Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

  • March 1, 2012
    BookTalk
    Cheating Justice
    How Bush And Cheney Attacked The Rule Of Law, Plotted To Avoid Prosecution, And What We Can Do About It
    By: 
    Cynthia L. Cooper and Elizabeth Holtzman

    By Cynthia L. Cooper, an award-winning journalist and lawyer, and Elizabeth Holtzman, a lawyer, former prosecutor and former member of Congress who served on the House committee that investigated Watergate.


    When President George W. Bush and his team left office, mounds of misdeeds were left to fester. Some of their transgressions in office were so shocking – lying to Congress in order to embroil the nation in war and occupation, illegally wiretapping Americans without warrants, authorizing torture that had been outlawed by U.S. and international law – that he and Vice President Cheney probably should have been impeached and removed from office.

    Instead, they completed their terms and sped away. Even though Bush publicly announced in his 2010 memoir that he had personally authorized waterboarding, a recognized form of torture  -- “Damn right,” he is quoted as saying – hardly a peep was heard about seeking accountability. But how can that be? Key to preserving our democracy is the concept that no person is above the law.

    In order to ignite a national conversation on the topic, we set out to show how and why the president and vice president should be held accountable – especially, how they can be prosecuted. That meant looking at the available evidence, investigating precisely what laws are implicated and determining, as best as possible, whether a prima facie case could be made. We found enough to make a courageous prosecutor sit up and take notice, although the statute of limitations is ticking in some areas. We found clear problems under laws related to the conspiracy to deceive Congress, foreign intelligence surveillance and U.S. anti-torture laws – each of which needs prosecutorial attention.

    Along the way, we found something else disturbing, too: a repeated pattern by which Bush and Cheney took extraordinary efforts to protect themselves from the sting of the law. In Cheating Justice: How Bush and Cheney Attacked the Rule of Law, Plotted to Avoid Prosecution – And What We Can Do About It, we look at both: how the ex-president and vice-president can be held personally accountable, but, also, how they tried to manipulate the system from inside to keep themselves from being held to account.

    Perhaps the most startling example of their extraordinary actions was the gutting of the War Crimes Act of 1996. 

  • December 1, 2011
    BookTalk
    Humanity's Law
    By: 
    Ruti Teitel

    By Ruti Teitel, the Ernst C. Stiefel Professor of Comparative Law at New York Law School and Visiting Professor at London School of Economics. The following an excerpt from her new book, Humanity's Law, reprinted with permission from Oxford University Press, Inc. 


    We are living in a time of destabilizing political and legal changes. Often, it seems difficult to know whether we are at war or at peace; to determine what sort of conflict is at stake in a given situation; and, relatedly, to decide how best to address the conflict and to protect the persons, peoples, and/or states that it threatens. While both the end of polarized relations and the advent of globalization have their appeal, the renewed engagement has frequently seemed to mean that we see the possibility of intervention, but that hope is too often thwarted. Yet the closer we look, the more one can see that this situation has too frequently been viewed from a twentieth-century, state-centered perspective. Recently, there have been profound changes in the nature of interstate relations and conflict — all of which have pointed in the direction of the paradigm shift toward humanity law and, to some extent, away from interstate international law, that is identified here.

    After I finished my first book Transitional Justice, which explored legal and political responses to the transitions characterizing the end of the twentieth century, it became apparent that — despite lurches toward liberal democratic peace — conflict and violence not only were here to stay, but in some regard were ever more conspicuous, at least insofar as they were having a vivid impact on civilians. Indeed, it seemed that it was precisely during fragile transitions — that is, moments of weakness — that states were at their most vulnerable.

  • November 11, 2010
    BookTalk
    The Challenge
    How a Maverick Navy Officer and a Young Law Professor Risked their Careers to Defend the Constitution — and Won
    By: 
    Jonathan Mahler

    By Jonathan Mahler, a best-selling author and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine.
    Last week, the long saga of Omar Khadr, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 and accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier, finally ended with a plea deal.

    Khadr's trial, which was being held inside a make-shift courtroom on Guantanamo Bay, was supposed to take place over the summer, but was recessed in August after his defense lawyer collapsed during a cross-examination. (He later underwent emergency gall-bladder surgery.) It was another surreal moment in a case that has been full of them - beginning with the government's decision to even prosecute Khadr, who was just 15 years old when his alleged crime occurred. The New York Times recently reported that senior Obama administration officials deeply regret that decision, but feel powerless to change it. One legal scholar, David Glazier, has gone so far as to argue that Khadr's trial is itself a war crime - that the "war crimes" for which he stands accused were not, in fact, war crimes when they were allegedly committed in 2002.

    Six years ago, I was sitting in that same make-shift courtroom when a different military commission trial was suspended, no less dramatically. The defendant was a Yemeni man, Salim Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden, who was picked up in Afghanistan, not far from the border of Pakistan, in the aftermath of 9/11. After six months in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, Hamdan was sent to Guantanamo and eventually assigned a lawyer, a Navy JAG named Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift.