DOCSLIB.ORG

UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Appellee, V. OMAR AHMED

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Appellee, V. OMAR AHMED UNITED STATES COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW [Panel not yet assigned] ) ) BRIEF ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT ) ) CMCR Case No. ____________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Tried at Guántanamo Bay, Cuba, on ) 9-12 August 2010, Appellee, ) 25-31 October 2010 ) v. ) Before a Military Commission convened by ) Hon. Susan J. Crawford OMAR AHMED KHADR, ) ) Presiding Military Judge Appellant. ) COL Peter E. Brownback, USA (ret.) ) COL Patrick J. Parrish, USA ) ) DATE: 8 November 2013 ) TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF MILITARY COMMISSION REVIEW Samuel T. Morison Appellate Defense Counsel Capt Justin Swick, USAF Assistant Appellate Defense Counsel Office of the Chief Defense Counsel 1620 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301 Tel: (703) 696-9490 x181 Email: [email protected] Dennis Edney 234 Wolf Ridge Close Edmonton, Alberta, T5T 5M6, Canada Tel: (780) 489-0835 Email: [email protected] Law Society of Alberta (ID: 7997) Civilian Defense Counsel (pro hac vice) Counsel for Omar Ahmed Khadr TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... iv ISSUES PRESENTED ..................................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE......................................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ...................................................................................................... 3 A. The Capture of a Child Soldier (July 2002) ............................................................ 3 B. Omar’s Journey to Afghanistan (1986-2002) .......................................................... 5 C. Omar’s Mistreatment in Custody (2002-2005) ....................................................... 8 D. “Get ready for a miserable life” ............................................................................ 14 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 16 ERRORS AND ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 18 I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THE MILITARY COMMISSION LACKED SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CHARGED CONDUCT. ................................................................... 18 A. Controlling precedent requires that the offenses charged in a military commission be violations of the international law of war. .................................... 18 B. Material support for terrorism is not a war crime triable by military commission. ........................................................................................................... 20 C. Conspiracy is not a war crime triable by military commission. ............................ 21 D. As charged by the government and construed by the commission, murder in violation of the law of war is not a war crime triable by military commission. .... 22 E. As charged by the government and construed by the commission, the MCA’s new version of spying is not a war crime triable by military commission. .................. 24 II. THE MILITARY COMMISSION FUNDAMENTALLY MISCONSTRUED THE “IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF WAR” ELEMENT COMMON TO THE MURDER AND SPYING CHARGES IN THIS CASE. ....................................... 26 A. The commission’s erroneous interpretation of “in violation of the law of war” ignores the settled meaning of the phrase. ............................................................ 26 B. Appellant did not violate the law of war which renders his murder-related convictions invalid. ............................................................................................... 29 C. Appellant did not violate the law of war which renders his spying conviction invalid. ................................................................................................................... 35 ii III. APPELLANT’S CONVICTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR OUTRAGEOUS GOVERNMENT CONDUCT. ................................................... 39 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 44 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 14(i) .............................................................. 45 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....................................................................................................... 46 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Al Bahlul v. United States, 2013 WL 297726 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013) (per curiam), en banc rev. granted and panel order vacated, No. 11-1324 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 23, 2013) (en banc) ............................................................................................ 21 Ayuda v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .................................................................... 22 Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) ............................................................................... 28 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798) .................................................................................................. 