DOCSLIB.ORG

America Faces the Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

secrecyblue 5/5/09 3:13 PM Page 1 SECRECY AND GOVERNMENT / PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY INTHE AGE OF NATIONAL SECRECY AND GOVERNMENT / PRIVACY THE CENTER ON LAW AND SECURITY AT THE NYU SCHOOL OF LAW SECRECY AND GOVERNMENT: America Faces the Future PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY SecrecyPrivacy 5/5/09 3:15 PM Page 1 THE CENTER ON LAW AND SECURITY AT THE NYU SCHOOL OF LAW SECRECY AND GOVERNMENT: America Faces the Future PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY Editor in Chief: Karen J. Greenberg Editor: Jeff Grossman Copy Editor: Sybil Perez Research: Joe Ortega, Summer Walker Index: Jim Diggins Design: Wendy Bedenbaugh copyright © 2009 by the Center on Law and Security cover photo: photo©istockphoto.com/Duncan Walker The opinions of the speakers herein do not represent the opinions of the Center on Law and Security. SecrecyPrivacy 5/5/09 3:15 PM Page 3 The dual concepts of secrecy and privacy were the subject of much scrutiny under the Bush administration. In two separate conferences held in 2007 at the Center on Law and Security, participants discussed the administration’s stance regarding these intertwined ideas. As Barton Gellman described, “national security presents a conflict of core values in our society between self-government and self- defense.” Covering a broad spectrum of issues and perspectives, the conversa- tions at the conferences highlighted questions about the nature of power in the context of national security, the consequences of government secrecy, and invasions into the private realm of U.S. citizens. At both events, panelists set out the facts of what occurred in the name of national security during the war on terror. In the matter of secrecy, government officials expanded their right to keep information out of the public eye, thereby increasing their authority. “When we allow information to concentrate or to accumulate in the executive branch, or anywhere,” Jameel Jaffer said, “we are allowing power to concentrate there as well.” The number of classified documents grew exponentially. Relying upon the states secrets privilege, the government persuaded courts to dismiss cases in which individuals claim to have been tortured – in the case of Khaled el-Masri, apparently due to mistaken identity. The torture policy and the CIA ghost prisons were kept secret not only from the public but also from many officials in Washington. In the matter of privacy, our panelists told us the reverse circumstance occurred. While secrecy mounted, privacy was eroded. The customary government respect for the privacy of its citizens diminished notably, according to our experts who cited the use of national security letters to collect information about individuals on an exponentially greater scale. We also discovered that our ability to retain our privacy amidst rapid technological expansion has been reduced to nearly nil, and that a thriving commerce exists relative to personal information. In some areas, discussion turned to the places where privacy and secrecy overlap, thus high- lighting their mirror relationship to one another. This was particularly apparent in the matter of warrantless wiretapping. Although we still, in the early months of the Obama administration, do not know the full extent of the covert warrantless wiretapping program, the government appears to have monitored a number of citizens’ conversations in defiance of previously accepted legal, not to mention ethical, standards. In some instances, the analyses of the individual right to privacy and the governmental right to secrecy varied considerably. As Jeff Jonas noted in regard to the commercial use of personal information, but which is equally true of the broader discussion, “the policy debate comes down to who gets to peek at the data, when, and with what oversight and accountability?” Yet the overall consensus of participants at both conferences was that government augments its power by keeping information secret, even between various government agencies. At the same time, individuals and society collectively lose a cherished right when privacy is removed or even compromised. As Professor Burt Neuborne said, “the feeling that we are being watched, whether or not we actually are, creates a deterrence on non-conventional behavior for which our culture will eventually pay a price.” Today, the ideas at the heart of these two conferences remain vital and instructive about the questions underlying the way forward as the country accepts the mission of protecting both civil liberties and national security. Karen J. Greenberg, Executive Director SecrecyPrivacy 5/5/09 3:15 PM Page 5 Table of Contents SECRECY AND GOVERNMENT: America Faces the Future Participant Biographies 8 On Secrets and Secrecy 14 Gaining Perspective: Secrecy Then and Now 18 Panelists: Scott Horton, Col. W. Patrick Lang, Walter Pincus, Michael Sheehan Moderator: Prof. Noah Feldman Secrecy and Decision-Making 30 Panelists: Barton Gellman, Prof. Jack Goldsmith, Prof. Stephen Holmes Moderator: Prof. Richard Pildes The War on Terror and the Courts 44 Panelists: Elaine Cassel, Joshua