Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

June Roundtable: Introduction

Human Rights & Human Welfare

An annotation of:

“The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means.” by Mark Danner. The New York Review of Books. April 30, 2009.

Response To Mark Danner’S “The Red Cross’ Torture Report: What It Means”, Charli Carpenter

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Danner’s NY Review of Books treatise on torture calls our attention to many significant issues, but in his key argument he is critically wrong.

Torture—And Our Broader Understanding Of Human Rights, Mark Gibney

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Like most other human rights scholars, I am appalled at the idea that those people in the Bush White House who designed the administration’s policy on torture (but calling it something else) will in all likelihood go unpunished. In my view, the law is clear on this matter: those who directed and/or carried out torture must be held accountable for their actions. However, rather than focusing on the issue of accountability, I will use the issue of torture to make a broader point about how we have come to conceptualize the extent and scope of a state’s human rights obligations.

The Moral High Ground In An Age Of Vulnerability, Tyler Moselle

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Mark Danner’s New York Review of Books piece on torture in conjunction with John Nichols’ comment on the Bush administration, outline moral, legal and political problems related to the global war on terrorism and the ascendancy of the American imperial presidency. Most people seem to be repulsed by the idea of torture but are not morally committed enough or fully dedicated to prevent it from being employed to defend their way of life. Torture is a policy decision predicated on fear, self-defense, and vulnerability in an age of globalized insurgency: one way to respond is to take the moral high …

The Lexington Principles On The Rights Of Detainees: A Transnational Legal Process Approach To Due Process, David Alan Jordan, Frederic L. Kirgis, R. Brooke Lewis, Thomas Greenwood, Bennett L. Ross, Kathryn M. Zunich

Scholarly Articles

In Boumediene v. Bush, decided June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus to noncitizens detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Courts will now be called upon to assess the propriety of American detainee treatment practices against unclear constitutional standards. The strength and contours of the due process protections the U.S. Constitution will afford these detainees is still an unsettled question. The Lexington Principles are designed to help guide the development of American due process standards as they move outside our borders. These Principles are also intended to serve as a model for those …

The Future Of Detainees In The Global War On Terror: A U.S. Policy Perspective, Saxby Chamblis

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Long War, The Federal Courts, And The Necessity/Legality Paradox, Stephen I. Vladeck

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Combatants And The Combat Zone, Mary Ellen O'Connell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Boumediene And Lawfare, Tung Yin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Applying Geneva Convention Principles To Guantánamo Bay, Kyndra Rotunda

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pollard Languishes, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Reclaiming Skepticism: Lessons From Guantanamo, Heidi Kitrosser

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flying Under The Radar Or An Unnecessary Intelligence Watchdog: A Review Of The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Christine E. Hinrichs

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, John Yoo

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gaming The System: "Are You Saying If We Plead Guilty We Will Not Be Able To Be Sentenced To Death?", Adine S. Momoh

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, Stephen Dycus

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Force Against States That Might Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Matthew C. Waxman

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article argues that the most difficult future crises for which this legal debate is most consequential will not resemble those described by Prime Minister Thatcher or Director ElBaradei. Rather, in confronting potentially hostile and aggressive states believed to pose a WMD threat, decisionmakers contemplating the use of force will face an intelligence picture that is open to reasonable debate (contra Thatcher) and irresolvable to high levels of certainty (contra ElBaradei). This paper examines how competing legal approaches deal with this epistemic problem.

National Security Lawyering And The Persistent Neglect Of Institutional Culture, Peter Margulies

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Serial War Crimes In Response To Terrorism Can Pose Threats To National Security, Jordan J. Paust

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

University Research Under Siege: How The War On Terror Has Placed Academic Freedom Under Fire, 26 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 547 (2009), James Templin

UIC John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law

The Comment analyzes the proposed revisions to United States export regulations contained in the Deemed Export Advisory Committee’s 2007 report. While the Advisory Committee’s work was much needed and its recommendations laudable, this comment discusses why its recommendations must be narrowly tailored in order to preserve the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and universities in the globalizing world and to advance national security. Part II explains the regulations that govern U.S. exports, including the deemed export regulatory regime and how those rules implement a range of national obligations and interests. This Part also discusses the events that threatened to significantly burden …

International Terrorism: The Legitimization Of Safe Harbor States In International Law, Carol A. Bahan

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Law Of Armed Conflict And Detention Operations In Afghanistan, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

In reflecting on the arc of US and coalition detention operations in Afghanistan, three key issues related to the law of armed conflict stand out: one substantive, one procedural and one policy. The substantive matter – what are the minimum baseline treatment standards required as a matter of international law? – has clarified significantly during the course of operations there, largely as a result of the US Supreme Court's holding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The procedural matter – what adjudicative processes does international law require for determining who may be detained? – eludes consensus and has become more controversial …

Due Process And Targeted Killing Of Terrorists, Richard Murphy, Afsheen John Radsan

Faculty Scholarship

"Targeted killing" is extra-judicial, premeditated killing by a state of a specifically identified person not in its custody. States have used this tool, secretly or not, throughout history. In recent years, targeted killing has generated new controversy as two states in particular-Israel and the United States-have struggled against opponents embedded in civilian populations. As a matter of express policy, Israel engages in targeted killing of persons it deems members of terrorist organizations involved in attacks on Israel. The United States, less expressly, has adopted a similar policy against al Qaeda-particularly in the border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the …

An Overt Turn On Covert Action, Afsheen John Radsan

Faculty Scholarship

Long past the soul-searching of Watergate, very few people question the need for covert action as a part of American foreign policy. The world is so dangerous after 9/11 that it would be irresponsible to suggest that our intelligence agencies should be disbanded or that our government should acknowledge everything it does on the dark side. Today the question is not whether we should engage in covert action at all, but how often and under what circumstances.

Not everything stays secret. Our Nation has been conducting covert action with greater transparency and more congressional participation than during the Cold War. …

Responses To Ten Questions, William C. Banks

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, Marion "Spike" Bowman

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, Victor Hansen

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, Scott Horton

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, Michael J. Kelly

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, Gregory E. Maggs

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.