20 Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917) ............................................................................ 26 Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) ............................................................................ 39 Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) .................................................................................... 20 County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) .................................................................... 39 Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990) ............................................................................. 31 Defenders of Wildlife v. Gutierrez, 532 F.3d 913 (D.C. Cir. 2008) .................................................. 1 Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) .......................................................................................... 19, 26 Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641 (2012)......................................................................................... 2 Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)..................................................................................... 43 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) ......................................................................... 2, 19, 20 Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .................................................... passim Harbury v. Deutch, 233 F.3d 596 (D.C. Cir. 2000), rev’d on other grounds sub nom, Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) ............................................................................ 40 Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) ................................................................................... 28 In re Sealed Case, 223 F.3d 775 (D.C. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 24 Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128 (1954) ....................................................................................... 40 Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U.S. 234 (1960) ................................................... 39 Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) .......................................................................................... 27 Maxwell v. Snow, 409 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 22 Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012) ...................................................................................... 43 Mohammed v. Obama, 704 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009)................................................................. 41 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172 (1952) ............................................................................. 40 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ......................................................................................... 43 iv Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) ........................................................................ 20, 30 Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U.S. 329 (1941) ......................................................................................... 28 TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) ...................................................................................... 26 United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 21 United States v. Castro, 704 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 28 United States v. Fisher, 711 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 28 United States v. Jenrette, 744 F.2d 817 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ............................................................... 40 United States v. Kelley, 707 F.2d 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1983)................................................................ 40 United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768 (1979) .............................................................................. 34 United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ................................................................ 40 United States v. Spinner, 152 F.3d 950 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ..............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse
    USA SEE NO EVIL GOVERNMENT TURNS THE OTHER WAY AS JUDGES MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT TORTURE AND OTHER ABUSE Amnesty International Publications First published in February 2011 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2011 Index: AMR 51/005/2011 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Judges point to human rights violations, executive turns away ........................................... 4 Absence
    [Show full text]
  • AFGHANISTAN - Base Map KYRGYZSTAN