Dratel, Anthony Lewis, Adam Liptak Moderator: Prof. Burt Neuborne National Security and Intelligence 58 Panelists: Frank Anderson, Jameel Jaffer, Judge Kenneth Karas,* Prof. Stephen Schulhofer Moderator: Dana Priest Afterword by Prof. Norman Dorsen 65 PRIVACY IN THE AGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY Participant Biographies 70 Privacy: Then and Now 74 Panelists: Valerie Caproni, Robert O’Harrow, Jr., Prof. Geoffrey Stone Moderator: Prof. Burt Neuborne Citizens, Surveilled: FISA, the Patriot Act and Today’s Telecommunications 88 Panelists: Bryan Cunningham, Barton Gellman, Prof. Stephen Schulhofer Moderator: Prof. Matthew Waxman Reins of Power: From Wall Street to Washington, D.C. and the Global Information Network 100 Panelists: Jeff Jonas, Vivian Maese, Declan McCullagh Moderator: Karen J. Greenberg Public,, Private and Political Dangers 110 Panelists: Prof. Todd Gitlin, Lawrence Wright Moderator: Prof. Stephen Holmes Index 119 About the Center on Law and Security 126 *Judge Karas’s remarks were off the record. SecrecyPrivacy 5/5/09 3:15 PM Page 7 SECRECY AND GOVERNMENT: America Faces the Future APRIL 12, 2007 SecrecyPrivacy 5/5/09 3:15 PM Page 8 Secrecy and Government: Participant Biographies; April 12, 2007 Frank Anderson has been a consultant on involved the August 1998 bombings of the Middle East affairs to American and interna- United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. tional businesses and to the U.S. and foreign He was also lead and civilian counsel for David governments since 1995. This follows a 27-year Hicks, an Australian detained at Guantanamo career in CIA, where his last assignment was as Bay, Cuba, in Mr. Hicks’s prosecution by U.S. Chief of the Near East and South Asia Division. military commission, and currently represents His other assignments included service as direc- Mohamed El-Mezain, a defendant in the federal tor of technical services, chief of the Afghan prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Task Force and 13 years in the field, where he Relief and Development, and, on appeal, Lynne served as the CIA’s chief of station in three Stewart, a New York lawyer convicted of mate- Middle Eastern countries. rial support for terrorism. He is co-editor with Karen J. Greenberg of The Torture Papers: The Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge University District of Columbia, where she also teaches Press, 2005), a compendium of government law and psychology. She is the author of a col- memoranda. lege textbook on criminal psychology. Her book The War on Civil Liberties, published in Noah Feldman is the Cecilia Goetz Professor 2003, is an account of the early days of the of Law at the New York University School of Bush administration’s “war on terror” and its Law and an adjunct senior fellow at the Council impact on American citizens and the courts. on Foreign Relations. He specializes in constitu- Since 9/11, she has written and spoken about tional studies, with particular emphasis on the prosecution of terrorism cases in the Eastern relationship between law and religion, constitu- District of Virginia and the Fourth Circuit tional design, and the history of legal theory. In Court of Appeals. She has appeared in several 2003, he served as senior constitutional advisor documentaries, is a commentator on radio pro- to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq grams in the U.S. and abroad, and has pub- and subsequently advised members of the Iraqi lished articles in several foreign newspapers, Governing Council on the drafting of the including publications in Poland and Finland. Transitional Administrative Law, or interim She is a regular guest columnist for constitution. He is the author of three books: FindLaw’s Writ. Divided By God: America’s Church-State Problem and What We Should Do About It Joshua L. Dratel is an attorney in New York (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005); What We City. Dratel, a past president of the New York Owe Iraq: War and the Ethics of Nation State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Building (Princeton University Press, 2004); and member of the Board of Directors of the and After Jihad: America and the Struggle for National Association of Criminal Defense Islamic Democracy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Lawyers, has been defense counsel in several 2003). Feldman litigates constitutional cases terrorism and national security prosecutions, before the federal courts; lectures on law, reli- including those of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, gion, and the Middle East; and is a contributing who was acquitted in federal court in Idaho in writer for The New York Times Magazine. 2004, and Wadih El-Hage, a defendant in United States v. Usama bin Laden, which 8 SECRECY AND GOVERNMENT: America Faces the Future SecrecyPrivacy 5/5/09 3:15 PM Page 9 Barton Gellman is a special projects reporter rity, terrorism, and torture and has authored on the national staff of The Washington Post, numerous articles on the United States and following tours as diplomatic correspondent, Europe during World War II.
Recommended publications
  • A Review of FBI Security Programs, March 2002

