Domestic Detention Affirmative - JDI 2015

7/25/2019 Domestic Detention Affirmative - JDI 2015

1/155


2/155

PlanThe United States Congress should curtail topicallyrelevant indefnite detention to cases involving personsarrested and/or captured outside o the territory o the

United States


3/155

Terrorism Adv

nitially note ! the President "ill never choose to usedetention authority or domestic captures ! #ut $eepingthe option availa#le ensures conusion and themisperception that it is a realistic optionRobert M. Chesney, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies @ Brookings and BenjaminWittes, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies @ Brookings, !rotecting ".S. #iti$ens% #onstitutional Rig&ts

'uring t&e War on (error), (estimon* (o #ongress, Ma* ++nd+1%,&tt-//www.brookings.edu/researc&/testimon*/+01/2/++3war3on3terror3c&esne*3wittes

4n our view, #ongress s&ould -ut t&is issue to rest at last b* clari5*ing t&at neit&ert&e 6"MF nor t&e N'66F7%0+ s&ould be read to con5er detention aut&orit* over-ersons ca-tured in t&e "nited States 8regardless o5 citi$ens&i-9.(&e bene:ts o5kee-ing t&e o-tion o-en in t&eor* are slim, w&ile t&e o;setting costs aresubstantial. We sa* t&e bene:ts are slim c&ieaeda sus-ects in t&e "nitedStates to stick wit& t&e civilian criminal justice s*stem.(&e e=-eriment o5militar* detention wit& !adilla and al3Marri did little to encourage a di;erentcourse, given t&e legal uncertaint*t&e cases e=-osed.(&at uncertaint* &as, in turn,createdan enormous disincentive or any administration?o5 w&atever -oliticalstri-e?to attem-t t&is sort o5 detention again. 6 de 5acto -olic* t&us develo-edin 5avor o5 using t&e criminal justice a--aratus w&enever &umanl* -ossible5or terrorist sus-ects a--re&ended in t&e "nited States. And "heneverhumanly possi#le turned out to mean al"ays w&ile militar* detentionma* remain -otentiall* available as a t&eoretical matter, it is notunctionally availa#le or the simple reasons that8i9 e=ecutive branc&law*ers are not adeAuatel* con:dent t&at t&e Su-reme #ourt would arm itslegalit* and8ii9 in an* event, t&e* &ave a viable and 5ar3more3reliable alternative int&e criminal justice a--aratus. 4n Se-tember +0, t&e Cbama administration madet&is unstated -olic* ocial, announcing t&at it would use t&e criminal justices*stem e=clusivel* bot& 5or domestic ca-tures and 5or citi$ens ca-turedan*w&ere in t&e world. 4n a s-eec& at t&e Darvard Eaw Sc&ool, t&en3W&ite Douse ocialo&n Brennanstated it is t&e :rm -osition o5 t&e Cbama 6dministration t&at sus-ectedterrorists arrested inside t&e "nited States will?in kee-ing wit& long3standingtradition?be -rocessed t&roug& our 6rticle 444 courts. 6s t&e* s&ould be. Curmilitar* does not -atrol our streets or en5orce our laws?nor s&ould it. . . . Similarl*, w&en it comes to ".S. citi$ensinvolved in terrorist3related activit*, w&et&er t&e* are ca-tured overseas or at &ome, we will -rosecute t&em in our

criminal justice s*stem.(o -ut t&e matter sim-l*, militar* detention 5or citi$ens or 5orterrorist sus-ects ca-tured domesticall*, was trieda &and5ul o5 times earl* in t&e Bus&


4/155

administration t&e strateg* was abandonedit &as been man* *ears since t&erewas an* a--etite in t&e e=ecutive branc&?under t&e control o5 eit&er -art*?5or tr*ing itagain and it &as5or some time #een the stated policy o the e'ecutive#ranch not to attempt it under any circumstances& (e do not e'pectany administration o either party to #rea$ #lithely "ith the

consensus that has developed a#sent some dramatically changedcircumstance.(&e litigation risk is sim-l* too great, and t&e criminal justices*stem%s -er5ormance &as been too strong to warrant assuming t&is risk. Butironicall*, evenas this strong e'ecutive normagainst militar* detention o5domestic ca-turesand citi$ens &as develo-ed, a ferce commitment to this type odetention has also developedin some Auarters. The act that the normagainst detention is not currently "ritten into la" has helped uelthis commitment, enabling t&e -ersistentperception that there isgreater policy latitude than unctionally e'ists&(&e result is t&at ever* time amajor terrorist sus-ect &as been taken into custod*domesticall* in recent *ears?t&earrest o5 'jok&ar (sarnaev is onl* t&e most recent e=am-le?the countrye'plodes in the e'act same unproductive and divisive politicalde#ate&(o caricature it onl* slig&tl*, one side argues t&at t&e sus-ect s&ould&ave been &eld in militar* custod*, instead o5 being -rocessed t&roug& t&ecriminal justice s*stem it decries t&e reading o5 t&e sus-ect &is Mirandarig&ts and it critici$es t&e administration, more generall*, 5or a su--osedreturn to a -re3/00 law en5orcement -aradigm. (&e ot&er side, meanw&ile,de5ends t&e civilian justice s*stem, w&ile also demanding t&e closure o5GuantHnamo and attacking t&e -er5ormance o5 militar* commissions 5or goodmeasure. (&is kabuki dance o5 a debate is not merel* a matter o5 r&etoric .Se-arate and a-art 5rom t&e ".S. citi$en detention language we described above, in the course oproducing the )*1) +,AA Congress also e'plored the option omandating military detention or suspects8citi$en or not9 taken into custod* wit&in t&e"nited States. (&e administration resisted t&ese e;orts, and t&e resulting language in con5erence committee ultimatel*sto--ed 5ar s&ort o5 reAuiring militar* detention. (&e administration 5urt&er so5tened t&e e;ects o5 t&at language,

moreover, t&roug& its subseAuent inter-retation o5 t&e new language. 6ll o5 "hich #rings us #ac$ toour point there is a #ig gul #et"een the real. unctional state oplay8in w&ic& t&e criminal justice s*stem -rovides t&e e=clusive means o5-rocessing terrorist sus-ects ca-tured wit&in t&e "nited States 9 and t&eperception in some Auarters t&at militar* detention remains a viable o-tion,-er&a-s even a norm, 5or domestic and citi$en terrorist ca-tures. That gulhas real costs. Most obviousl*, it generates signi:cant -olitical 5riction ever*time a major terrorist arrest &a--ens in t&e "nited States . 4t increases t&e a--arent-olitical -olari$ation o5 an area t&at s&ould be above -olitics?and in w&ic& t&e counterterrorism realit* is 5ar less

-olari$ed t&an t&e inter3branc& relations over t&e issue would suggest. And it reinorces the

perception that domestic military detention remains a via#le option ,needlessly alarming those "ho ear it and needlessl* misleading t&ose w&o wis& to see it.

(&e resulting con5usion 5uels s&ar- debate over somet&ing t&at is no longermeaning5ull* an o-tion in 5unctional terms.(&at debate even s-ills over at times into litigation,most notabl*?and disru-tivel*?in t&e conte=t o5 t&e Dedges case in New 7ork 8in w&ic& journalists and activists-ersuaded a district judge to enjoin en5orcement o5 detention aut&orit*, des-ite t&e utter im-lausibilit* o5 t&e claim t&att&e* mig&t be subjected to it9.


5/155


6/155

'tradition 0in$

This perception results in real conseuences - The threatthat the US is "illing to violate article 2 o the US-U

'tradition treaty vis-3-vis the +,AA guarantees terrorsuspects "on4t #e e'tradited to the United States !undermining the a#ility o the US to #ring them to 5usticeStac* I. 6ayes. 4N(JR!RJ(4NG (DJ NJW E6NG"6GJ CF (DJ N6(4CN6E'JFJNSJ 6"(DCR4K6(4CN 6#( 6 !C(JN(46E B6RR4JR (C (DJ JL(R6'4(4CN

CF D4GD 6E"J (JRRCR S"S!J#(S), 2 Wa*ne E. Rev. 2OP, Summer +1)

6rticle Omost closel* -arallels ".S. #onstitutional 6mendment in -roviding5or t&e rig&t to a 5air trial and due -rocess o5 law 5or t&e criminall* c&arged .nQ+ 6rticle O includes inter alia t&e rig&t to a 5air trial 2PQT b* an inde-endent and im-artial tribunal, t&e-resum-tion o5 innocence, t&at legal assistance will be -rovided in t&e event t&e accused cannot a;ord tode5end &imsel5, and t&e rig&t to e=amine t&e evidence against &im. nQ1 Modern e=tradition casesdemonstrate t&at t&e 6merican view on ca-ital -unis&ment, and w&et&er suc& -unis&ment amounts toin&uman and degrading 8or cruel and unusual9 -unis&ment, di;ers greatl* 5rom t&e Juro-ean view so

muc& so t&at it is a barrier to e=tradition.(o date, 6rticle O and w&et&er or not 6mericancourts -rovide a 5air trial &as not -roven to be a barrier to e=traditionbecause Juro-ean courts are -ersuaded t&at 6merican courts o;er moret&an adeAuate due -rocess 5or t&ose on trial . nQQ 7ilitary tri#unalsho"ever. present a di8erent concern&(ribunals -ose a t&reat toe=tradition in t&at terror sus-ects ma* claim 6rticle O violations, arguing t&ata trial b* militar* tribunal de-rives t&em o5 due -rocess and denies t&em a

rig&t to a 5air trial. '. 'o Militar* #ommissions iolate 6rticle OU(&e -ast decade&ig&lig&ted t&e diculties o5 ac&ieving success wit&in t&e militar*commission -rocess and cast a dark s&adow o5 doubt 2P2T as to t&eir ecac*.nQ2(&e e=am-les o5 al3Fawwa$ and t&e ot&er terror sus-ects currentl*:g&ting e=tradition demonstrate t&at t&e Juro-ean communit* e=-ectsassurances t&at t&e "nited States will tr* t&ese sus-ects in regularl*constituted courts and not b* militar* commissions.nQO(&e -ast ten *ears&ave -roduced no evidencet&at t&e Juro-ean communit* will now be morecom5ortable wit& trial b* militar* commission t&an it was be5ore . nQP 4t is sa5e toassume t&at i5 t&e "nited States wants to e=tradite t&ese terror sus-ects, it will have to providet&e same assurances, namel* a -romise o5 trial b* regularl*

constituted courtswit& no -ros-ect o5 t&e deat& -enalt* and avoidance o detention#y the military. Militar* commissions &ave a long &istor* in t&e "nited States, reemerging at t&e5ore5ront o5 t&e -olitical landsca-e a5ter t&e Se-tember 00t& terrorist attacks w&en !resident George W.Bus& deemed terror sus-ects enem* combatants to be tried b* militar* tribunals instead o5 in civiliancourts. nQ (&e -rosecution o5 t&ese cases was soon mired in -rotracted legal c&allenges, and in +O,!resident Bus& signed t&e Militar* #ommissions 6ct 8M#69 to aut&ori$e and establis& -rocedures 5ormilitar* tribunals in res-onse to t&e Su-reme #ourt decision in Damdan v. Rums5eld. nQ FollowingDamdan, -ro3militar* tribunal advocates 5oug&t &ard to -ass legislation limiting terror sus-ects solel* tomilitar* tribunals, arguing inter alia t&at 5ederal law en5orcement and criminal -rocedures were inadeAuateto garner muc& needed intelligence 5rom detained sus-ects and t&at t&e 6merican -ublic would not stand5or terrorist trials in civilian courts t&at are essentiall* in t&eir own back*ards. n2 (&ose o--osed to