    AFGHANISTAN - Base map KYRGYZSTAN CHINA ± UZBEKISTAN Darwaz !( !( Darwaz-e-balla Shaki !( Kof Ab !( Khwahan TAJIKISTAN !( Yangi Shighnan Khamyab Yawan!( !( !( Shor Khwaja Qala !( TURKMENISTAN Qarqin !( Chah Ab !( Kohestan !( Tepa Bahwddin!( !( !( Emam !( Shahr-e-buzorg Hayratan Darqad Yaftal-e-sufla!( !( !( !( Saheb Mingajik Mardyan Dawlat !( Dasht-e-archi!( Faiz Abad Andkhoy Kaldar !( !( Argo !( Qaram (1) (1) Abad Qala-e-zal Khwaja Ghar !( Rostaq !( Khash Aryan!( (1) (2)!( !( !( Fayz !( (1) !( !( !( Wakhan !( Khan-e-char Char !( Baharak (1) !( LEGEND Qol!( !( !( Jorm !( Bagh Khanaqa !( Abad Bulak Char Baharak Kishim!( !( Teer Qorghan !( Aqcha!( !( Taloqan !( Khwaja Balkh!( !( Mazar-e-sharif Darah !( BADAKHSHAN Garan Eshkashem )"" !( Kunduz!( !( Capital Do Koh Deh !(Dadi !( !( Baba Yadgar Khulm !( !( Kalafgan !( Shiberghan KUNDUZ Ali Khan Bangi Chal!( Zebak Marmol !( !( Farkhar Yamgan !( Admin 1 capital BALKH Hazrat-e-!( Abad (2) !( Abad (2) !( !( Shirin !( !( Dowlatabad !( Sholgareh!( Char Sultan !( !( TAKHAR Mir Kan Admin 2 capital Tagab !( Sar-e-pul Kent Samangan (aybak) Burka Khwaja!( Dahi Warsaj Tawakuli Keshendeh (1) Baghlan-e-jadid !( !( !( Koran Wa International boundary Sabzposh !( Sozma !( Yahya Mussa !( Sayad !( !( Nahrin !( Monjan !( !( Awlad Darah Khuram Wa Sarbagh !( !( Jammu Kashmir Almar Maymana Qala Zari !( Pul-e- Khumri !( Murad Shahr !( !( (darz !( Sang(san)charak!( !( !( Suf-e- (2) !( Dahana-e-ghory Khowst Wa Fereng !( !( Ab) Gosfandi Way Payin Deh Line of control Ghormach Bil Kohestanat BAGHLAN Bala !( Qaysar !( Balaq
    [Show full text]
  • Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N
    Finding Effective Constraints on Executive Power: Interrogation, Detention, and Torture DEBORAH N. PEARLSTEIN* INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1255 I. EXECUTIVE POLICY AND PRACTICE: COERCIVE INTERROGATION AND T O RTU RE ....................................................................................................1257 A. Vague or Unlawful Guidance................................................................ 1259 B. Inaction .................................................................................................1268 C. Resources, Training, and a Plan........................................................... 1271 II. ExECuTrVE LIMITs: FINDING CONSTRAINTS THAT WORK ...........................1273 A. The ProfessionalM ilitary...................................................................... 1274 B. The Public Oversight Organizationsof Civil Society ............................1279 C. Activist Federal Courts .........................................................................1288 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................1295 INTRODUCTION While the courts continue to debate the limits of inherent executive power under the Federal Constitution, the past several years have taught us important lessons about how and to what extent constitutional and sub-constitutional constraints may effectively check the broadest assertions of executive power. Following the publication
    [Show full text]
  • No Torture. No Exceptions
    NO TORTURE. NO EXCEPTIONS. The above sketch by Thomas V. Curtis, a former Reserve M.P. sergeant, is of New York Times an Afghan detainee, Dilawar, who was taken into U.S. custody on December 5, 2002, and died five days later. Dilawar was deprived of sleep and chained to the ceiling of his cell—techniques that the Bush administration has refused to outlaw for use by the CIA. Further, his legs were, according to a coroner, “pulpified” by repeated blows. Later evidence showed that Dilawar had no connection to the rocket attack for which he’d been apprehended. A sketch by Thomas Curtis, V. a Reserve M.P./The 16 January/February/March 2008 Introduction n most issues of the Washington Monthly, we favor ar- long-term psychological effects also haunt patients—panic ticles that we hope will launch a debate. In this issue attacks, depression, and symptoms of post-traumatic-stress Iwe seek to end one. The unifying message of the ar- disorder. It has long been prosecuted as a crime of war. In our ticles that follow is, simply, Stop. In the wake of Septem- view, it still should be. ber 11, the United States became a nation that practiced Ideally, the election in November would put an end to torture. Astonishingly—despite the repudiation of tor- this debate, but we fear it won’t. John McCain, who for so ture by experts and the revelations of Guantanamo and long was one of the leading Republican opponents of the Abu Ghraib—we remain one. As we go to press, President White House’s policy on torture, voted in February against George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Usa Amnesty International's Supplementary Briefing To
    AI Index: AMR 51/061/2006 3 May 2006 USA AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S SUPPLEMENTARY BRIEFING TO THE UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE This briefing includes further information on the implementation by the United States of America (USA) of its obligations under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention; UN Convention against Torture), with regard to the forthcoming consideration by the UN Committee Against Torture (the Committee) of the USA’s second periodic report.