National Security

  • December 1, 2010

    The release by WikiLeaks of some 250,000 previously confidential diplomatic cables has raised new questions about First Amendment protection for WikiLeaks, and for those media outlets that publish information they obtain from WikiLeaks, or other similar sources.

    The Department of Justice is investigating WikiLeaks' publication of sensitive documents, and federal officials told The Washington Post they are considering criminal charges under the Espionage Act for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

    U.S. media outlets took different approaches in deciding whether to publish the WikiLeaks information. The New York Times provided an extensive explanation of its decision to publish, after obtaining the documents from an anonymous source. But The Wall Street Journal and CNN declined to enter into a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks in order to obtain some of the documents, WSJ reports.

    During a recent ACS event, experts provided some helpful First Amendment perspective on the WikiLeaks phenomenon, including how First Amendment protection of sensitive information has developed and what place shield laws that protect anonymous sources have in this discussion.

    Moderator Adam Liptak, Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times, and a former lawyer for the newspaper, framed the discussion in saying:

    The great democratization of information on the Internet, notably in the form of WikiLeaks, means there is no responsible party to negotiate with on the other side. For better or worse, we [The New York Times] held back on the warrantless wiretapping story, in part because we consulted with, and were persuaded by, things the government was telling us. We may have made the wrong decision, but it wasn't for want of trying to get it right, trying to strike the balance correctly. That doesn't seem to be the case in many quarters on the Internet today. So, we live in a new world.

    ACS has compiled some of the most relevant comments in a WikiLeaks highlights video below. Watch the full discussion on the interplay between national security and government transparency here, including a keynote address by White House Open Government Initiative Director and U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer Beth Noveck.

  • November 24, 2010

    Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, discussed the promises and shortfalls of the current administration's Open Government Initiative with ACSblog following an ACS event on the interplay between national security, government transparency and the First Amendment.

    Sloan highlights persistent obstacles to government transparency, ranging from limited resources for FOIA officers to political resistance. Responding particularly to keynote speaker Beth Noveck's comments (available here), she stresses the importance of strengthening the FOIA process:

    "The administration recognizes there are problems with the FOIA and it's up to them to fix it. We don't go around the one real piece of legislation that authorizes citizens to get information from the government. This is the way citizens should go about getting information and the administration needs to make sure that mechanism works."

     

  • October 19, 2009

    Following her participation as a panelist at the recent ACS symposium on national security and human rights issues, Hope Metcalf talked with ACSblog about military detention center at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, calling it "essentially a redux of Guantánamo as it was in 2004." Metcalf, a lecturer and project director of the National Litigation Project of the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School, said that "Bagram is still a black box - we know very little and the detainees receive very, very little in terms of process, they receive no access to lawyers, no judicial review of any kind ...." A recent editorial in The New York Times maintained that the current administration faces serious challenges "in bringing" the Bagram military detention camp "squarely within the rule of law and fundamental notions of fairness." Watch Metcalf's interview below or download a video podcast here. Video of the ACS symposium on national security and human rights issues is available here.

  • October 16, 2009

    Following his keynote address at yesterday's ACS symposium on national security and human rights, Assistant Attorney General for National Security David S. Kris talked with ACSblog about the Obama administration's approach to issues surrounding efforts to combat terrorism. Kris said, "We're taking a pragmatic approach to find the best solution to national security threats consistent with protection of civil liberties and the rule of law. And we're trying to avoid too many abstract front-end rules that limit our options here." Kris also noted that the president "supports reformed military commissions." Watch the entire interview below or download a podcast of it here. Video of the ACS symposium is available here.

  • July 31, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Sudha Setty, Assistant Professor of Law, Western New England College School of Law. Professor Setty is the author of a recently released ACS Issue Brief, "National Security Without Secret Laws: How Other Nations Balance National Security Interests and Transparency of Law."

    A fundamental tenet of the rule of law is that a state has no secret laws. Yet in the post-September 11, 2001 era, the Bush administration maintained secret legal policies governing parts of the "war on terror" that implicated human rights and civil liberties issues. Some of these then-secret legal policies-such as the 2002 and 2003 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda sanctioning torture during the interrogation of suspected terrorists-staked out positions at odds with legislation, treaties and court decisions. Both the substance of these memoranda and the secrecy surrounding them were rightly criticized by many scholars and activists-notably including Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee to head up the Office of Legal Counsel.

    But is disclosure and transparency really feasible when we're talking about counterterrorism, or do we undermine our national security programs in an effort to adhere to the rule of law? The Bush administration defended its extreme lack of disclosure by claiming that various legal policies, including the OLC memoranda, would, if disclosed, assist the cause of those plotting terrorist acts against the United States. In my recently released Issue Brief, I reject this particular defense of secrecy based, in part, on the fact that other nations facing serious national security issues-I consider India, Israel and the United Kingdom-do not resort to the creation of bodies of secret law to provide legal comfort for their counterterrorism operations.

    The substance of India's antiterrorism policies is often harsher than what has been (thus far) established in the United States-for example, antiterrorism laws allow for lengthy preventive detention and the denial of substantial access to counsel before trial. However, the process by which Indian antiterrorism legal policy is developed is relatively transparent. Repeatedly, the question of how to frame a long-term legislative response to terrorism has been referred to the Indian Law Commission, a nonpartisan commission of respected lawyers and jurists who respond to government requests for legal recommendations. The Law Commission circulates its reports and recommendations to the public and distributes reports to government officials for review, comments and, ultimately, debate in Parliament.