7/155

limiting terror sus-ects to militar* 2POT tribunals encom-assed a wide variet* o5 grou-s including lawen5orcement ocials, &uman rig&ts advocates, academics, and legal -ro5essionals. n20 Eaw en5orcementargued -rimaril* t&at suc& a limitation would burden t&e "nited States unnecessaril* in t&e :g&t againstterrorism a :g&t t&at s&ould use all available assets, including t&e FB4 and intelligence agencies. n2+Duman rig&ts advocates, academics, and legal -ro5essionals argued t&at in :g&ting t&e war on terror, itwas critical t&e "nited States abide b* its long3standing commitments to due -rocess o5 law and tointernational &umanitarian law, suc& as t&e Geneva #onventions. n21 4n +, !resident Barack Cbamasigned into law a revised version o5 t&e M#6 intended to address concerns t&at t&e +O M#6 ran a5oul o5t&e Geneva #onventions and t&e ".S. #onstitution. n2Q Dowever, even wit& t&ese revisions, t&e + M#65ailed to bring t&e militar* tribunal s*stem into com-liance wit& international &uman rig&ts law. n22 Forinstance, t&e + M#6 did not&ing to revise t&e controversial Section P o5 t&e +O M#6, w&ic& meansSection P continues to stri- t&e 5ederal court s*stem o5 its ca-acit* to review -etitions 5or writs o5 &abeascor-us. n2O "nsatis:ed t&at t&e +O and + M#6s went 5ar enoug&, and des-ite t&e ".S. Su-reme#ourtVs ruling in Damdan, some conservative members o5 #ongress continued to :g&t to limit trials o5terror sus-ects e=clusivel* to militar* tribunals, t&ereb* cutting t&e judiciar* entirel* out o5 t&e terrorsus-ect trial loo-. n2P Meanw&ile, t&e 5ederal courts s-ent t&e 2PPT -ast decade success5ull* tr*ing andconvicting &undreds o5 sus-ects, n2 -er&a-s demonstrating t&e irrational 5ear o5 t&e -ro3militar* tribunaladvocates t&at t&ose w&o &ave t&eir da* in court ma* not be convicted. 4n addition to t&ese convictions,t&e Su-reme #ourt granted certiorari to 5our Guantanamo cases, subseAuentl* :nding in 5avor o5 t&edetainees, n2 t&ereb* demonstrating t&e 5ull range o5 t&e 5ederal court s*stem. Cn 'ecember 10, +00,t&ese 5ailed attem-ts to limit trials to militar* tribunals :nall* met measured success w&en !resident

Cbama signed t&e N'66 into law. nO Subtitle ' o5 t&e N'66, entitled

#ounterterrorism includes long3soug&t3a5ter -rovisions designed to limitterror sus-ect trials to militar* tribunals, e;ectivel* b*3-assing t&e 5ederalcourt s*stem. nO0 4n -articular, Sections 0+0 and 0++ address t&e aut&orit*and action reAuired b* t&e ".S. militar* to detain terror sus-ects inde:nitel*-ending dis-osition under t&e law o5 war.nO+ Jven wit& t&e success o5 -assage, t&ese-rovisions were modi:ed enoug& 5rom t&eir original &ard3lined -ro-osals toresult in merel* codi5*ing e=isting -ractices under t&e +0 6ut&ori$ation 5or"se o5 Militar* Force86"MF9 and t&e +O and + M#6s. nO1 6s t&is Note reveals, t&esemodi:cations are crucial because t&e* allow t&e "nited States to continueto provide assurances necessary to secure the e'tradition o $no"nterrorists. iewed anot&er wa*, t&is codi:cation greatl* &am-ers bot& 5ederal law

en5orcement and t&e Cbama 6dministration in t&eir res-ective roles in t&e:g&t against terrorism, ma$ing it more di9cult or the United States totreat terror suspects on a case-#y-case #asis&4n order to bring some o5t&e most soug&t3a5ter terrorists to justice, t&e "nited States must continue to-rovide and u-&oldassurancesto &er Juro-ean allies t&at t&e terrorsus-ects being e=tradited to t&e "nited States will not be subjected toin&uman or degrading treatment and will be given a 5air and im-artial trial. Wit&out t&ese assurances, t&e ".I. and Juro-e will not likel* 2PT e=traditet&e currentl* detained &ig&3value terror sus-ects to t&e "nited States. 0. (&e!rocedural S&ortcomings 6mount to a Eack o5 'ue !rocess, and t&e + M#6 Falls S&ort in #orrecting'e:ciencies 6s mentioned earlier, t&e Cbama 6dministration soug&t man* c&anges to t&e &ig&l* critici$ed+O M#6. But even wit& t&e + modi:cations, t&e use o5 militar* tribunals under t&e M#6 and 6"MF

still 5ails to meet international &uman rig&ts standards 5or a 5air and im-artial trial, most notabl* becauseo5 t&e lack o5 inde-endence and im-artialit*. nOQ (&e im-ortance o5 a tribunal being inde-endent and2PT im-artial is suc& t&at it reAuires t&at judges be bot& de 5acto im-artial and inde-endent as well asa--ear to be im-artial and inde-endent. nO2 (wo more glaring de:ciencies in militar* tribunals includet&e lack o5 t&e -resum-tion o5 innocence and denial o5 access to t&e writ o5 &abeas cor-us. 4n #ombatantStatus Review (ribunals 8#SR(9, w&ic& are -recursors to a detaineeVs trial b* militar* commission, insteado5 a -resum-tion o5 innocence 5avoring t&e de5endant, t&ere is a rebuttable -resum-tion in 5avor o5 t&egovernmentVs evidence. nOO #SR(s -rovide a rebuttable -resum-tion t&at t&e governmentVs evidencesubmitted to determine w&et&er t&e detainee is an enem* combatant is genuine and accurate. nOP (odate, detained -ersons &eld in t&e "nited States &ave relied on &abeas cor-us to s&ow t&at t&eir detentionis not in accord wit& due -rocess, nO but t&is im-ortant c&eck still does not e=ist 5or detainees &eld under


8/155

".S. control outside o5 t&e "nited States. nO Ct&er -rocedural de:ciencies wit& t&e militar* commission-rocess include de-rivation o5 t&e rig&t to counsel 8-articularl* in t&e beginning stages9, t&e rig&t to bein5ormed 8wit& most restrictions to in5ormation surrounding classi:ed in5ormation, wit& classi:cation beingdetermined b* t&e -rosecution9, t&e rig&t to be -resent 8t&e -rosecution ma* e=clude t&e detainee 5rom&is own &earing 5or reasons o5 national securit*, as determined b* t&e -rosecution9, t&e reAuirement 5oreAualit* 8detainees are usuall* denied reAuests to call witnesses and in X o5 t&e tribunals, no evidencew&atsoever was -resented on t&e detaineeVs be&al59, and t&e admittance o5 coerced evidence. nP (&e+ M#6 made slig&t im-rovements to some o5 t&ese de:ciencies b* stating t&at t&e de5ense s&all &avea reasonable o--ortunit* to obtain witnesses and evidence, and b* entirel* barring t&e use o5 statementsobtained t&roug& cruel, in&uman or degrading treatment. nP0 Dowever, t&e new witness and evidencereAuirements o5 t&e + M#6 5all s&ort o5 meeting t&e reAuirements o5 eAual o--ortunit* among t&e-arties. 4n addition, t&e bar to im-ro-erl* obtained statements 2T does not a--l* to 5ormer #SR(s. nP+Jnsuring due -rocess, access to counsel, and access to all -roceedings and all evidence are criticalguarantees t&at must be -rovided to o;er a 5air trial. nP1 6s it stands, militar* commissions, des-ite somemarked im-rovements, are not likel* to meet t&e standards necessar* to establis& t&e rig&t to a 5air trialas set 5ort& in 6rticle O o5 t&e #onvention. +. Juro-ean #ourt 4nsig&t on 6rticle O #om-liance W&at are t&ee=-ectations o5 t&e Juro-ean #ourt relative to 6rticle O com-lianceU 4n twent*3two *ears o5 juris-rudence&anded down 5rom t&e Juro-ean #ourt since Soering, t&e court never 5ound an e=-ulsion, until +0+, t&atviolated 6rticle O des-ite t&e claimVs re-eated assertion. nPQ 6s Soering establis&ed, t&e Juro-ean #ourtdemands a s&owing o5 a real risk o5 a


9/155

Fawwa$, alleged not onl* to be an al3>aeda member, but also one o5 Csama bin EadenVs ke* lieutenants,n2 was indicted 5or t&e 0 ".S. embass* bombings in Jast 65rica w&ic& killed ++Q -eo-le and injuredmore t&an Q,2. nO 6del 6bdel Bar* and 4bra&im Jidarous, bot& alleged members o5 Jg*-tian 4slamici&ad, o-erated alongside al3Fawwa$ in t&e Eondon al3>aeda cell, nP and were subseAuentl* arrested onan e=tradition warrant 5ollowing a reAuest 5rom t&e "nited States in 0 5or t&eir involvement in t&ebombings. n For several *ears, al3Fawwa$, Bar*, and Jidarous success5ull* 5oug&t e=tradition t&roug& a21T series o5 a--eals wit&in t&e ".I. n 4n +, t&e ".I. Secretar* o5 State issued warrants 5or t&eire=tradition to t&e "nited States, :nding t&at t&e ".S. government met t&e -rima 5acie case and -rovidedreliable assurances. n (&us, t&e men would not be at risk o5 t&e deat& -enalt*, inde:nite detention ortrial b* a militar* commission. n0 Jidarous was diagnosed wit& advanced cancer, -ut on &ouse3arrest,and subseAuentl* died in +. n+ 4n +, al3Fawwa$ and Bar* began t&eir :nal a--eal against t&e +:ndings o5 t&e Secretar* o5 State, wit& t&e Britis& Dig& #ourt o5 ustice :nding no breac& o5 6rticle 1, andal3Fawwa$Vs claim 5or breac& o5 6rticle O unsubstantiated. n1 (&e* soon a--ealed to t&e Juro-ean #ourt

and t&e case is still -ending. nQ 2QT 45 t&e "nited States does not u-&oldt&e originalassurances -rovided in +Q, t&e Juro-ean #ourt could den* e=tradition o5t&ese long3soug&t3a5ter terror sus-ects, destro*ing an ot&erwise -er5ect recordo5 &onoring t&e assurances t&e "nited States &as -rovided to t&e ".I. and&er Juro-ean allies.(&e im-lications would disru-t t&e ultimate goal o5bringing wanted terrorists to justice& t is imperativet&at t&e "nited Statesmaintain t&e assurancesas -rovided in +Q and demonstratet&at t&e new

statutor* language o5 t&e N'66 does not im-ede t&e !resident 5rom dealingwit& eac& terror sus-ect case on an individual basis and as necessar* tocontinue to e;ectivel* :g&t t&e war on terrorism.

