Want to litigate habeas appeals for the government? Want to end the war so the government has to release habeas petitioners? Great new job postings on the Lawfare Job Board from the civil appellate staff and DOJ and from Human … Read more »
Yesterday, the American Security Project (ASP) held a lunch event on drones. The discussion, between ASP’s CEO Stephen Cheney, ASP Fellow Joshua Foust, Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First, and me was a useful and constructive one with a … Read more »
So what exactly is in the NDAA conference report that is prompting the agitation for a presidential veto? Here is a quick and dirty summary of “Subtitle D—Counterterrorism”—along with an explanation of why President Obama ought to veto the bill … Read more »
The Oxford Union has now made available on YouTube the speech Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson gave there on November 30. We posted the text of the speech at the time; Jack commented on it earlier, as did Human Rights … Read more »
Raha Wala of Human Rights First writes in with this comment on Jeh Johnson’s Oxford Speech:
Ken and Jack are right that DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson, in his remarks at the Oxford Union, made a serious attempt to
As I posted in my news roundup yesterday, a drone strike in South Waziristan killed two militants, according to the Express Tribune and Dawn. This seemed like an interesting real-time case study for media coverage of civilian casualty … Read more »
Raha Wala of Human Rights First writes in with the following reaction to my comments yesterday on the New York Times‘s Room for Debate exchange over military commissions:
Ben bemoans the New York Times Room for Debate feature on
Georgetown law professor David Cole has a new article up on SSRN, “Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights after 9/11.” It offers something of a retrospective on the role of civil society organizations in defending a vision of … Read more »
Gabor Rona of Human Rights First took some time out from today’s hurricane to send me the following thoughts on my post from Friday engaging Glenn Greenwald on the subject of counting civilian casualties in drone strikes. I offer some … Read more »
Raha Wala of Human Rights First writes in with the following response to my comments on Hedges. My thoughts follow his critique and very-cautious defense of Judge Forrest:
Ben’s post on Judge Forrest’s opinion in Hedges I think provided
Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First and esteemed commenter on several Lawfare posts, sends us this further comment on the Lawfare discussion around Mark Mazzett’s New York Times Magazine piece from last weekend, The Drone Zone. (Ken … Read more »
The debate over the Smith-Amash amendment to the NDAA continues. Yesterday, we posted a letter written by former administration attorneys general criticizing that amendment, among others. Today, it’s twenty-seven retired admirals and generals writing in support of the Smith-Amash Amendment … Read more »
Over at Opinio Juris, Gabor Rona of Human Rights First offers an extended critique of John Brennan’s speech on the use of lethal force. It is an interesting and provocative post, leading me to share a few thoughts in response.… Read more »
Stephanie Blum, author of The Necessary Evil of Preventive Detention in the War on Terror and other stuff, writes in to question my recent post responding to Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First on the Majid Khan plea … Read more »
I promised yesterday that I would have more to say about Andrea Prasow’s comments on the fairness of the Majid Khan plea agreement after I had a chance to stew on them a bit. In the meantime, I have learned … Read more »
Further to the exchange between myself and Steve Vladeck regarding Section 1031 of the SASC version of the NDAA FY ’12, Raha Wala (Human Rights First) writes in with the following thoughtful comments and concerns about my last post [note: … Read more »
Below Gabor Rona has a sharp response to my earlier post on Charlie Savage’s story on the latest round of Johnson v. Koh. I think his response significantly mischaracterizes both what I said and the proper state of the law, … Read more »
…and guess what? This post is not about any gross factual errors in either of them concerning the legality of detention. Perhaps that’s because neither editorial really deals with the legality of detention, but never mind. I’ll take factually decent … Read more »
I have received two interesting responses to my post from last night suggesting tweaks to the AUMF reauthorization language. The first comes from a reader who prefers not to be named, who writes:
Isn’t one problem with McKeon’s language that … Read more »
I have a fair bit to say in response to Daphne Eviatar’s comments from earlier today concerning my post about yesterday’s New York Times editorial. Let me start with a brief comment about Daphne’s complaint about the derisive tone … Read more »
Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First sent in the following in response to my post from yesterday contrasting the New York Times editorial and the Washington Post editorial on Buck McKeon’s AUMF proposal. I will respond to Eviatar’s comments this … Read more »