    A Review of FBI Security Programs, March 2002

    U.S. Department of Justice A Review of FBI Security Programs Commission for Review of FBI Security Programs March 2002 Commission for the Review of FBI Security Programs United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 1521 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 616-1327 Main (202) 616-3591 Facsimile March 31, 2002 The Honorable John Ashcroft Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Attorney General: In March 2001, you asked me to lead a Commission to study security programs within the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Your request came at the urging of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who had concluded that an outside review was critical in light of the then recently discovered espionage by a senior Bureau official. In discharging my duties, I turned to six distinguished citizens as fellow Commissioners and to a staff of highly qualified professionals. I want to acknowledge the diligence with which my colleagues pursued the complex matters within our mandate. The Commission took its responsibilities seriously. It was meticulous in its investigation, vigorous in its discussions, candid in sharing views, and unanimous in its recommendations. When I agreed to chair the Commission, you promised the full cooperation and support of the Department of Justice and the FBI. That promise has been fulfilled. I would like to thank the Department’s Security and Emergency Planning Staff for the expert help they gave us, and I especially commend the cooperation of Director Mueller and FBI personnel at every level, who have all been chastened by treachery from within.
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS FOUNDATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION, and FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION, Civil Action Plaintiffs, No. 02-CV-2077 (ESH) v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DAVID L. SOBEL D.C. Bar No. 360418 Electronic Privacy Information Center 1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 ANN BEESON JAMEEL JAFFER American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 ARTHUR B. SPITZER D.C. Bar No. 235960 American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area 1400 20th St., N.W. #119 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Plaintiffs INTRODUCTION In this action, Plaintiffs challenge the government's refusal to disclose aggregate, statistical data concerning implementation of controversial new surveillance powers authorized by Congress in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. These new powers raise potentially serious implications for constitutionally protected rights and, accordingly, there is widespread public concern about their scope and implementation. Plaintiffs filed this litigation after defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) failed to respond expeditiously to a request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The request sought records related to Defendant’s implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act (“Patriot Act” or “Act”), Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (Oct. 26, 2001), legislation that dramatically expanded the government’s authority to engage in intrusive surveillance of people living in the United States.
  • The Department of Justice and the Limits of the New Deal State, 1933-1945

    The Department of Justice and the Limits of the New Deal State, 1933-1945

    THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE LIMITS OF THE NEW DEAL STATE, 1933-1945 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Maria Ponomarenko December 2010 © 2011 by Maria Ponomarenko. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/ms252by4094 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David Kennedy, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Richard White, Co-Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Mariano-Florentino Cuellar Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Acknowledgements My principal thanks go to my adviser, David M.
  • What Role for the Cia's General Counsel

