Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror

[jmm99]

The answer to your question:

from PB1605
is it possible for lawyers to write a handbook that is LESS THAN 300 pages???

is very surprisingly - an affirm.

But, IFF, the two principal authors are an Army LTC and a Marine LTC who "manage to co-operate, as they say" - and the publication is edited by a Navy CAPT ("adult supervision").

2010 Law of War Deskbook.pdf (DL from the CLAMO Publications page) - 248 pages:

Authors
LTC Jeff A. Bovarnick, JA, USA
LtCol J. Porter Harlow, USMC
....
Editor
CAPT Brian J. Bill, JAGC, USN
....
This Law of War Deskbook is intended to replace, in a single bound volume, similar individual outlines that had been distributed as part of the Judge Advocate Officer Graduate and Basic Courses and the Operational Law of War Course. Together with the Operational Law Handbook and Law of War Documentary Supplement, these three volumes represent the range of international and operational law subjects taught to military judge advocates.

Table of Contents

Introduction to Public International Law 1
History of the Law of War 5
Framework of the Law of War 17
Legal Basis for the Use of Force 25
GC I: Wounded and Sick in the Field 37
GC III: Prisoners of War 63
GC IV: Civilians on the Battlefield 91
GC IV: Occupation and Post-Conflict Governance 107
Means and Methods of Warfare 131
War Crimes and Command Responsibility 163
Human Rights 187
Comparative Law 201

Less than a 2MB download

Besides that particular reference, I also should have included the Library of Congress - Military Legal Resources (links to all kinds of original source docs, as well as CLAMO, etc.). The LoC page is worth saving as a favorite.

Now, excuse me while I get back to my lime green popsicle - how can you stand those purple grape things on your tonguee ?

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

From the NYT:

Deal Averts Trial in Disputed Guantánamo Case
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: October 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — A former child soldier being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, pleaded guilty on Monday to terrorism-related charges, averting the awkward prospect that he would be the first person to stand trial before a military commission under the Obama administration.

The defendant, Omar Khadr, 24, a Canadian, admitted to a military judge that he threw a grenade that killed an American soldier during a 2002 firefight and that he had planted 10 roadside bombs for Al Qaeda. Mr. Khadr, born in Toronto, was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan.

By avoiding the need for a trial of Mr. Khadr, the deal represents a breakthrough for the Obama administration’s legal team, which had been dismayed that his case was to become the inaugural run of a new-look commissions system — undermining their efforts to rebrand the tribunals as a fair and just venue for prosecuting terrorism suspects.

Mr. Khadr’s decision to plead guilty was a turnabout from his vow to never accept such an arrangement lest it allow the United States to save face. He contended that he was coerced by older relatives into working with Al Qaeda and was not at fault.

In exchange for pleading guilty to five charges — including murder in violation of the law of war, supporting terrorism and spying — Mr. Khadr was spared the risk of a life sentence. A panel of seven military officers will decide the length of his prison sentence.

But his plea agreement is believed to cap the potential time at eight years, on top of the eight he has been in custody.

The deal followed a complex flurry of negotiations, including a side deal reached on Saturday between the United States and Canada allowing Mr. Khadr, after a year, to apply for transfer to Canadian custody to serve out the remainder of his sentence. ......

Consider that, if criminal prosecution had been rejected as an option, the USG would have had to prove in a habeas proceeding, only by a preponderance of the evidence, that Khadr was part of AQ (either the grenade or one IED emplacement would have more than sufficed). He then could have been detained for the duration of our hostilities with AQ.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

The recent public statement / speech by the British SIS (popularly known as MI6) head fits well here, particularly as the Binyam Mohammed case involves an allegation of torture and now a UK police investigation.

I have only linked two BBC reports, the first is a general article:

How secret does a secret service need to be? That's the question MI6, like its sister services MI5 and GCHQ in Britain, as well as more distant relatives abroad, has been wrestling with. The man known as "C" - Sir John Sawers - has offered his answer.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11648114

Under the headline 'MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says torture illegal' :

The head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, has described torture as "illegal and abhorrent" and defended the service's need for secrecy.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11642568

[ODB]

Lawyers muddy the whole mess and we get nowhere......just drags on until everyone forgets about it and they live long happy lives with Playstation 3's, gourmet meals, and all the amenties of a 5 star resort.

[jmm99]

From plea bargain (which trumps) - 1 year at Gitmo + 7 years in Canada (maybe). Coverage from Toronto Sun, Omar Khadr gets 40 years (well "yes", but "no"), with a comment from a Sun reader:

I hope this worthless piece of traitorous trash never ever sets foot back in Canada again. Send him back to Afghanistan where he really wants to be. Then remove not only his citizenship but that of his traitorous family as well and deport them to be with him where they all belong. He is a piece of work and a very poor sorry excuse for a Canadian. I hope he and his family rot in hell.

And so it may go.

Links to plea bargain and US-Canada diplomatic notes.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Mohammedou Ould Salahi was granted habeas by Judge Robinson (reported in post # 497).

The Court of Appeals reversed, adding to a string of DoJ succcesses before the DC Circuit (emphasis added):

This case is more than merely the latest installment in a series of Guantanamo habeas appeals. The United States seeks to detain Mohammedou Ould Salahi on the grounds that he was “part of” al-Qaida not because he fought with al-Qaida or its allies against the United States, but rather because he swore an oath of allegiance to the organization, associated with its members, and helped it in various ways, including hosting its leaders and referring aspiring jihadists to a known al-Qaida operative. After an evidentiary hearing at which Salahi testified, the district court found that although Salahi “was an al-Qaida sympathizer” who “was in touch with al-Qaida members” and provided them with “sporadic support,” the government had failed to show that he was in fact “part of” al-Qaida at the time of his capture. The district court thus granted the writ and ordered Salahi released. Since then, however, this Court has issued three opinions—Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2010); and Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010)—that cast serious doubt on the district court’s approach to determining whether an individual is “part of” al-Qaida. We agree with the government that we must therefore vacate the district court’s judgment, but because that court, lacking the benefit of these recent cases, left unresolved key factual questions necessary for us to determine as a matter of law whether Salahi was “part of” al-Qaida when captured, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Two articles at Lawfare, Comments on Salahi and Press Release of the Day.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

The new UK government appears torn over whether to keep this option, which is effectively house arrest, albeit of varying intensity, e.g. no GPS capable tags. In opposition the Lib-Dems were against, plus several prominent Tories; this article is a good insight into the issue:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...terrorism-laws

A different columnist, from a conservative viewpoint, within a longer article adds his view:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...r-enemies.html

Currently the UK has:

only nine people are currently under them

and seven have absconded abroad whilst under 'control'.