Use o detention authority hinders e8ective intelligencegathering and e'traditions internationally ! recent historyproves&6atha"ay. et al. :1%

Cona 8Gerard #. and Bernice Eatrobe Smit& !ro5essor o5 4nternational Eaw,7ale Eaw Sc&ool9 Samuel 6delsberg 8.'. candidate at 7ale Eaw Sc&ool9S-encer 6mdur 8.'. candidate at 7ale Eaw Sc&ool9 Fre*a !itts 8.'. candidateat 7ale Eaw Sc&ool9 !&ili- Eevit$ 8.'. 5rom 7ale Eaw Sc&ool9 and SirineS&eba*a 8.'. 5rom 7ale Eaw Sc&ool9, (&e !ower (o 'etain 'etention o5

(errorism Sus-ects 65ter /00), (&e 7ale ournal o5 4nternational Eaw, ol. 1,+01T

Man* $ey U&S& allies&ave been unwilling to coo-erate in cases involving Ylaw3o53war detention or -rosecution but &ave coo-erated in criminal-rosecutions. 4n 5act, man* ".S. e=tradition treaties, including t&ose wit& allies Ysuc& as 4ndia and German*, 5orbid e=tradition w&en t&e de5endant will not beYtried in a criminal court.+2+ (&is issue &as -la*ed out in -ractice several times. Y6n al3S&abaab o-erative was e=tradited 5rom t&e Net&erlands onl* a5ter Yassurances 5rom t&e "nited States t&at &e would be -rosecuted in criminal Ycourt.+21(wo similar cases arose in +P.+2Q 4n -er&a-s t&e most striking Ye=am-le, :ve terrorism sus-ects?including 6bu Dam$a al3Masr, w&o is Yaccused o5 -roviding material su--ort to al3>aeda b* tr*ing to set u- a


10/155

training Ycam- in Cregonand o5 organi$ing su--ort 5or t&e (aliban in 65g&anistan?Yweree=tradited to t&e "nited States b* t&e "nited Iingdom in Cctober Y+0+.+22 (&e e=tradition was made ont&e e=-ress condition t&at t&e* would be Ytried in civilian 5ederal criminal courts rat&er t&an in t&e militar*

Ycommissions.+2O 6nd, indeed, bot& t&e Juro-ean #ourt o5 Duman Rig&ts and Yt&eBritis& courts allowed t&e e=tradition to -roceed aYctions o;ered b* t&e ".S.5ederal criminal justice s*stem and :nding t&e* Y5ull* met all relevant

standards.+2P 6n insistence on using militar* commissions Yma* t&us &indere=tradition and ot&er kinds o5 international -rosecutorial Ycoo-eration, suc&as t&e s&aring o5 testimon* and evidence.

The threat is not hyper#ole ! the U has already deniede'tradition on the #asis o indefnite detention!eter 7argulieso5 t&e Roger Williams Sc&ool o5 Eaw, !eter Margulies ont&e N'66 and J=tradition), 'ecember +11,&tt-//www.law5areblog.com/+00/0+/-eter3margulies3on3t&e3ndaa3and3

e=tradition/

Jven more seriousl*, making militar* -rosecution t&e ruleand 6rticle 444 courts t&e e=ce-tionwould ram- u- anti3e=tradition e;orts in Juro-e and elsew&ere . J=traditionto5ace criminal c&arges in 6rticle 444 courts alread* 5aces severe obstacles, as t&e "nitedIingdom case o5 6bu Dam$a demonstrates. 6bu Dam$a, w&om t&e "S &as c&argedwit& recruiting terrorists 5or 6l >aeda, &as argued t&at t&e "nited States would im-ose a-rison term dis-ro-ortionate to &is crimes and t&at con:nement in a su-erma= 5acilit*would violate t&e Juro-ean #onvention on Duman Rig&ts% bar on in&uman and degrading treatment. 4nBabar 6&mad v. "I, t&e Juro-ean #ourt o5 Duman Rig&ts &eld t&at 6bu Dam$a and ot&ers &ad raisedserious Auestions) on t&e legalit* o5 t&eir e=tradition. Jven a5ter signi:cant -rocedural re5orms and t&e

recent installation o5 t&e widel* res-ected General Mark Martins as &ead o5 t&e -rosecution oce at t&ecommissions, transnational tribunals will-robabl* view militar* commissions aso;ering 5ewer -rocedural rig&ts and sti;er sentences t&an 6rticle 444 courts.

(&is will make e=tradition an even toug&er sell in t&ose tribunals, w&osejuris-rudence &as develo-ed as a -us&3back against Bus& administration -olicies suc& as coercive

interrogation im-lemented in t&e immediate a5termat& o5 Se-tember 00. !articular countries,suc& as German*, go even 5urt&er, e=-ressl* barring e=tradition w&en t&ede5endant 5aces trial in an e=traordinar*) court or 5or a -urel* militar*)o;ense.6rguments t&at militar* commission jurisdiction 5ell wit&in eit&er orbot& o5 t&ese bars ma* take *ears to resolve. Moreover, advocates 5or t&esedetainees and ot&ers &ave mobili$ed substantial -olitical su--ort in Britainagainst e=tradition.C--osing e=tradition is alread* t&e cause du jour 5or some Juro-eancelebrities. !olitical o--osition will strengt&en i5 militar* commissions became t&e rule, rat&ert&an t&e e=ce-tion.4n some cases, 6merican investigators ma* not even be able to gett&eir 5oot in t&e door o5 t&e cell o5 a detainee &eld abroad w&en militar* commissionsare t&e norm. 6s 6ssistant 6ttorne* General Monaco suggested at last week%s 6B6 con5erence, t&es-ecter o5 militar* commissions ma* s&ut o; access to sus-ected terrorists,and ma* &inder real3time in5ormation3 s&aring b* our allies. !rom-t detection


11/155

and investigation o5 terrorist -lots could #e the +,AA4s unintended frstcasualty&

Countries "ould literally have to let these terror suspects

go'avid S. ;ris, 6ssistant 6ttorne* General 5or National Securit* at t&e ".S.'e-artment o5 ustice

5rom Marc& + to Marc& +00, Eaw Jn5orcement as a #ounterterrorism

(ool), O/02/+11 &tt-//jnsl-.com//w-3content/u-loads/+00/O/0Z'avid3Iris.-d5

These concerns are not hypothetical. 'uring t&e last 6dministration, t&e "nitedStates was obliged to give assurances against t&e use o5 militar*

commissions in order to obtain e=tradition o5 several terrorism sus-ects tot&e "nited States.0(&ere are a number o5 terror sus-ects currentl* in5oreign custod* w&o likel* would not be e=traditedto t&e "nited States b* 5oreignnations i5 t&e* 5aced militar* tribunals.00 4n some o5 t&ese cases, it mig&t benecessar* 5or t&e 5oreign nation to release t&ese sus-ects i5 t&e* cannot bee=tradited because t&e* do not 5ace c&arges -ending in t&e 5oreign nation.

This "ill ma$e urope a sae-haven or terrorist

operations'aniel . Sharstein, 6ssociate, Strumwasser [ Wooc&er, Santa Monica,#ali5ornia, Juro-ean #ourts, 6merican Rig&ts J=tradition and !rison

#onditions), OP Brookl*n E. Rev. P0, S-ring +*)

6. (&e 4ncreasing 4m-ortance o5 J=tradition(&e


12/155

live in t&e same countr* as t&eir victims, more 5ugitives 5rom justice &ave managed to aeda

cells and demonstrated t&at man* o5 t&e Se-tember 00 o-eratives s-entconsiderable amounts o5 time in Juro-e.


13/155

A uropean sae-haven allo"s terrorists to target theUnited States

ulia #. (hitehair, Master o5 6rts in Securit* Studies graduate t&esis, 6!E6#J (C D4'J !C!"E6R S"!!CR( 6N' (JRRCR4S( S6FJ D6JNS), Nov 0 t&

+1*,&tt-//re-ositor*.librar*.georgetown.edu/bitstream/&andle/0++/221Q+/W&ite&airulia#.-d5UseAuence\0

Given ".S. e;orts to s&ut down traditional sa5e &avens and t&e attention given in recent *ears to

&omegrown terrorist cells in t&e "nited Statesand Juro-e, -olic*makers likel* will &ave tocon5ront Auestions about sa5e &avens wit&in &ealt&* states .(errorism e=-ertsand -olic*makers wit& counterterrorism -ort5olios &ave alread* raised Juro-e as a-ersistent source o5 terrorism targeting the United States. Mic&aelSc&euerin &is testimon* be5ore members o5 #ongress called t&e Juro-ean "nion t&eeart&%s single largest terrorist sa5e &aven) and a major, consistent, and

invulnerable source o5 terrorist t&reat to t&e "nited States.)2 Former 'irector o5#entral 4ntelligence !orter Goss in +2 and 5ormer ".S. #oordinator 5or #ounterterrorism6mbassador Darr* 6. #rum-tonin +O testi:ed about t&e -ersistent t&reat tot&e "nited States 5rom terrorists based in Juro-e.O Senators Eieberman and #ollins o5t&e Senate #ommittee on Domeland Securit* and Governmental 6;airs s-oke o5 an increase in &omegrownterror cells and attacks wit& roots in t&e "nited States.P

uropean terrorist attac$s on American targets ensuremassive retaliation

?@A8oice o5 6merica9, "S #oncerned wit& 4slamic J=tremism in Juro-e),Cctober 10st+*, &tt-//www.voanews.com/article-rintview/10Q.&tml

(&e State 'e-artmentVs coordinator 5or counter3terrorism, Denr* #rum-ton, told t&e Senate Foreign

Relations #ommittee, Was&ington &as good reason to worr* about 4slamice=tremism in Juro-e, 5ollowing t&e Se-t. 00, +0 terrorist attacks on t&e "nited States. (&eterrorist cell t&at conducted t&e /00 attacks did muc& o5 its -lanning 5rom abase in Juro-e, said Denr* #rum-ton. Five *ears later, and des-ite man* counter3terrorismsuccesses, violent 4slamic e=tremism in Juro-e continues to -ose a t&reat to t&enational securit* o5 t&e "nited States and our allies. Recent incidents in Juro-e linkedto Muslim e=tremists include bombings in Madrid and Eondon. 4n &is testimon*, 6ssistant Secretar* o5 State'aniel Fried said t&e majorit* o5 Western Juro-eVs more t&an 02 million Muslims are moderate. But &e said&e believes Muslims in Juro-e :nd 4slamic e=tremism increasingl* attractive because t&e* are alienated5rom Juro-ean societies in w&ic& t&e* live. Man* marginali$ed Muslims, w&o cross t&e t&res&old intoe=tremism, seem to be driven b* a sense o5 s-iritual alienation, said 'aniel Fried. (&e*Vre less concernedt&an were t&eir -arents wit& economic survival in Juro-e. Man* o5 Juro-eVs second and t&ird generationMuslims seem to long 5or s-iritual 5ul:llment. 'isa;ected Muslims, es-eciall* *oung -eo-le, s&owed t&eirnumbers in -rotests last *ear in France. Fried adds t&at &e believes man* o5 Juro-eVs Muslims w&o 5eelmarginali$ed do not :nd t&eir needs met in local, mainstream institutions. Foreign :nanciers and religiousactivists, o5ten 5rom abroad, :ll t&is s-iritual vacuum, b* building local mosAues, and su--l*ing t&em wit&e=tremist imams, &e said. 'isconnected 5rom o5ten tolerant traditions o5 t&eir 5amiliesV original