Gabor Rona of Human Rights first has this piece on the legality of the Bin Laden operation. While Gabor is more tentative in his conclusion than I am, I largely agree with this analysis, including his analysis of the obligation … Read more »
Last week the AP published a rather breathless piece titled “AP Exclusive: US military holds terror suspects in secret jails for weeks without charge.” That certainly got my attention. From the title, one would assume that the black sites somehow … Read more »
John Dehn (West Point) has responded to Raha Wala (Human Rights First) in the latest round of their ongoing exchange relating to military commissions. Addressing Raha’s most recent post, John writes:
I enjoyed reading Raha Wala’s thoughtful response to
A little while back I posted comments from Raha Wala (Human Rights First) concerning military commissions. Those comments have spurred the following response from John Dehn (West Point), which appears below:
I read Raha Wala’s comments about military commissions last
In a short piece published at Politico on Monday, Daphne Eviatar (Human Rights First) made a rather bold claim concerning the Detention Review Board process in Afghanistan:
Under international law, a detainee in the Afghan armed conflict has the right
In January I wrote a short piece for Foreign Policy arguing that the current military commission system is much less problematic than some critics claim though also not the ideal solution some perceive it to be. Among other things, the … Read more »
Gabor Rona of Human Rights First sent me the following email this morning in response to my post from last week urging President Obama to make his peace with Guantanamo:
You’ve gotta be suffering from willing suspension of disbelief
The Obama administration does badly on each of the final three elements of the Human Rights First report card. On the first of these, the group writes,
Grade: C
Accountability and Oversight of U.S. Private Security and Other Contractors.
I am perplexed by this category and grade:
Grade: Incomplete
Due Process in Afghanistan. Following recommendations from Human Rights First, the Obama administration in 2009 made important improvements to the Detainee Review Boards, which determine whether detainees captured in Afghanistan
I’m very glad that President Obama has acted in a fashion that has won him a failing grade from Human Rights First in this category:
Grade: F
Accountability for Torture. Torture and conspiracy to commit torture are felonies under U.S.
Taking up the thread of Ben’s project (recasting the HRF scorecard here, here, and here), I’d like to offer an alternative take on the administration’s handling of the state secrets privilege. Under the heading “Abuse of the … Read more »
The next several elements of the Human Rights First report card all deal with detention and trial. The first of these is the failing grade HRF gives to the Obama administration for not closing Guantanamo:
Grade: FClosing the Guantanamo
So here are the first two elements of the Human Rights First report card, how I would recast them, and the grades I would assign. HRF’s initial element reads:
Grade: A-Standing Firm Against Use of Torture and Detainee
Human Rights First has published a report card, entitled “Assessing the Obama Administration’s Record of Compliance with the Rule of Law and Human Rights in National Security Policy.” In reading it over, I find myself disagreeing with so … Read more »
I received the following note today from Guantanamo lawyer David Remes in response to my post from Friday on recidivism:
Ben raises important questions in his “Thinking about Recidivism” post, but to put the discussion in context, I must point
Gabor Rona of Human Rights First sent me yesterday the following thoughts on Linda Moreno’s earlier comments concerning military commissions from a defense perspective:
“How is my client best served?” is what Linda Moreno, a criminal defense lawyer, says about
In my post earlier today concerning CCR’s terrible statement on the Ghalani verdict, I noted that Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First had seemed to endorse it on Twitter and wondered if HRF really meant to embrace CCR’s claim that … Read more »
The Center for Constitutional Rights has issued what I think is a genuinely shocking statement on the Ghailani verdict–one which really lays bare the group’s position on terrorist trials:
CCR questions the ability of anyone who is Muslim to receive
I intended this post as a challenge to the political Right, not the human rights community, on military commissions. I was, therefore, a little surprised to receive this note from Gabor Rona, international legal director of Human Rights First, in … Read more »
A week ago, Human Rights First activist Daphne Eviatar took me and Sen. Lindsey Graham to task as defenders of torture. She didn’t quite put it that way. Her argument went, rather, along these lines: The government, as a report … Read more »
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Carol Rosenberg wrote about yesterday’s arguments in the 9/11 hearings on defense counsel’s request for access to the Red Cross’s reports of its interviews with the five accused. That’s in the Miami Herald.
Yesterday’s House intelligence committee hearing with top intelligence agency and DOJ officials drew a big crowd and much news: Wired explains the DOJ’s efforts to conceal the NSA’s role… Read more »