    What Role for the Cia's General Counsel

    Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes: The CIA’s Office of General Counsel? A. John Radsan* After 9/11, two officials at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) made decisions that led to major news. In 2002, one CIA official asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to clarify how aggressive CIA interrogators could be in questioning al Qaeda operatives held overseas.1 This request led to the August 2002 memorandum, later leaked, in which John Yoo argued that an interrogator crosses the line into torture only by inflicting pain on a par with organ failure.2 Yoo further suggested that interrogators would have many defenses, justifications, and excuses if they faced possible criminal charges.3 One commentator described the advice as that of a “mob lawyer to a mafia don on how to skirt the law and stay out of prison.”4 To cool the debate about torture, the Bush administration retracted the memorandum and replaced it with another.5 The second decision was made in 2003, when another CIA official asked the Justice Department to investigate possible misconduct in the disclosure to the media of the identity of a CIA employee. The employee was Valerie Plame, a covert CIA analyst and the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson. * Associate Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law. The author was a Justice Department prosecutor from 1991 until 1997, and Assistant General Counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency from 2002 until 2004. He thanks Paul Kelbaugh, a veteran CIA lawyer in the Directorate of Operations, for thoughtful comments on an early draft, and Erin Sindberg Porter and Ryan Check for outstanding research assistance.
  • The Richard Aoki Case: Was the Man Who Armed the Black Panther Party an FBI Informant?

    The Richard Aoki Case: Was the Man Who Armed the Black Panther Party an FBI Informant?

    THE RICHARD AOKI CASE: WAS THE MAN WHO ARMED THE BLACK PANTHER PARTY AN FBI INFORMANT? by Natalie Harrison A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Wilkes Honors College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences with a Concentration in History Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Jupiter, Florida April 2013 THE RICHARD AOKI CASE: WAS THE MAN WHO ARMED THE BLACK PANTHERS AN FBI INFORMANT? by Natalie Harrison This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. Christopher Strain, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts and Sciences. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ____________________________ Dr. Christopher Strain ___________________________ Dr. Mark Tunick ____________________________ Dr. Daniel White ____________________________ Dean Jeffrey Buller, Wilkes Honors College ____________ Date ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank, first and foremost, Dr. Strain for being such a supportive, encouraging and enthusiastic thesis advisor – I could not have done any of this had he not introduced me to Richard Aoki. I would also like to thank Dr. Tunick and Dr. White for agreeing to be my second readers and for believing in me and this project, as well as Dr. Hess for being my temporary advisor when I needed it. And finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for all their support and for never stopping me as I rattled on and on about Richard Aoki and how much my thesis felt like a spy movie.
  • Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? a Comparative Perspective Russell L

    Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? a Comparative Perspective Russell L

    Louisiana Law Review Volume 53 | Number 4 March 1993 Is The ewN York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective Russell L. Weaver Geoffrey Bennett Repository Citation Russell L. Weaver and Geoffrey Bennett, Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective, 53 La. L. Rev. (1993) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol53/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective Russell L. Weaver* Geoffrey Bennett** In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,' the United States Supreme Court extended First Amendment guarantees to defamation actions.2 Many greeted the Court's decision with joy. Alexander Meiklejohn claimed that the decision was "an occasion for dancing in the streets. ' 3 He believed that the decision would have a major impact on defamation law, and he was right. After the decision, many years elapsed during which "there were virtually no recoveries by public officials in libel 4 actions." The most important component of the New York Times decision was its "actual malice" standard. This standard provided that, in order to recover against a media defendant, a public official must demonstrate that the defendant acted with "malice.' In other words, the official must show that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was © Copyright 1993, by LoUIsIANA LAW REVIEW.
  • The FBI's Counterterrorism Program