14/155

&omelands, t&ese Muslims are susce-tible to 5oreign -ro-aganda, and sermons t&at -reac& narrow and&ate5ul inter-retations o5 4slam. 6lt&oug& t&ese ocials devoted most o5 t&eir testimon* to discussingintegration -roblems t&at e=ist in Juro-e, Senator George 6llen indicated one reason w&* t&is is also an

im-ortant issue 5or t&e "nited States. W&ile it ma* not be so obvious, t&oug&, t&ere areim-lications 5or t&e "nited States, said Senator 6llen. (&e "nited States andJuro-e enjo* an o-en travel arrangement, making it sim-le 5or an*one

carr*ing a Juro-ean countr*Vs -ass-ort to come to t&e "nited States on ada*Vs notice. (&us, &ow Juro-e &andles t&is issue is im-ortant 5or our own&omeland securit*. Robin Niblett, o5 t&e #enter 5or Strategic and 4nternational Studies, a -ublic-olic* organi$ation, said terrorists do not &ave to come to t&e "nited States to dodamage to ".S. interests. Muslims, e=tremists, do not need to travel to t&e "nited States to beable to undertake attacks, said Robin Niblett. (&e* can take on 6merican targets inJuro-e. (&e* can take 6merican targets in 4raA. 4n essence, t&e* are getting t&eir :ll o5attacking 6merica, and -roving t&e* can, wit&out &aving to come over &ere .Meanw&ile, Niblett sa*s, &e is worried t&at t&e level o5 5rustration and alienation in man* o5 t&e Muslim

communities in Juro-e is still strong and, t&ere5ore, dangerous. (&e risk o5 anot&er terroristattack is real,&e noted. 45 anot&er attack &a--ens, the #ac$lash "ill #esevere. Jven wit&out anot&er attack, levels o5 alienation are going to continue, and removing t&em willbe a long -rocess. Niblett sa*s &e believes t&is -rocess o5 dealing wit& 4slamic e=tremism in Juro-e is justbeginning. 6nd, &e adds, Western governments are not, in &is words, totall* in control o5 t&e agenda to tr*to resolve it.

ndependently ! urope is a prime location or terror cellsto construct a nuclear "eapon ! multiple reasons#&arles Ferguson, scientist3in3residence based in t&e Was&ington '# oceo5 t&e #enter 5or Non-roli5eration Studies, Montere* 4nstitute o5 4nternational

Studies, (&e t&reat o5 nuclear terrorism in Juro-e), +3O3+*B,&tt-//www.euro$ine.com/articles/+Q3O3+35erguson3en.&tml

6 nuclear terrorist act an*w&ere is a nuclear terrorist act ever*w&ere . 4n-articular, a terrorist3detonated nuclear wea-on in a Juro-ean cit* will im-act on 6merican securit*.#onversel*, a terrorist3constructed crude nuclear bomb e=-loded in an 6merican cit* will &avere-ercussions 5or Juro-ean securit*. Nuclear wea-on e=-losions are t&e most devastating 5orm, or 5ace, o5

nuclear terrorism.(&e 5our recogni$ed 5aces o5 nuclear terrorism are(erroristscould sei$e an intact nuclear wea-onand b*-ass its securit* 5eatures, t&us activating it.

(errorists could acAuire,t&roug& t&e5t, -urc&ase, or diversion, wea-ons3usable :ssilematerial8eit&er &ig&l* enric&ed uranium or -lutonium9 and build a crude nuclear wea-on, or im-rovisednuclear device 84N'9.(errorists could attack or sabotage nuclear 5acilities, suc& as

commercial nuclear -ower -lants or researc& reactors, to cause a release o5 radioactivit*.(erroristscould acAuire and release radioactive materials, suc& as commercial radioactive sourcesused in medicine, researc&, and industr*, to 5uel radiological dis-ersal devices 8R''s9 ] one t*-e o5 w&ic&is -o-ularl* known as a dirt* bomb, or release radiation t&roug& ot&er mec&anisms, suc& as radiation

emission devices. "nderstanding Nuclear (errorists W&ile most terrorist grou-s are notmotivated to unleas& nuclear terror, at least one terrorist network 3 al >aeda 3 &ase=-ressed strong interest in acAuiring wea-ons o5 mass destruction . 6l >aedao-eratives and t&eir bret&ren in like3minded organi$ations &ave s-read t&eir web across numerous

countries. 6ccording to a anuar* re-ort b* (&e Cbserver , 4slamic militants &ave built u- an


15/155

e'tensive net"or$in Juro-e since 00 Se-tember +0, using Great Britainas a logistical &ub and nerve center.4n recent *ears, 4slamic e=tremists &ave e=-andedeastward into Bulgaria, t&e #$ec& Re-ublic, !oland, and Romania.(errorist cells &ave becomerooted in 6ustria, France, and German* and &ave recruited new members int&ese and ot&er countries.4ntelligence ocials &ave warned t&at labeling all o5 t&ese

grou-s as al >aeda misses t&e com-le=it* be&ind t&e terrorist network . W&ilemost o5 t&e cells 5ollow a similar agenda as al >aeda, 5ew directl* &old t&eirallegiance to t&is organi$ation. (&e current 5ocus on 4slamic e=tremist grou-ss&ould not blind us 5rom seeing ot&er terrorist organi$ations t&at would covetnuclear means o5 destruction. For e=am-le, 6um S&inrik*o, an a-ocal*-tic cult wit& no ties to4slamic e=tremism, soug&t out nuclear wea-ons and released deadl* sarin gas in a 02 c&emical attack int&e (ok*o subwa* s*stem. 'es-ite t&e growt& o5 terrorist cells in Juro-e, one must not assume t&at t&e*will ultimatel* go nuclear. #limbing t&e escalation ladder to acts o5 nuclear terror reAuires lea-ing overseveral barriers. Regardless o5 t&e nuclear terror act under consideration, t&e terrorist grou- must bemotivated to conduct e=treme levels o5 violence and to venture into unconventional met&ods o5 attack.

W&ile a terrorist organi$ation wit& a well3de:ned constituenc* would mostlikel* not want to alienate its constituenc* wit& a nuclear act, grou-s t&at&ave weak or non3e=istent ties to constituencies would not 5ace as man*

moral or -olitical constraints. For e=am-le, t&e #&ec&en rebels, a national3se-aratist grou-,de-end strongl* on t&eir su--orters wit&in #&ec&n*a. 4n contrast, t&e c&aracter and agenda o5al >aeda, a -olitical3religious terrorist network, make t&is organi$ationa--arentl* less concerned about directl* &arming constituents. (&e :nalbarriers 5or a terrorist grou- to cross are tec&nical in nature.(&e grou- would&ave to acAuire t&e nuclear assets.45 t&e grou- decided to attack a nuclear -ower -lant, itwould &ave to identi5* a vulnerable nuclear 5acilit*. (&e organi$ation would &aveto develo- or &ire t&e skills needed to build and detonate a wea-on or tosabotage a nuclear 5acilit*. Finall*, t&e grou- would &ave to be able to deliver t&eattack wit&out being detected during t&e develo-ment or com-letion -&ase.?ulnera#le +uclear and =adiological Assets in urope(actical nuclear

wea-ons(&oug& intact nuclear wea-ons tend to be well3guarded, some are more susce-tible t&anot&ers to 5alling into t&e &ands o5 terrorists. Most e=-erts believe t&at -ortable so3calledtactical nuclear wea-ons 8(NWs9 are more vulnerable to terrorist sei$uret&anare strategic nuclear wea-ons. (NWs are designed 5or nuclear3war :g&ting or battle:eld use. 6s suc&,

t&e* tend to be more -ortablet&an t&eir strategic cousins. 4n Juro-e, concerns over loosenuclear wea-ons &ave 5ocused on t&e t&ousands o5 Russian (NWs t&at are in various -&*sical conditionsand under var*ing securit* storage and use. (&e "nited States also maintains about 0230 (NWs inabout si= N6(C countries. W&ile Juro-ean -oliticians want to kee- t&e issue o5 N6(CVs nuclear wea-onsout o5 -ublic view, t&e* need to take ste-s to reassure Russia t&at nuclear arms will not be de-lo*ed innew N6(C3member states. (&is con:dence building measure could serve as a wa* toward ac&ieving more

o-enness about &ow to im-rove t&e securit* o5 Russian (NWs. "ranium C5 t&e two t*-es o5wea-ons3usable nuclear material, &ig&l* enric&ed uranium 8DJ"9 -oses t&egreatest concern, because it can be used in t&e sim-lest nuclear bomb 3 a gun3t*-e device 3 to -roduce a &ig&3*ield e=-losion. Most wea-ons e=-erts agree t&at a well35unded terroristgrou- could build a gun3t*-e bomb, w&ic& sim-l* slams two -ieces o5 DJ" toget&er inside a gun barrel.

(&e major barrier to sto--ing construction o5 suc& a device is access to DJ". Researc& sites inBulgaria, t&e #$ec& Re-ublic, Dungar*, !oland, Romania, and 7ugoslavia &aveDJ", su--lied mostl* 5rom Russia. Cver t&e -ast several *ears, e=-erts &ave warnedt&at DJ" 5rom t&ese sites could :nd its wa* to terrorists . (&e 'ecember 0Q sei$ureo5 almost t&ree kilograms o5 wea-ons3usable DJ" in t&e #$ec& Re-ublic &ig&lig&ted t&is danger. Since t&e

5all o5 t&e Soviet "nion, t&ere &ave been man* incidents o5 illicit tracking o5


16/155

nuclear and radiological materials in #entral and Jastern Juro-e and t&e newl*inde-endent states. Man* more incidents could be &a--ening t&an are being detected. Fortunatel*, e;ortsto secure and re-atriate DJ" 5rom vulnerable sites in t&is region &ave begun. Since t&e summer o5 ++,t&e "nited States, Russia, t&e 4nternational 6tomic Jnerg* 6genc* 846J69, -artner governments, and non3governmental organi$ations, suc& as t&e Nuclear (&reat 4nitiative, &ave conducted t&ree success5ulmissions 3 Belgrade, Romania and Bulgaria 3 to secure DJ" at researc& sites and to re-atriate it to Russia.But more needs to be done, since about + additional researc& sites, eac& containing enoug& Russian3

origin DJ" 5or at least one bomb, still e=ist. Some o5 t&ese sites are located in #entral and Jastern Juro-e.Radiation Wit&in t&e -ast 5ew *ears, t&e Juro-ean "nion &as commissioned twostudies to determine t&e e;ectiveness o5 t&e e=isting regulator* -racticesconcerning t&e li5e c*cle o5 radioactive sources. (&e :rst stud* e=amined t&e controlswit&in t&e J" itsel5 and 5ound t&at radioactive materials management varied across t&e J".(&e re-ortunderscored t&e risk -osed b* some 1, disused sources t&at are indanger o5 becoming or-&aned, t&at is, o5 5alling outside o5 regulator*controls.Cn t&e &eels o5 t&at stud*, t&e J" investigated t&e regulator* -ractices in t&e #$ec& Re-ublic,Jstonia, Dungar*, !oland, and Slovenia, states t&at were being considered 5or earl* admission to t&e J".(&e J" stud* concluded t&at t&ese states &ave regulator* controls t&at meet t&e general standards 5oundt&roug&out t&e J". W&ile t&e results o5 t&ese -re300 Se-tember re-orts are b* and large encouraging, its&ould be noted t&at t&e* 5ocused on sa5et* considerations and did not e=amine details o5 securit*-rocedures. Nuclear -ower -lants Well3designed nuclear -ower -lants em-lo* de5ense3in3de-t& sa5et*

5eatures. (o release radioactivit* 5rom a nuclear -lant, terrorists would &ave to destro* or disable multi-le

sa5et* s*stems. "n5ortunatel*, #entral and Jastern Juro-e contain man* Soviet3designed nuclear -ower -lants t&at do not meet Western sa5et* standards . Fore=am-le, earl* Soviet3designed models lack an adeAuate emergenc* core cooling s*stem and containmentstructure, and &ave an inadeAuate :re -rotection s*stem. Suc& reactors o-erate in Bulgaria, Slovenia, t&e

#$ec& Re-ublic, Dungar* and Slovakia and Eit&uania. W&ile t&ese reactors &ave engendereddiscussion regarding sa5et* and securit*, attacks and sabotage againstresearc& centers3 w&ere securit* -rocedures tend to be less rigorous t&an at commercial -lants 3have #een overloo$ed. Man* researc& reactors are located at universitiesin or near major urban areas. W&ile t&e inventor* o5 radioactivit* in a t*-icalresearc& reactor -ales in com-arison to t&e large Auantities o5 let&al :ssion-roducts wit&in a commercial reactor, release o5 radioactivit* 5rom researc&sites could suit nuclear terroristsV -ur-oses.