(1) The briefing updates Amnesty International’s concerns with regard to US "war on terror" detention, interrogation and related policies, as outlined in its preliminary briefing of August 2005, and provides additional information on domestic policies and practice. US OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO DETAINEES HELD IN THE CONTEXT OF THE "WAR ON TERROR" 1. General supplementary observations on definitions of torture and use of torture under interrogation, including deaths in custody (Articles 1 and 16) Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held in US custody in Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq and other locations. While the government continues to assert that abuses resulted for the most part from the actions of a few "aberrant" soldiers and lack of oversight, there is clear evidence that much of the ill-treatment has stemmed directly from officially santioned procedures and policies, including interrogation techniques approved by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for use in Guantánamo and later exported to Iraq.(2) While it seems that some practices, such as "waterboarding", were reserved for high value detainees, others appear to have been routinely applied during detentions and interrogations in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • ANNEX a Some Publicly Known Deaths of Detainees in U.S
    ANNEX A Some Publicly Known Deaths of Detainees in U.S. Custody in Afghanistan and Iraq ACLU-RDI 6826 p.1 Annex A: Some Publicly Known Deaths of Detainees in U.S. Custody in 1 Afghanistan and Iraq No. Name Location Cause of Circumstances Surrounding Death and Date Death 1. Mohammed Near Lwara, Death by Blunt Army Criminal Investigation Division found Sayari Afghanistan Force Injuries probable cause to believe that the commander and Aug. 28, 2002 three other members of Operational Detachment- Alpha 343, 3rd Special Forces Group, had committed the offenses of murder and conspiracy when they lured Mohamed Sayari, an Afghan civilian, into a roadblock, detained him, and killed him. Investigation further found probable cause to believe that a fifth Special Forces soldier had been an accessory after the fact and that the team's commander had instructed a soldier to destroy incriminating photographs of Sayari’s body. No court-martial or Article 32 hearing was convened. One soldier was given a written reprimand. None of the others received any punishment at all.2 2. Name Kabul, Death by The CIA was reportedly involved in the killing of a unknown Afghanistan Hypothermia detainee in Afghanistan. A CIA case officer at the Nov. 2002 “Salt Pit,” a secret U.S.-run prison just north of Kabul, ordered guards to “strip naked an uncooperative young Afghan detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets,” the Washington Post reported after interviewing four government officials familiar with the case. According to the article, Afghan guards “paid by the CIA and working under CIA supervision” dragged the prisoner around the concrete floor of the facility, “bruising and scraping his skin,” before placing him in a cell for the night without clothes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fundamental Paradoxes of Modern Warfare in Al Maqaleh V
    PAINTING OURSELVES INTO A CORNER: THE FUNDAMENTAL PARADOXES OF MODERN WARFARE IN AL MAQALEH V. GATES Ashley C. Nikkel* See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law, have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treason, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension.1 INTRODUCTION On a cold December morning in 2002, United States military personnel entered a small wire cell at Bagram Airfield, in the Parwan province of Afghan- istan. There, they found Dilawar, a 20-year-old Afghan taxi driver, hanging naked and dead from the ceiling.2 The air force medical examiner who per- formed Dilawar’s autopsy reported his legs had been beaten so many times the tissue was “falling apart” and “had basically been pulpified.”3 The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide, the result of an interrogation lasting four days as Dilawar stood naked, his arms shackled over his head while U.S. inter- rogators performed the “common peroneal strike,” a debilitating blow to the side of the leg above the knee.4 The U.S. military detained Dilawar because he * J.D. Candidate, 2012, William S. Boyd School of Law, Las Vegas; B.A., 2009, University of Nevada, Reno. The Author would like to thank Professor Christopher L.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict in Afghanistan Is Here-To-Stay: the Taliban’S Second Coming
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Economics Scholarship Economics 2-18-2004 Conflict in Afghanistan is here-to-Stay: The Taliban’s Second Coming Marc W. Herold [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/econ_facpub Recommended Citation Herold, Marc W., “Conflict in Afghanistan is here-to-Stay: The Taliban’s Second Coming” (Durham: manuscript, Dept. of Economics, University of New Hampshire, February 18, 2004) reprinted at http://www.grassrootspeace.org/herold_taliban_afghanistan.pdf This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 "Conflict in Afghanistan is Here-to-Stay : The Taliban's Second Coming" by Marc W. Herold Departments of Economics & Women's Studies Whittemore School of Business & Economics University of New Hampshire Durham, N.H. 03824 U.S.A. Phone: 603 862-3375 FAX: 603 862-3383 e-mail: [email protected] February 18, 2004 On May 1, 2003, in Kabul flanked by his obedient client, Hamid Karzai, Secretary Rumsfeld announced to the world that the United States had moved from a period of major combat activity to a period of stability and reconstruction in Afghanistan. The 'news' was gushingly reported by the U.S. mainstream corporate press, e.g., Matt Kelley of the Associated Press and a favorite of the U.S. colonels at the Bagram base.