    The FBI's Counterterrorism Program

    U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Report to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States: The FBI’s Counterterrorism Program Since September 2001 April 14, 2004 Report to The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States The FBI’s Counterterrorism Program Since September 2001 TABLETABLE OF OFCONTENTS CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................11 II FBI ORGANIZATIONAL CHART................................................. 3 III TIMELINE OF SIGNIFICANT REFORMS AND INITIATIVES SINCE 9/11/01.......................................................... 4 IV INTRODUCTION......................................................................................66 V PRIORITIZATION....................................................................................77 The New Priorities.........................................................................................77 1 Protect the United States from Terrorist Attack..........................................77 2 Protect the United States Against Foreign Intelligence Operations and Espionage........................................................................................77 3 Protect the United States Against Cyber-based Attacks and High-Technology Crimes..................................................................88 4 Combat Public Corruption at all Levels.......................................................88 5 Protect Civil Rights......................................................................................88
  • The Richard S. Salant Lecture

    The Richard S. Salant Lecture

    THE RICHARD S. S ALANT LECTURE ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS WITH ANTHONY LEWIS The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University 79 John F. Kennedy Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 2008 61 7-495-8269 • www.shorensteincenter.org THE RICHARD S. S ALANT LECTURE ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS WITH ANTHONY LEWIS 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS History of the Richard S. Salant Lecture ............................................................ 5 Biography of Anthony Lewis ................................................................................ 7 Welcoming Remarks by Dean David Ellwood .................................................. 9 Introduction by Alex S. Jones .............................................................................. 10 The 2008 Richard S. Salant Lecture on Freedom of the Press by Anthony Lewis ............................................................................................ 12 THE RICHARD S. S ALANT LECTURE 3 HISTORY In 2007, the estate of Dr. Frank Stanton, former president of CBS, provided funding for a lecture in honor of his longtime friend and colleague, Mr. Richard S. Salant, a lawyer, broadcast media executive, ardent defender of the First Amendment and passionate leader of broadcast ethics and news standards. Frank Stanton was a central figure in the development of tele - vision broadcasting. He became president of CBS in January 1946, a position he held for 27 years. A staunch advocate of First Amendment rights, Stanton worked to ensure that broad - cast journalism received protection equal to that received by the print press. In testimony before a U.S. Congressional committee when he was ordered to hand over material from an investigative report called “The Selling of the Pentagon,” Stanton said that the order amounted to an infringement of free speech under the First Amendment.
  • Suleiman Complaint

    Suleiman Complaint

    1 La Rond Baker, WSBA No. 43610 2 [email protected] AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 3 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 4 Seattle, WA 98164 Phone: 206-624-2184 5 6 Steven M. Watt (pro hac vice pending) Dror Ladin (pro hac vice pending) 7 Hina Shamsi (pro hac vice pending) 8 Jameel Jaffer (pro hac vice pending) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 9 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 10 New York, New York 10004 11 Paul Hoffman (pro hac vice pending) 12 Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100 13 Venice, CA 90291 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 17 18 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, MOHAMED AHMED BEN SOUD, OBAID 19 ULLAH (AS PERSONAL 20 REPRESENTATIVE OF GUL RAHMAN), Civil Action No. 21 Plaintiffs, 22 v. COMPLAINT AND 23 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 24 JAMES ELMER MITCHELL and JOHN “BRUCE” JESSEN 25 26 Defendants. 27 COMPLAINT AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES Page | 1 UNION OF WASHINGTON FOUNDATION 901 Fifth Ave, Suite 630 Seattle, WA 98164 (206) 624-2184 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 1. Defendants James Elmer Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen are 3 4 psychologists who designed, implemented, and personally 5 administered an experimental torture program for the U.S. Central 6 Intelligence Agency (“CIA”). 7 8 2. To create a torture program with a scientific veneer, Defendants drew 9 on experiments from the 1960s in which researchers taught dogs 10 “helplessness” by subjecting them to uncontrollable pain. Defendants 11 12 theorized that if human beings were subjected to systematic abuse, the 13 victims would become helpless and unable to resist an interrogator’s 14 demand for information.
  • Guantánamo, Rasul, and the Twilight of Law