This ensures great po"er "ars that culminate intoe'tinctionRobert Ayson, ul* )*1*, !ro5essor o5 Strategic Studies and 'irector o5 t&e#entre 5or Strategic Studies New Kealand at t&e ictoria "niversit* o5Wellington, 65ter a (errorist Nuclear 6ttack Jnvisaging #atal*tic J;ects,)Studies in #on


17/155

-ossessors t&emselves. utt&ese two nuclear worlds?a non3state actor nuclear attack and a catastro-&ic interstatenuclear e=c&ange?are not necessaril* se-arable. 4t is just -ossible t&at some sort o5 terrorist attack, and es-eciall* anact o nuclear terrorism. could precipitate a chain o events leading

to a massive exchange of nuclear "eapons #et"een t"o or moreo5 t&e

statest&at -ossess t&em. 4n t&is conte=t, toda*%s and tomorrow%s terrorist grou-s mig&t assume t&e -lace allotted

during t&e earl* #old War *ears to new state -ossessors o5 small nuclear arsenals w&o were seen as raising t&e risks o5 acatal*tic nuclear war between t&e su-er-owers started b* t&ird -arties. (&ese risks were considered in t&e late 02s andearl* 0Os as concerns grew about nuclear -roli5eration, t&e so3called n^0 -roblem. 4t ma* reAuire a considerableamount o5 imagination to de-ict an es-eciall* -lausible situation w&ere an act o5 nuclear terrorism could lead to suc& amassive inter3state nuclear war. For e=am-le, in t&e event o5 a terrorist nuclear attack on t&e "nited States, it mig&t wellbe wondered just &ow Russia and/or #&ina could -lausibl* be broug&t into t&e -icture, not least because t&e* seemunlikel* to be :ngered as t&e most obvious state s-onsors or encouragers o5 terrorist grou-s. (&e* would seem 5ar toores-onsible to be involved in su--orting t&at sort o5 terrorist be&avior t&at could just as easil* t&reaten t&em as well.Some -ossibilities, &owever remote, do suggest t&emselves. For e=am-le, &ow mig&t t&e "nited States react i5 it wast&oug&t or discovered t&at t&e :ssile material used in t&e act o5 nuclear terrorism &ad come 5rom Russian stocks,Q and i55or some reason Moscow denied an* res-onsibilit* 5or nuclear la=it*U (&e correct attribution o5 t&at nuclear material to a-articular countr* mig&t not be a case o5 science :ction given t&e observation b* Mic&ael Ma* et al. t&at w&ile t&e debrisresulting 5rom a nuclear e=-losion would be s-read over a wide area in tin* 5ragments, its radioactivit* makes itdetectable, identi:able and collectable, and a wealt& o5 in5ormation can be obtained 5rom its anal*sis t&e ecienc* o5 t&ee=-losion, t&e materials used and, most im-ortant _ some indication o5 w&ere t&e nuclear material came 5rom.)Q06lternativel*, i5 t&e act o5 nuclear terrorism came as a com-lete sur-rise, and 6merican ocials re5used to believe t&at aterrorist grou- was 5ull* res-onsible 8or res-onsible at all9 sus-icion would s&i5t immediatel* to state -ossessors. Rulingout Western all* countries like t&e "nited Iingdom and France, and -robabl* 4srael and 4ndia as well, aut&orities in

Was&ington would be le5t wit& a ver* s&ort list consisting o5 Nort& Iorea, -er&a-s 4ran i5 its -rogram continues, and-ossibl* !akistan. But at w&at stage would Russia and #&ina be de:nitel* ruled out in t&is &ig& stakes game o5 nuclear#luedoU 4n -articular, i5 t&e act o5 nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdro- o5 e=isting tension in Was&ington%srelations wit& Russia and/or #&ina, and at a time w&en t&reats &ad alread* been traded between t&ese major -owers,would ocials and -olitical leaders not be tem-ted to assume t&e worstU C5 course, t&e c&ances o5 t&is occurring wouldonl* seem to increase i5 t&e "nited States was alread* involved in some sort o5 limited armed con


18/155

modest level o5 -ressure on t&em, w&at conclusions mig&t it t&en draw about t&eir cul-abilit*U 45 Was&ington decided touse, or decided to t&reaten t&e use o5, nuclear wea-ons, t&e res-onses o5 Russia and #&ina would be crucial to t&ec&ances o5 avoiding a more serious nuclear e=c&ange. (&e* mig&t surmise, 5or e=am-le, t&at w&ile t&e act o5 nuclearterrorism was es-eciall* &einous and demanded a strong res-onse, t&e res-onse sim-l* &ad to remain below t&e nucleart&res&old. 4t would be one t&ing 5or a non3state actor to &ave broken t&e nuclear use taboo, but an entirel* di;erent t&ing5or a state actor, and indeed t&e leading state in t&e international s*stem, to do so. 45 Russia and #&ina 5elt sucientl*strongl* about t&at -ros-ect, t&ere is t&en t&e Auestion o5 w&at o-tions would lie o-en to t&em to dissuade t&e "nitedStates 5rom suc& action and as &as been seen over t&e last several decades, t&e central dissuader o5 t&e use o5 nuclearwea-ons b* states &as been t&e t&reat o5 nuclear retaliation. 45 some readers :nd t&is sim-l* too 5anci5ul, and -er&a-s

even o;ensive to contem-late, it ma* be in5ormative to reverse t&e tables. Russia, w&ic& -ossesses an arsenal o5t&ousands o5 nuclear war&eads and t&at &as been one o5 t&e two most im-ortant trustees o5 t&e non3use taboo, issubjected to an attack o5 nuclear terrorism. 4n res-onse, Moscow -laces its nuclear 5orces ver* visibl* on a &ig&er state o5alert and declares t&at it is considering t&e use o5 nuclear retaliation against t&e grou- and an* o5 its state su--orters.Dow would Was&ington view suc& a -ossibilit*U Would it reall* be keen to su--ort Russia%s use o5 nuclear wea-ons,including outside Russia%s traditional s-&ere o5 in


19/155

Allied Co-op 0in$,omestic detention undermines our allies "illingness tocooperate on terrorismChesney 1%3 !ro5essor o5 Eaw at t&e "niversit* o5 (e=as Sc&ool o5 Eaw

and Non3Resident Senior Fellow at t&e Brookings 4nstitution

Robert #&esne*, !RC(J#(4NG ".S. #4(4KJNSV #CNS(4("(4CN6E R4GD(S'"R4NG (DJ W6R CN (JRRCR) Douse Dearing, 2/++,&tt-//www.g-o.gov/5ds*s/-kg/#DRG3001&&rg00P1/&tml/#DRG3001&&rg00P1.&tm

Mr. #&esne*. (&ank *ou, Ranking Member #on*ers. 4Vll take t&ose in reverseorder. 4Vm going to start wit& t&e nonciti$ens Auestion. 4 do agree, as 4 said,be5ore t&at we s&ould not draw distinction &ere between t&e citi$ens and t&enonciti$ens c a-tured wit&in t&e "nited States, a 5ew reasons 5or t&at. Cne is,4Vll begin wit& t&e idea t&at -art o5 w&* we would want to resist as a general

-ro-osition militar* detention 5or domestic ca-tures is a dee- tradition o5 not&aving t&e militar* be in t&e lead w&en it comes to domestic securit* w&ent&at can be avoided. (&ere are some circumstances, obviousl*, t&e #ivil Warand a 5ew ot&er e=am-les, w&ere t&atVs not t&e case. But, generall* s-eaking,we &ave t&is tradition. 4nso5ar as &aving a lead role 5or militar* detentionw&en some terrorists ma* be ca-tured wit&in the United State s is -ossible,well, t&at is going to &ave conseAuences 5or ot&er t&ings t&e militar* ma*need to do to be -re-ared to e=ecute o5 role. 6nd t&e* will be in t&at -ositionand incentivi$ed to take on certain activities as long as t&e*Vve got some leadrole. 6nd i5 nonciti$ens are t&at lead roll, t&ere *ou &ave it. Secondl*, w&enwe distinguis& between citi$ens and nonciti$ens, itHs alarming to our allies.

Now, &ere 4Vm not talking about international law -ro5essors, -eo-le w&o dow&at 4 do in ot&er countries, and so 5ort& 4Vm talking about t&e securityo9cials in t&e ".I. and elsew&ere w&o become greatl* alarmed and &avedicult* and more riction in their cooperation wit& us inso5ar as we claimaut&orities t&at are di;erential between our citi$ens and t&eirs. 4tVs not adis-ositive -oint, but itVs a consideration t&at &as security implications.Most im-ortantl*, t&e legal uncertaint* t&at 4 described and t&e -olic*considerations t&at m* colleague Mr. Wittes described, t&e* are a--licable ont&e citi$ens and t&e nonciti$ens ca-ture 5ronts. Now, t&e legal uncertaint* isless dramatic wit& res-ect to nonciti$en ca-tures, but i5 4Vd &ad time, 4 would&ave e=-lained &ow greatl* divided t&e courts were in t&e case o5 6li al3Marri,

w&o was *our -rotot*-ical nonciti$en al3>aeda slee-er agent. (&e courtswere ver* torn u- about t&at. So w&* donVt 4 sto- t&ere and just sa* one Auickt&ing, w&ic& is t&at 4 donVt agree t&at t&e armed conaeda endsw&en we leave 65g&anistan in terms o5 an overt, big3 5oot-rint de-lo*ment.WeVve made clear in t&e -a-ers and elsew&ere, weVre going to continue toe=ercise 5orce in su--ort o5 counterinsurgenc* and ot&er and ot&er e;ortsand counterterrorism in 65g&anistan be*ond +0Q. (&at doesnVt make it anendless war. 4tVs a war wit& de:ned enemies itVs not a war wit& terrorism, as


20/155

t&e 6dministration 5or bot& -arties &ave is said in t&e -ast. 4tVs a conaeda and its associated 5orces.