    [Show full text]
  • Closing Gitmo Due to the Epiphany Approach to Habeas Corpus During the Military Commission Circus
    50-1, BEJESKY, ME FORMAT.DOC 2/19/2014 7:36 PM CLOSING GITMO DUE TO THE EPIPHANY APPROACH TO HABEAS CORPUS DURING THE MILITARY COMMISSION CIRCUS ROBERT BEJESKY* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 44 II. DETENTION IN AFGHANISTAN ........................................................ 47 III. GUANTÁNAMO BAY ..................................................................... 53 A. Advantages of Moving Detainees to Guantánamo Bay ..... 53 B. Standard for Detention and Guilt ....................................... 55 1. “Suspected” Terrorists ................................................. 55 2. The Identity of Detainees and the Right to Detain ...... 57 C. Harsh Treatment ................................................................ 60 1. Interrogations and Human Rights Abuses ................... 60 2. Lack of Evidence of Guilt and No Legal Recourse ..... 66 IV. MILITARY TRIBUNALS & SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ................ 68 A. An Obscure System ........................................................... 68 B. Combatant Status ............................................................... 71 C. Due Process Under U.S. and International Law ................ 74 D. Due Process Afforded at Guantánamo .............................. 76 E. Procedures Applicable to U.S. Citizens ............................. 79 1. Three American Detainees .......................................... 79 2. Noncitizen Detainees ................................................... 81
    [Show full text]
  • Guantánamo and Its Aftermath
    Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees November 2008 Human Rights Center International Human Rights Law Clinic In partnership with University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees Laurel E. Fletcher Eric Stover with Stephen Paul Smith Alexa Koenig Zulaikha Aziz Alexis Kelly Sarah Staveteig Nobuko Mizoguchi November 2008 Human Rights Center University of California, Berkeley International Human Rights Law Clinic University of California, Berkeley, School of Law In partnership with Center for Constitutional Rights ISBN# 978-0-9760677-3-3 Human Rights Center and International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley Cover photos: Louie Palu/ZUMA Design: Melanie Doherty Design, San Francisco Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley The Human Rights Center promotes human rights and international justice worldwide and trains the next generation of human rights researchers and advocates. We believe that sustainable peace and devel- opment can be achieved only through efforts to prevent human rights abuses and hold those responsible for such crimes accountable. We use empirical research methods to investigate and expose serious viola- tions of human rights and international humanitarian law. In our studies and reports, we recommend specific policy measures that should be taken by governments and international organizations to protect vulnerable populations in times of war and political and social upheaval. For more information, please visit hrc.berkeley.edu. International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law The International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC) designs and implements innovative human rights projects to advance the struggle for justice on behalf of individuals and marginalized communities through advocacy, research, and policy development.
    [Show full text]
  • Securitization Theory and the Canadian Construction of Omar Khadr
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2018-05-18 Securitization Theory and the Canadian Construction of Omar Khadr Pirnie, Elizabeth Irene Pirnie, E. I. (2018). Securitization Theory and the Canadian Construction of Omar Khadr (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/31940 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/106673 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Securitization Theory and the Canadian Construction of Omar Khadr by Elizabeth Irene Pirnie A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMMUNICATION AND MEDIA STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA May, 2018 © Elizabeth Irene Pirnie 2018 ii Abstract While the provision of security and protection to its citizens is one way in which sovereign states have historically claimed legitimacy (Nyers, 2004: 204), critical security analysts point to security at the level of the individual and how governance of a nation’s security underscores the state’s inherently paradoxical relationship to its citizens. Just as the state may signify the legal and institutional structures that delimit a certain territory and provide and enforce the obligations and prerogatives of citizenship, the state can equally serve to expel and suspend modes of legal protection and obligation for some (Butler and Spivak, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • NEW EVIDENCE on the WAR in AFGHANISTAN Introduction
    COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT BULLETIN, ISSUE 14/15 NEW EVIDENCE ON THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN Introduction By Christian Friedrich Ostermann hat was behind the Soviet decision in December a substitute foothold in Afghanistan and worried about main- 1979 to invade Afghanistan? And when and why taining its credibility with communist world allies. Soviet lead- Wdid Mikhail Gorbachev decide to pull out Soviet ers were genuinely concerned that Afghan strongman troops nearly ten years later? What was the role of the US Hafizullah Amin was either a US agent or prepared to sell out covert assistance program, in particular the Stinger missiles? to the United States. At the CWIHP conference, former US What role did CIA intelligence play? How did the Afghan Charge d’Affaires J. Bruce Amstutz as well as other partici- War’s history, a key step in the rise of militant Islam, intersect pants forcefully refuted allegations of Agency links to Amin. with the history of the final decade of the Cold War? These In his five conversations with Amin in the fall of 1979, Amstutz were among the questions addressed at a major international remembered, the Afghan leader did not in any way suggest conference, “Towards an International History of the War in that he was interested in allying himself with the United States. Afghanistan,” organized in April 2002 by the Cold War Inter- US relations with successive communist regimes in Af- national History Project (CWIHP) in cooperation with the ghanistan had been volatile since the April 1978 communist Woodrow Wilson
    [Show full text]