.com JANUARY 2010 SPECIAL ISSUE THIS IS Our FIFTH BIEnnIAL Litigation Department of the Year competition. It has be- come a cliché to note that we’ve never had a tougher time picking finalists and winners from the scores of submissions. Nevertheless, it’s true. The last two years have been a time of unprec- edented upheaval for American businesses—and for the lawyers who serve them. To quote a part- ner from one of our finalist firms, the economic meltdown resulted not just in litigation, but in conflagration. The firms we chose in the overall contest and in the three practice area competi- tions—product liability, labor and employment, and intellectual property—didn’t just survive this trial by fire. They were forged into stronger, faster, smarter litigation departments. As before, we invited every firm in The Am Law 200 to report on litigation activities in a 19- month period, this time January 1, 2008–July 31, 2009. Every submission was read by at least three American Lawyer journalists. We vetted the strongest entries with calls to clients and op- posing counsel. Panels of reporters and editors picked finalists in each category and invited those firms to our offices in New York to plead their cases. At the end, we arrived at the results that follow: four winners, 12 runners-up, and 24 honorable mentions. Congratulations to all of them. —ALISON FRANKEL GIBSON DUNN Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Game Changers When other firms and conventional strategies come up short, By David Bario clients in deep trouble turn to Gibson Dunn for fresh, aggressive thinking and innovative rescues.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Law Review
    Volume 204 Summer 2010 ARTICLES LEAVE NO SOLDIER BEHIND: ENSURING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR PTSD-AFFLICTED VETERANS Major Tiffany M. Chapman A “CATCH-22” FOR MENTALLY-ILL MILITARY DEFENDANTS: PLEA-BARGAINING AWAY MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS Vanessa Baehr-Jones PEACEKEEPING AND COUNTERINSURGENCY: HOW U.S. MILITARY DOCTRINE CAN IMPROVE PEACEKEEPING IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO Ashley Leonczyk CONSISTENCY AND EQUALITY: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING THE “COMBAT ACTIVITIES EXCLUSION” OF THE FOREIGN CLAIMS ACT Major Michael D. Jones WHO QUESTIONS THE QUESTIONERS? REFORMING THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS IN COURTS-MARTIAL Major Ann B. Ching CLEARING THE HIGH HURDLE OF JUDICIAL RECUSAL: REFORMING RCM 902A Major Steve D. Berlin READ ANY GOOD (PROFESSIONAL) BOOKS LATELY?: A SUGGESTED PROFESSIONAL READING PROGRAM FOR JUDGE ADVOCATES Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Bovarnick THE FIFTEENTH HUGH J. CLAUSEN LECTURE IN LEADERSHIP: LEADERSHIP IN HIGH PROFILE CASES Professor Thomas W. Taylor BOOK REVIEWS Department of Army Pamphlet 27-100-204 MILITARY LAW REVIEW Volume 204 Summer 2010 CONTENTS ARTICLES Leave No Soldier Behind: Ensuring Access to Health Care for PTSD-Afflicted Veterans Major Tiffany M. Chapman 1 A “Catch-22” for Mentally-Ill Military Defendants: Plea-Bargaining away Mental Health Benefits Vanessa Baehr-Jones 51 Peacekeeping and Counterinsurgency: How U.S. Military Doctrine Can Improve Peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Ashley Leonczyk 66 Consistency and Equality: A Framework for Analyzing the “Combat Activities Exclusion” of the Foreign Claims Act Major Michael D. Jones 144 Who Questions the Questioners? Reforming the Voir Dire Process in Courts-Martial Major Ann B. Ching 182 Clearing the High Hurdle of Judicial Recusal: Reforming RCM 902A Major Steve D.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Inc
    The New York Times March 16, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme- t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin Supreme Court Inc. How the nation’s highest court became increasingly receptive to the arguments of American business. By JEFFREY ROSEN I. The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests. I visited the chamber recently to talk with Robin Conrad, who heads the litigation effort, about her recent triumphs. Conrad, an appealing, soft-spoken woman, lives with her family on a horse farm in Maryland, where she rides with a fox-chasing club called the Howard County-Iron Bridge Hounds. Her office, playfully adorned by action figures of women like Xena the Warrior Princess and Hillary Rodham Clinton, has one of the most impressive views in Washington. “You can see the White House through the trees,” she said as we peered through a window overlooking the park.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Minnesota
    THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Announces Its MOfCH eOJIIJllcJlCCJllcJlt 1953 NORTHROP MEMORIAL AUDITORIUM THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 19 AT EIGHT O'CLOCK tiuivcrsitll oj fi;liuucsotll THE BOARD OF REGENTS Dr. James Lewis Morrill, President Mr. William T. Middlebrook, Secretary Mr. Laurence R. Lunden, Treasurer The Honorable Ray J. Quinlivan, St. Cloud First Vice President and Chairman The Honorable George VI. Lawson, St. Paul Second Vice President The Honorable James F. Bell, Minneapolis The Honorable Daniel C. Gainey, Owatonna The Honorable Richard L. Griggs, Duluth The Honorable Lester A. Malkerson, Minneapolis The Honorable Charles W. Mayo, Rochester The Honorable Karl G. Neumeier, Stillwater The Honorable E. E. Novak, New Prague The Honorable A. J. Olson, Renville The Honorable Herman F. Skyberg, Fisher As a courtesy to those attending functions, and out of respect for the character of the build­ ing, be it resolved by the Board of Rcgents that there be printed in the programs of all functions held in the Cyrus Northrop Memorial Auditorium a requcst that smoking be confined to the outer lobby on the main floor, to the gallery lobbies, and to the lounge rooms. rids Js Vour Uuillcrsit/l CHARTERED in February, 1851, by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory f Minnesota, the University of Minnesota has this year celebrated its one ~undred and second birthday. As from its very beginning, the University is dedicated to the task of train~n~ th.e youth of today, the citizens of tomorrow. How well it has succeeded IS mdlcated by the number of doctors, lawyers, engineers, social workers, journalists, dentists, farmers, businessmen, and com­ munity and civic leaders in all fields-good citizens all-who have gone from its several campuses to participate actively in the upgrading of the welfare of the citizens of our state.
    [Show full text]