The plan is a critical step or reviving allied terrorismcooperation

At"ood et al . Brian 6twood served as "nder Secretar* 5or Management in 01 and as6dministrator o5 t&e "nited States 6genc* 5or 4nternational 'evelo-ment5rom 01 to 0. Darr* G. Barnes, r. served as 6mbassador to Romania5rom 0PQ to 0PP, 'irector General o5 t&e Foreign Service and 'irector o5!ersonnel in t&e 'e-artment o5 State 5rom 0PP to 00, 6mbassador to4ndia 5rom 00 to 02, and 6mbassador to #&ile 5rom 02 to 0. F. 6llen(e=) Darris retired a5ter serving wit& t&e "nited States 'e-artment o5 State5or t&irt*3:ve *ears, including Foreign Service -osts in 6rgentina, 6ustralia,Sout& 65rica, and ene$uela. Mr. Darris is a -ast !resident o5 t&e 6mericanForeign Service 6ssociation. Samuel F. Dart served as 6mbassador to Jcuador

5rom 0+ to 02 o&n E. Dirsc& served as 6mbassador to Sierra Eeone 5rom02 to 0. Genta Dawkins Dolmes served as 6mbassador to Namibia 5rom0 to 0+, 'irector General o5 t&e Foreign Service and 'irector o5!ersonnel 5or t&e 'e-artment o5 State 5rom 0+ to 02, and 6mbassador to6ustralia 5rom 0P to +. Gilbert '. Iulick served as a Foreign ServiceCcer 5rom 0OO to 0, retiring as 'e-ut* 'irector o5 Sout&ern 65rica6;airs. E. Bruce Eaingen served as 6mbassador to Malta 5rom 0PP to 0Pand #&arges '%6;aires in (e&ran 5rom 0P to 00. Jlija& !aris& Eovejo* 4served as a consular ocer at t&e Bridgetown, Barbados Jmbass* 5rom 0Pto 0. Eaurence J. !o-e served as 6ssociate #oordinator 5or #ounter3terrorism 5rom 00 to 01, 6mbassador to #&ad 5rom 01 to 0O, and

!olitical 6dvisor to t&e #ommander in #&ie5, ".S. #entral #ommand, 5rom0P to +. !aul I. Sta&nke is Minister #ounselor, retired. 6mong ot&er-osts, &e was #ounselor o5 Mission at t&e "nited States Mission to t&eCrgani$ation 5or Jconomic #oo-eration and 'evelo-ment in !aris 5rom 0Pto 0+, and !ermanent Re-resentative to t&e "nited Nations JS#6!8Jconomic and Social #ouncil 5or 6sia and t&e !aci:c9 5rom 0+ to 0,w&ile also serving as Jconomic #ounselor in t&e "nited States Jmbass* inBangkok during t&e same -eriod. 6le=ander F. Watson served as 6mbassadorto !eru 5rom 0O to 0, 6mbassador and 'e-ut* !ermanentRe-resentative to t&e "nited Nations 5rom 0 to 01, and 6ssistantSecretar* o5 State 5or Western Demis-&ere 6;airs 5rom 01 to 0O, 6micus

Brie5, 6l3Marri v S-agone, an +, +,&tt-//www.brennancenter.org/sites/de5ault/:les/legac*/ustice/+0+.6lmarri.v.Sa-gone.6micus.Brie53Former.".S.'i-lomats.-d5

We, t&e amici curiae lending our names in su--ort o5 t&is brie5, &ave all beenin t&e di-lomatic service o5 t&e "nited States. Some &ave been ambassadorsor 5oreign service ocers ot&ers &ave &ad a--ointments at senior levels int&e 'e-artment o5 State or in t&e ot&er agencies o5 t&e "nited States
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/20090128.Almarri.v.Sapgone.Amicus.Brief-Former.U.S.Diplomats.pdfhttp://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/20090128.Almarri.v.Sapgone.Amicus.Brief-Former.U.S.Diplomats.pdfhttp://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/20090128.Almarri.v.Sapgone.Amicus.Brief-Former.U.S.Diplomats.pdfhttp://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/20090128.Almarri.v.Sapgone.Amicus.Brief-Former.U.S.Diplomats.pdf


21/155

Government dealing wit& international relations. 6ll are retired 5rom -ublicservice. 4t is not our -ur-ose to argue t&e merits o5 t&e -arties% res-ectivelegal -ositions in t&is case. Rat&er, we &o-e to e=-and on t&eir -resentationand w&at t&e #ourt ma* consider in its decision b* setting 5ort& our collective-ro5essional e=-erience as to t&e signi:cance 5or 6merican di-lomac* and

international relations o5 t&e &oldings o5 t&e court below. We understand t&atin t&e case below, t&e "nited States #ourt o5 6--eals 5or t&e Fourt& #ircuit&eld t&at #ongress, in t&e 6ut&ori$ation 5or "se o5 Militar* Force 86"MF )9,!ub. E. No. 0P3Q, 002 Stat. ++Q 8+09, vested t&e J=ecutive wit& t&e -owerto sei$e individuals residing in t&is countr* , even 6mericans, and detain t&eminde:nitel* in militar* custod* wit&out criminal c&arge or trial based solel* ona determination b* t&e J=ecutive t&at t&e individual -lanned to engage interrorist activities. We also understand t&at t&e -rocedures 5or determiningw&et&er suc& detentions are justi:ed are at best murk* and leave uncertaint&e -otential sco-e o5 t&e e=ercise o5 t&is un-recedented e=ecutive aut&orit*.We -ro5ess no s-ecial e=-ertise in t&ese issues 5rom a constitutional-ers-ective. Dowever, our -ro5essional e=-erience convinces us t&at6merican diplomatic credi#ility and e;ectiveness in many areas o5international relations su8er greatly 5rom t&e widel* s&ared -erce-tion t&att&e "nited States &as abandoned t&e rule o5 law and lost its bearings wit&regard to its traditional bulwarks against t&e unc&ecked aut&orit* o5 itsgovernment to seiIe and detain its residents wit&out criminal c&arge ortrial. (&e !etitioner &ere, w&o was law5ull* residing t&e "nited States wit& &is5amil* w&ile -ursuing a master%s degree, was arrested at &is &ome in t&emiddle36merican cit* o5 !eoria, 4llinois, and &as been &eld wit&in t&eterritorial boundaries o5 t&e "nited States 5or t&e better -art o5 eig&t *earswit&out criminal trial or an* currentl* -ending criminal c&arges. (&e!etitioner alleges t&at, during t&is -eriod, &e &as been &eld in solitar*con:nement, &eld nearl* incommunicado, and subjected to abuses t&at &avenever -reviousl* been tolerated in t&e modern 6merican -enal s*stem. Cnehallmar$ o a dictatorship is t&e government%s assertion o5 a rig&t toarrest and inde:nitel* im-rison an*one wit&in its borders , citi$en or non3citi$en, wit&out criminal trial or c&arges, and to con:ne suc& individuals in&ars& and in&umane conditions. 6side 5rom undercutting our abilit* toe=ercise moral suasion against suc& regimes, a decision upholding such aclaimed right b* t&e "nited States J=ecutive will ill-serve our countr* aswe seek to restore our international re-utation and to obtain morecooperation rom our allies in combating terrorism, in su--orting oure;orts in t&e wars in 65g&anistan and 4raA, and in dealing wit& t&e 4sraeli3!alestinian conundrum. Cur -ro5essional e=-erience in5orms us t&at t&e"nited States 5aces an international credibilit* ga- resulting 5rom a do as 4sa* not as 4 do) 5oreign -olic* t&at -laced -erceived t&reats to 6mericansecurit* as t&e -aramount et&ic above its once venerated res-ect 5or5reedom 5rom unjusti:ed restraints on libert*. 4ndeed, in its -rosecution o5 t&ewar on terror, t&e "nited States &as largel* dis-ensed wit& its most valuabledi-lomatic asset ] its values ] and ado-ted a du-licitous stance t&at e=em-tsour countr* 5rom t&e same standard to w&ic& we e=-ect ot&ers to ad&ere. We


22/155

&ave come to believe, in our re-resentation o5 t&is countr* to ot&er nations,t&at t&ose nations are more willing to acce-t 6merican leaders&i- andcounsel to t&e e=tent t&at t&e* see us as true to t&e -rinci-le o5 5reedomunder t&e law. 7et, t&e evidence is clear t&at t&e world &as taken notice o5,and reacted negativel* to, our government%s increasing willingness to

dis-ense wit& :rst -rinci-les o5 individual libert*. (&e State 'e-artment Eegal6dvisor in t&e -revious 6dministration &as acknowledged Guantanamo%sdisastrous im-act on our 5oreign relations, calling it a &uge black e*e 5or t&e"nited States ] an albatross round our neck.)1 (&e grou- Duman Rig&tsWatc& now lists !etitioner%s detention as an enem* combatant) in annualre-orts detailing world3wide &uman rig&ts abuses.Q (&e grou- s-eci:call*warns o5 t&e increasing danger o5 ".S. -olic* in a--l*ing war3time -owersagainst its residents and t&e -erilous -at& u-on w&ic& t&e ".S. &asembarked. 6s elaborated in its +Q World Re-ort (&e ".S. Governmentasserts t&at its treatment o5 _ al3Marri is sanctioned b* t&e laws o5 war 8alsoknown as international &umanitarian law9 _. But t&e ".S. government isseeking to make t&e entire world a battle:eld in t&e amor-&ous, ill3de:ned,and most likel* never ending war against terrorism.) B* its logic, an*individual believed to be aliated in an* wa* wit& terrorists can beim-risoned inde:nitel* _. (&e laws o5 war were never intended to underminet&e basic rig&ts o5 -ersons, w&et&er combatants or civilians, but t&eadministration%s rereading o5 t&e law does just t&at.2 Be5ore t&e DouseSubcommittee on 4nternational Relations, a 5ormer 6ssistant Secretar* o5State 5or 'emocrac*, Duman Rig&ts and Eabor, testi:ed t&at current ".S.-olic* detracts 5rom our long term di-lomatic goals in t&at it needlessl*antagoni$esT our allies _. andT unwittingl* diminis&esT our ca-acit* 5ore=ce-tional leaders&i- to address t&e global &uman rig&ts c&allengesa&ead.)O !etitioner%s detention is s-eci:call* cited as an e=am-le o5 a-ractice t&at encouragesT ot&er countries to commit similar abuses in t&ename o5 :g&ting terrorism and asT underminingT our abilit* to -rotest w&ent&e* do.)P (&e double standards o5 t&e ".S. a--roac& to &uman rig&ts abroadand at &ome wit& regard to !etitioner, as well as Guantanamo, -resent aninsurmountable c&allenge to our di-lomatic mission. (&is is so because ourmost e;ective di-lomatic wea-on ] our nation%s moral standing ] is lost w&enour government &olds itsel5 to a di;erent standard t&an it would &ave ot&ercountries a--l*. #onsider t&at t&e "nited States 'e-artment o5 State -rovidesan annual re-ort to t&e S-eaker o5 t&e Douse o5 Re-resentatives and t&eSenate #ommittee on Foreign Relations o;ering a 5ull and com-lete re-ortregarding t&e status o5 internationall* recogni$ed &uman rig&ts) 5oressentiall* all countries in t&e world. 6mong t&e o;enses againstinternationall* recogni$ed &uman rig&ts) acknowledged and re-orted b* t&eState 'e-artment are instances o5 arbitrar* arrest or detention) and denialo5 5air -ublic trials) ] -recisel* w&at &as &a--ened to t&e !etitioner &ere.!etitioner &as been &eld wit&out criminal trial or legal justi:cation 5or nearl*eig&t *ears. De also alleges t&at &e was &eld 5or -eriods as long as si=teenmont&s incommunicado, w&en &is 5amil* was denied access to see &im, aswere &is attorne*s. !etitioner 5urt&er alleges t&at &e was interrogated