    Guantánamo, Rasul, and the Twilight of Law

    DRUMBL5_5.DOC 8/7/2005 6:47:10 PM GUANTÁNAMO, RASUL, AND THE TWILIGHT OF LAW Mark A. Drumbl* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction....................................................................................... 898 II. Developments Since Rasul .............................................................. 901 A. Combatant Status Review Tribunals ........................................ 901 B. Military Commissions................................................................. 905 III. The Twilight of Law ......................................................................... 909 A. Use of Renditions and Ghost Detainees.................................. 910 B. Shielding the Executive Branch from Judicial Review and Accountability ............................................................................. 910 C. Bold Reinterpretations of the Geneva Conventions and Convention Against Torture...................................................... 911 D. Skepticism of Law....................................................................... 916 IV. The False Dichotomy Between Rule of Law and National * Associate Professor of Law and Ethan Allen Faculty Fellow, School of Law, Washington & Lee University; B.A., 1989, M.A., 1992, McGill University; J.D., 1994, University of Toronto; LL.M., 1998, J.S.D., 2002, Columbia University. Professor Drumbl has served as defense counsel in the Rwanda genocide trials, taught exiled Afghan lawyers, and participated as an amicus in litigation regarding the Combatant States Review Tribunals. His teaching
  • Guantánamo and Its Aftermath

    Guantánamo and Its Aftermath

    Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees November 2008 Human Rights Center International Human Rights Law Clinic In partnership with University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees Laurel E. Fletcher Eric Stover with Stephen Paul Smith Alexa Koenig Zulaikha Aziz Alexis Kelly Sarah Staveteig Nobuko Mizoguchi November 2008 Human Rights Center University of California, Berkeley International Human Rights Law Clinic University of California, Berkeley, School of Law In partnership with Center for Constitutional Rights ISBN# 978-0-9760677-3-3 Human Rights Center and International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley Cover photos: Louie Palu/ZUMA Design: Melanie Doherty Design, San Francisco Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley The Human Rights Center promotes human rights and international justice worldwide and trains the next generation of human rights researchers and advocates. We believe that sustainable peace and devel- opment can be achieved only through efforts to prevent human rights abuses and hold those responsible for such crimes accountable. We use empirical research methods to investigate and expose serious viola- tions of human rights and international humanitarian law. In our studies and reports, we recommend specific policy measures that should be taken by governments and international organizations to protect vulnerable populations in times of war and political and social upheaval. For more information, please visit hrc.berkeley.edu. International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law The International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC) designs and implements innovative human rights projects to advance the struggle for justice on behalf of individuals and marginalized communities through advocacy, research, and policy development.
  • FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

    FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

    LAW ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 'D66T~ FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE J. EDGAR HOOVER, DIRECTOR JULY 1965 VOL. 34, NO. 7 ­­­­­­­­­ THE COVER-Director J. Edgar Hoover estab· lished the FBI National Academy in 1935. See 30th anniversary article beginning on page 2. LAW ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN CONTENTS Message From Director J. Edgar Hoover 1 The FBI National Academy-Thirty Years of Progress Through Training . 2 The Morals Squad, by William M. Lombard, Chief of Police, Rochester, N.Y. Taking Inventory, by Dwight]. Dalbey, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation 12 Nationwide Crimes cope 13 Investigators' Aids 23 Wanted by the FBI 24 Published by 'he FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Washington, D.C. 20535 WE CAN EXPECT the coming weeks to present a pied" appearance often discourage and prevent stiff challenge to law enforcement. Predictions burglaries. are prevalent throughout the country for a "long, Crimes against property, however, are only a hot summer" because of anticipated increases of minor part of the problem. Far more appalling disturbances and violent crimes. are the vicious attacks on defenseless children by We would hope the prognosticators of these sexual deviates and the murders, rapes, and ag- ominous conditions are wrong; we would hope gravated assaults which register sharp rises dur- that a recordbreaking summer of strife and law- ing the summer. The intensity and frequency of 1u1ness can be averted. But in addition to the these violations haunt every community. Law annual seasonal increase of summertime crime­- enforcement is still searching for effective pre- crimes of passion and violence­­we can also ex- ventive action against them, and certainly, neg- ~ ect difficulties and violations connected with ligence and public indifference do not lessen the .