23/155

re-eatedl* in wa*s t&at bordered on torture, including slee- de-rivation,-ain5ul stress -ositions, e=treme sensor* de-rivation, and t&reats o5 violenceor deat&.0 #om-are t&is treatment wit& t&e 5urt&er State 'e-artment re-orton &uman rig&ts abuses in 4ran, one o5 t&e most notorious totalitarianregimes in t&e world. For 4ran, t&e State 'e-artment catalogued as &uman

rig&ts abuses t&e 5act t&at 'etainees o5ten went weeks or mont&s wit&outc&arges or trial, 5reAuentl* were denied -rom-t contact wit& 5amil*, and o5tenwere denied access to legal re-resentation 5or -rolonged -eriods _.MTan*detainees were &eld incommunicado _. 4n -ractice t&ere was neit&er a legaltime limit 5or incommunicado detention nor an* judicial means to determinet&e legalit* o5 t&e detention _.00 (&is same State 'e-artment re-ort on&uman rig&ts abuses 5or 4ran also describes common met&ods o5 -risonerabuse includingT -rolonged solitar* con:nement wit& sensor* de-rivation,_ long con:nement in contorted -ositions, _ andT t&reats o5 e=ecution i5individuals re5used to con5ess _.)0+ (&e "nited States &as &istoricall* beenviewed as a beacon o5 lig&t 5or its commitment to a basic tenet o5 6nglo36merican law ] t&at no one ma* be subjected to inde:nite detention wit&outc&arge, and t&at t&e conditions o5 justi:ed con:nement s&all be &umane. 4nour -ro5essional e=-erience, we &ave 5ound our commitment to t&ese5undamental -rece-ts o5 &uman dignit* to be t&e strongest asset o5 6mericandi-lomac*. (&e admiration and res-ect 5or t&is nation abroad is a 5unction o5our own commitment to libert* under law and we &ave led t&e world in t&iscause. W&en our nation is -erceived as a--l*ing t&ese -rinci-les selectivel*,or ignoring t&em all toget&er, our voice abroad is not onl* weakened but ouradversaries are also emboldened to conduct t&e ver* t*-e o5 treatmentagainst w&ic& we &ave &istoricall* rallied. For e=am-le, e=-laining t&edetention o5 militants wit&out trial, Mala*sia%s law minister said t&at t&e-ractice was just like t&e -rocess in Guantanamo Ba*.)01 Jg*-t &as alsomoved to detain &uman rig&ts cam-aigners as t&reats to national securit*, as&ave 4vor* #oast, #ameroon and Burkina Faso.0Q Russia, in its recentcam-aign in Georgia and brutalit* in #&ec&n*a, &as also &eralded t&e war onterror as its -rimar* justi:cation. 6s we argued in our brie5 amici curiae inBoumediene, it is not just dictatorial regimes t&at &ave commented wit&scorn on our -ractices wit& regard to terror detentions. Cur allies and t&ebroader global communit* &ave grown increasingl* im-atient wit& t&ewillingness o5 t&e "nited States to dis-ense wit& its traditional -rinci-les wit&regard to its inde:nite detentions o5 enem* combatants.)02 W&ile most o5t&is criticism &as been aimed at Guantanamo Ba*, !etitioner%s detentionserves to am-li5* t&e c&orus o5 world disa--roval. (&is is because muc& o5t&e -rior 6dministration%s -osition on Guantanamo related to t&e :ction t&att&e conduct t&ere was justi:ed because t&e detentions were occurring in#uba and not wit&in t&e territorial limits o5 t&e "nited States. W&ile t&attec&nical distinction was lost on most, an* -ersuasive e;ect t&at it did &aveis obliterated b* t&e 5act t&at !etitioner%s arrest and con:nement &ave alloccurred wit&in t&e "nited States. Reversing t&e tide o5 negative sentimentagainst t&e "nited States and garnering t&e su--ort o5 our allies &as never#een more critical t&an at t&is moment in &istor* w&en a new


24/155

6dministration &as come to -ower and seeks to gain traction in its variousdi-lomatic e;orts. !resident Cbama &as signed e=ecutive orders 5or t&eclosure o5 t&e Guantanamo -rison and 5or a c&ange in course wit& regard toits -ractice o5 detention o5 enem* combatants.) (&e !resident%s ordersre-resent a genuine ste- toward renewal o5 our countr*%s image in t&e

world0O but t&e international goodwill ins-ired b* &is actions will Auickl*dissi-ate i5 we nonet&eless insist on e=ercising t&e rig&t to arrest andim-rison wit&out c&arge -eo-le legall* "ithin our o"n #orders. 4n t&e caseo5 some si=t* individuals w&o &ave been declared non3combatants but arestill being &eld in ".S. custod*, t&e coo-eration o5 our allies is -articularl*critical because man* o5 t&ese individuals 5ace t&e risk o5 -ersecution i5returned to t&eir &ome countries.0P 6t least one close all* &as alread*re5used to acce-t e=onerated detainees , and our abilit* to convince ot&ers to

join us in :nding a solution to t&is conundrum remains an o-en Auestion t&atis no doubt &am-ered b* t&e continued detention o5 !etitioner and ot&erssimilarl* situated to &im.0 Cur -ro5essional e=-erience tells us t&at the frststep in re-airing our relations&i- wit& our allies and restoring 6mericandi-lomatic credibilit* in t&e world at large is to renew our singularcommitment to due -rocess, t&e rule o5 law and &uman dignit* wit&outregard to t&e -erceived justi:cations 5or dis-ensing wit& t&em. 6s 5ormerSecretar* o5 State Madeleine 6lbrig&t stated s&ortl* be5ore t&e attacks o5Se-tember 00, +0 Cne o5 t&e most dangerous tem-tations 5or agovernment 5acing violent t&reats is to res-ond in &eav*3&anded wa*s t&atviolate t&e rig&ts o5 innocent civilians _. We &ave 5ound t&roug& e=-eriencearound t&e world, t&at t&e best wa* to de5eat terrorist t&reats is to increaselaw en5orcement ca-acities w&ile at t&e same time -romoting democrac* and&uman rig&ts.0

Allied cooperation solves all internal lin$s to glo#alterrorismTer$el B3 researc&er @ t&e #enter 5or 6merican !rogress

86manda, &tt-//www.american-rogress.org/issues/+Q//b0O2+.&tml9

Our credibility at home and abroad has never been lower .With no weapons of mass destruction found inIraq, horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, and no foreseeable end game for the U.. in Iraq, most are hesitant to trust the !ush

administration. A "une #$$% poll by &! 'ews and (he 'ew )or* (imes reported that + percent of the national adult population

believed that !ush was either hiding something or completely lying in his statements about the war. (he story abroad is hardly

better. In a -arch #$$% ew surveyof /uropean and -iddle /astern countries, a ma0ority in seven of the eight nations surveyed

believed U.. and !ritish leaders lied about the Iraq war. Why is credibility so important1 (he conventional wisdom

focuses on credibility for credibility2s sa*e, but misses the real point3 the war on terrorism cannot #e "on ifthe rest of the world mistrusts the U nited tates. At the start of the war on terrorism, the !ushadministration sent a clear message to the world2s nations3 4)ou2re either with us, or against us.4 After three years, it appears that

far too few are with us. While America must always stand up for itself, we can neither protect nor defend

ourselves if we continue to go it alone. Without meaningful and sustained internationalcooperation, we can neither fight terrorism effectively nor win . 5ere2s why3 Securingthe "orldHs ports. (he &ontainer ecurity Initiative 6&I7 is designed to place customs inspectors in portsworldwide in order to pre8screen +$ percent of U..8bound cargo. Only a few of the #$ planned ports worldwide have entered the

program. (he current list of &I participants is heavy on ports in /urope and Asia, but lac*s any
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=796


25/155

ports in the -iddle /ast and includes only one in Africa. (he U nited tates needs to wor*

with the entire international community to quic*ly e9pand this program to reduce the huge

vulnerability of the world2s ports. Controlling prolieration. (he Aspen trategy Grouprecently concluded that thethreat of a nuclear attac* is much greater than the public reali:es. Only eleven nations have committed

to a version of the roliferation ecurity Initiative 6I7,aimed at stopping shipments of weapons of mass destruction worldwide.

(he ;


26/155

,omestic ntel 0in$

Perceptions o procedural 5ustice are $ey to localcooperationTyler et al 1*

8(om, Ste-&en Sc&ul&o5er, 6$i$ DuA, "niversit* o5 #&icago Sc&ool o5 Eaw,!"BE4# E6W 6N' EJG6E (DJCR7 WCRI4NG !6!JR NC. +O, EJG4(4M6#7 6N''J(JRRJN#J JFFJ#(S 4N #C"N(JR` (JRRCR4SM !CE4#4NG 6 S("'7 CFM"SE4M 6MJR4#6NS)9

Cur -rinci-al :ndings are as 5ollows. We :nd a ro#ust correlation betweenperceptions o5 procedural 5ustice and bot& -erceived legitimac* and"illingness to cooperate among Muslim 6merican communities in t&e

conte=t o5 anti3terrorism -olicing. We :nd little evidence t&at evaluations o5eit&er t&e severit* o5 terrorist t&reats or o5 -olice e;ectiveness -la* asigni:cant role in determining willingness to coo-erate. We 5urt&er :nd t&atreligiosit*, cultural di;erences, and -olitical background &ave at best weakconnections wit& coo-eration.(&ese results suggest t&e importance oprocedural 5ustice considerations in t&e design o5 anti3terrorism -olicingstrategies concerning 7uslim Americans "ithin the United States.

,omestic indefnite detention alienates allies andcollapses local intel gatheringJ$ey to solve terrorism+achman et al

'avid J. Nac&man, #ounsel o5 Record, Bradle* (. Meissner, Jmil* (. Wrig&t,Muslim 6dvocates, (&e Sik& #oalition, 6merican36rab 6nti3'iscrimination#ommittee, a-anese 6merican #iti$ens Eeague, and Sout& 6sian 6mericansEeading (oget&er, 6micus Brie5, 6l3Marri, anuar* +

Sacri:cing (&e Rule C5 Eaw Alienates ,omestic Communities Andnternational Allies W&ose Del- 4s Needed. 'etention wit&out c&arge ortrial not onl* is ine;ective in actuall* identi5*ing terrorists and -reventingterrorism t&e de-arture 5rom t&e rule o5 law t&at it signals ma* actuall*undermine law en5orcement%s e;orts in t&is vital area. (&e government%sabilit* to instill trust in, and oster relationships wit& , ke* communities is

vital to its -ublic sa5et* mission. See, e.g., !olice J=ecutive Researc& Forum,+ !rotecting 7our #ommunit* From (errorism Strategies 5or Eocal EawJn5orcement Working wit& 'iverse #ommunities +O 8+Q9 8'iversecommunities . . . ma* well be willing to work wit& investigators w&o t&e*believe will res-ect t&eir -rivac*, t&eir traditions and act res-onsibl* to kee-terrorists out o5 t&eir communities.)9 Nicole . Denderson et al., era 4nst. C5

ustice, Eaw Jn5orcement [ 6rab #ommunit* Relations 65ter Se-tember 00,+0 Jngagement in a (ime o5 "ncertaint* 0P 8+O9 8Auoting one -olice


27/155

c&ie5 as recogni$ing t&at (T&e collection o5 intelligence will come 5rom t&ecommunit*. So a relation o5 trust and confdence "ith the KAra#AmericanL community is importan t. . . . We can%t a;ord to alienate t&em .Ct&erwise, "e cut o8 our sources o inormation.)9 (&reat o5 4slamicRadicali$ation to t&e Domeland Dearing Be5ore t&e S. #omm. Cn Domeland

Securit* and Governmental 6;airs, 00t& #ong. 1 8Marc& 0Q, +P9 8writtentestimon* o5 'aniel Sut&erland, Ccer 5or #ivil Rig&ts and #ivil Eiberties, ".S.'e-artment o5 Domeland Securit*9 8&ereina5ter Sut&erland (estimon*9 8Webelieve t&at a critical element o5 our strateg* 5or securing t&is countr* is tobuild a level o5 communication, trust, and con:dence . . . .)9.(&e arrest andinde:nite detention o5 -ersons outside o5 t&e ordinar* criminal -rocess ,-articularl* w&en -erceived to be based on t&e et&nic or religious orientationo5 t&e detained, will &inder terrorism -revention e;orts because it sends amessage t&at law en5orcement &as targeted a w&ole communit* as alien% orsus-ect.%) 'avid #ole, Jnem* 6liens, 2Q Stan. E. Rev. 21, O 8++9.Sending t&at message cannot &el- but alienate members o5 t&e targetedcommunit*, rendering t&em 5ar less likel* to assist law en5orcement in t&eire;orts to identi5* true -er-etrators.) 4d. see also Ial&an et al., su-ra, at 00]+ 86lienated communities are also less likel* to coo-erate wit& lawen5orcement, de-riving t&e -olice o5 in5ormation and resources t&at can beused to combat terrorism.)9. (&e conseAuences can be serious, consideringt&at these communities could #e particularly helpul to la"enorcement in its terrorism-prevention "or$ &(&is erosion in t&e trustand con:dence o5 immigrant communities was -recisel* w&at t&e wides-readdetention o5 Muslim, 6rab and Sout& 6sian citi$ens, aliens and immigrantsac&ieved in t&e a5termat& o5 Se-tember 00. (T&e nationalit*basedin5ormation and detention swee-s o5 t&e -ast two *ears &ave taken a serioustoll on immigrant communities in t&e "nited States. 6rab and Muslimorgani$ations describe t&e c&illing e;ect% t&at t&ese -rograms &ave &ad oncommunit* relations . . . . (T&ese blanket immigration measures &avealienated t&e ver* communities w&ose intelligence and coo-eration is neededmost.) Eaw*ers #omm. For Duman Rig&ts, 6ssessing t&e New Normal, Eibert*and Securit* 5or t&e !ost3Se-tember 00 "nited States 10 8+19 8&ereina5terEaw*ers #omm. Re-ort9. Similarl*, incent #annistraro, 5ormer 'irector o54ntelligence !rograms 5or t&e National Securit* #ouncil under 5ormer!resident Reagan, &as written t&at t&e ustice 'e-artment%s detention o5t&ousands o5 immigrant Muslims?t&e -olic* o5 s&aking t&e trees% in 4slamiccommunities? alienates t&e ver* -eo-le on w&om law en5orcement de-ends5or leads and ma* turn out to be counter-roductive.) incent #annistraro,

(&e War on (error Jnters !&ase +, N.7. (imes, Ma* +, ++, at 60 see alsoDarris, su-ra, at 11]1Q 8noting t&at t&e investigation o5 now3convictedterrorist sus-ects began based on ti-s contained in a communit* member%sletter to t&e FB49.+O 6s &as occurred elsew&ere, moreover, &ars& andoverbroad detention -olicies in -articular, and a -erceived abandonment o5t&e rule o5 law in general, are likel* to aid e=tremists b* 5acilitatingrecruitment o5 t&e disa;ected. See Dearing be5ore S. Select #omm. on


28/155

4ntelligence, 000t& #ong. P 8an. ++, +9 8statement o5 'ennis #. Blair,nominee 5or 'irector o5 National 4ntelligence9

This internal lin$ is #ased on ro#ust evidence ! empiricsprove successul local intelligence can disrupt terror

inrastructuresnnes 2] senior lecturer in sociolog* at t&e "niversit* o5 Surre*

8Martin, !olicing "ncertaint* #ountering (error t&roug& #ommunit*4ntelligence and 'emocratic !olicing,) (&e 6NN6ES o5 t&e 6merican 6cadem*o5 !olitical and Social Science +O O2 +++ 'C40.00PP/+P0O+O+P009

(&e empirical datain5orming t&is article were collected between anuar*and Marc& +2 as -art o5 a researc& -roject e=amining t&e e;ectiveness o5t&e ".I. -olice in collecting and &andling communit* intelligence) 5romminorit* grou-s1 and *oung -eo-le in res-ect o5 several di;erent issues

including terrorism. 4nterviews were conducted wit& -olice ocers 5rom t&ree-olice 5orce areas -ur3 -osivel* sam-led to enable com-arative anal*sis o5&ow di;erent organi$ations were dealing wit& similar intelligence issues. (&eMetro-olitan !olice Service 8M!S9 in Eondon was selected because it is t&elargest -olice organi$ation in t&e "nited Iingdom and &as a nationalres-onsibilit* 5or counterterrorism. (&e sec3 ond 5orce located in t&e nort& o5Jngland was re-resentative o5 t&e circum3 stances o5 man* midsi$ed ".I.-olice 5orces and &ad recent e=-erience o5 dealing wit& signi:cant -ublicdisorder between et&nic communities. (&e t&ird -olice 5orce area in t&e sout&o5 Jngland was c&osen to e=-lore t&e issues being con3 5ronted b* small5orces in managing communit* intelligence.QY 6 total o5 twent*3si=

semistructured interviews were conducted wit& -olice ocers and sta;working wit& intelligence on counterterrorism issues at central and locallevels.2 (&is included t&e 5orce intelligence directors res-onsible 5ormanaging t&e intelligence s*stems in nort&ern and sout&ern 5orces andocers wit& national res-onsibilities in t&e M!S. Ccers w&o eit&er wereworking wit& S-ecial Branc& or &ad done so recentl* were -art o5 t&e sam-lein t&e t&ree 5orces.O C5 -articular interest t&oug& 5or t&e concerns o5 t&isarticle was t&e inclu3 sion o5 s-ecialist ocers 5rom two units in t&eMetro-olitan !olice?t&e Muslim #ontact "nit and t&e Strategic #ontact "nit.P

(&e ocers in t&ese recentl* establis&ed units 5ocused u-on working wit&-articular communit* grou-s to manage t&eir concerns. 4n addition, t&e &ead

o5 t&e National #ommunit* (ension (eam 8N#((9 was interviewed. N#(( is acentral -olicing unit working wit& all 5orces to monitor intercommunit* andintracommunit* tensions nation3 wide. 6s suc&, it &as a $ey role in managing-ostincident res-onses to an* major t&reats to -ublic order, includingterrorist incidents at home and overseas. Si= interviews were alsoconducted wit& members o5 t&e -ublic w&o &ad -reviousl*Y -rovidedintelligence to -olice on activities o5 concern, ca-turing an o5ten over3 lookeddimension in discussions o5 -olice intelligence.Y(&e Social Crgani$ation o5


29/155

#ounterterrorismY #ounterterrorism work &as -ros-ective and retros-ectiveas-ects. (&e -ros-ective -recrime) as-ects are -er5ormed on an ongoingbasis and are designed to -revent, deter, and disru-t t&e activities o5 t&oset&oug&t to be involved in activities related to terrorism. 4nvolvingsurveillance o5 and inter3 ventions against -eo-le directl* involved in grou-s

su--orting terrorist action, it also increasingl* encom-asses measures takenagainst t&e support inrastructures 5or suc& grou-s, -articularl* targetingt&eir fnancial resources8Mc#ulloc& and !ickering +2 Eevi and Gilmore++9. (&is is -art o5 w&at (&ac&er 8+29 dubbed t&e o;ender searc&)strateg* o5 counterterrorism.


30/155

recruitment 0in$

@nly Congress solves ! The e'ecutive "ill never useindefnite detention domesticallyJleaving the optionavaila#le creates the misperception o support ordomestic military captureChesney and (ittes. 1%8Robert #&esne*, !ro5essor o5 Eaw at t&e"niversit* o5 (e=as Sc&ool o5 Eaw and Non3Resident Senior Fellow at t&eBrookings 4nstitution, and Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow at t&e Brookings4nstitution, !rotecting ".S. #iti$ens% #onstitutional Rig&ts 'uring t&e War on

(error), 2/++/01 &tt-//www.brookings.edu/researc&/testimon*/+01/2/++3war3on3terror3c&esne*3wittes9

W&at S&ould #ongress 'oU 4n our view, #ongress s&ould -ut t&is issue to restat last b* clari5* ing t&at neit&er t&e 6"MF nor t&e N'66 F7%0+ s&ould be readto con5er detention aut&orit* over -ersons ca-tured in t&e " nited S tates8regardless o5 citi$ens&i-9.(&e bene:ts o5 kee-ing t&e o-tion o-en in t&eor*are slim, w&ile t&e o;setting costs are substantial. We sa* t&e bene:ts areslim c&ieaeda sus-ects in t&e "nited States to stick wit& t&ecivilian criminal justice s*stem.(&e e=-eriment o5 militar* detention wit&!adilla and al3Marri did little to encourage a di;erent course , given t&e legal

uncertaint* t&e cases e=-osed.(&at uncertaint* &as , in turn, created anenormous disincentive 5or an* administration ?o5 w&atever -olitical stri-e?toattem-t t&is sort o5 detention again. 6 de 5acto -olic* t&us develo-ed in 5avoro5 using t&e criminal justice a--aratus w&enever &umanl* -ossible 5orterrorist sus-ects a--re&ended in t&e "nited States. 6nd w&enever &umanl*-ossible turned out to mean alwa*s w&ile militar* detention ma* remain-otentiall* available as a t&eoretical matter, it is not 5unctionall* available 5ort&e sim-le reasons t&at 8i9 e=ecutive branc& law*ers are not adeAuatel*con:dent t&at t&e Su-reme #ourt would arm its legalit* and 8ii9 in an*event, t&e* &ave a viable and 5ar3more3reliable alternative in t&e criminal

justice a--aratus . 4n Se-tember +0, t&e Cbama administration made t&is

unstated -olic* ocial, announcing t&at it would use t&e criminal justices*stem e=clusivel* bot& 5or domestic ca-tures and 5or citi$ens ca-turedan*w&ere in t&e world. 4n a s-eec& at t&e Darvard Eaw Sc&ool, t&e n3 W&iteDouse ocial o&n Brennan stated it is t&e :rm -osition o5 t&e Cbama6dministra

Domestic Detention Affirmative - JDI 2015

Documents