AIDP Blog

Anfal Judges to Speak at Case Western on January 29, 2008

On June 24, 2007, the Iraqi High Tribunal convicted “Chemical Ali” (Ali Hassan al-Majid) and five other military leaders of Saddam Hussein’s regime of international crimes related to their roles in a three-year crackdown of northern Iraqi Kurds known as the Anfal campaign.  The Tribunal’s judgment marks one of the only times in history individuals have been convicted of genocide - the worst crime known to humankind.

The Iraqi High Tribunal and the US Regime Crimes Liaison Office (RCLO) have provided Case Western Reserve University the just-completed English translation of the Anfal Trial Judgment for us to post on our award-winning Grotian Moment Website:   <http://law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/ .  This is the only place in the world where researchers can read the English translation of the historic opinion, whose 900 pages detail the legal and factual conclusions of the Tribunal.  Note, at the request of RCLO all witness/victim/family names have been redacted for their safety.

The judges who presided over the Anfal trial will be making a live presentation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law at 4:00 pm on January 29, 2008.  Through translators, the judges and other officers of the Iraqi High Tribunal will discuss the challenges faced, the precedent that their historic judgment set and the question of fairness in the proceedings.

This trip, which also includes stops at American University and Vanderbilt, will mark the judges’ first public appearance outside of Iraq. A transcript of the January 29 session will be posted on the “Grotian Moment” website after the event.

This program is part of the law school’s year-long series to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Genocide Convention, which has included a day-long symposium on September 28 that featured Robert Petit, Chief Prosecutor of the Cambodian Genocide Tribunal; the October 16 Cox Center Humanitarian Award Lecture by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and the January 15 Klatsky Human Rights Lecture by Yale Law Professor W. Michael Reisman.  The webcasts of those events are available for viewing on demand at: http://law.case.edu/lectures.

The law school provides research assistance to five war crimes tribunals, including the Iraqi High Tribunal, and has a special program in which students spend a semester interning at the international tribunals. Currently, third-year law student Brianne Draffin (Editor in Chief of War Crimes Prosecution Watch) is serving as a judicial clerk/intern to the judges of the Sierra Leone Tribunal who are presiding over the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor. 

View my following paper, Framing Homeland Security

Abstract:
In discussing homeland security and terrorism, it is necessary to work with clear definitions of the terms and concepts that frame this strategy. One of the greatest hindrances to a cogent discussion of terrorism and counter-terrorism has been that the terms lack clear, universal definitions. Strategic analysis must begin with clearly articulated and precise definitions of terrorism, counter-terrorism, and homeland security, as proposed in this article.

To that extent, the recommended definition of terrorism is: acts of politically based violence aimed at innocent civilians with the intent to cause physical harm, including death, and/or conducting psychological warfare against a population aimed at intimidating it from conducting its daily life in a normal fashion.

Ultimately, there are many approaches that we could take to define terrorism. We could look at the definitions currently employed domestically and abroad. We could look to academic debate on the subject. We could consider the inverse of terrorism in other words, define first what terrorism is not. We could also try to craft a definition that encompasses all of the terrorist groups and individuals our government is currently targeting or has captured in the War on Terror.

The recommended definition captures the core elements of terrorism in clear and concise language. In reviewing scholarship and terrorists’ writings, the overwhelming impression is that causing harm (physical or psychological) to the innocent civilian population is the central characteristic of terrorist action. The available literature articulates that harming civilians is the most effective manner from the terrorist mindset¿ to effectuate their goals.

While causing death or injury to the innocent civilian population is the means to the end, I also suggest that intimidation of the population is of equal importance from the terrorist perspective. The emphasis whether resulting in death, injury, property damage, or intimidation is the attack, in whichever form, on the innocent civilian population. Accordingly, we must develop counter-terrorism policies that protect the innocent civilian population for whose protection and safety the government is responsible.

In addition, the importance of impacting daily life cannot and should not be underestimated. Terrorism is a daily grind; it must be understood in the context of daily attacks rather than one-time, dramatic-effect attacks (such as 9/11). Smaller, more frequent attacks, while perhaps less dramatic, have a much greater long-term effect on an innocent civilian population than does a one-time major event whose undeniable short-term effects may not linger. In that vein, the proposed definition emphasizes the effect on the daily life of an innocent civilian population and the commensurate requirement for the state to respond to the continuous, constant threats that represent modern-day terrorism.

Cross-posted on National Security Advisors Blog.

Learn more information about my casebook Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism here.

For more information on this and related news see The Volokh Conspiracy.

This video (ten minutes long) presents a documentary short of a counter-terrorism simulation exercise I conducted in November, 2007 for students enrolled in my Global Perspectives on Counter-Terrorism class at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah. The course is based on my casebook, Global Perspectives on Counter-terrorism (Aspen Publishers). The exercise is one of the ways we are developing intensive leadership experiences for students both within and outside the classroom.

The class participates in a half-day simulation exercise that mirrors a potential crisis happening in real time. The students play the roles of key decision-makers (US President, CIA Director, FBI Director, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Judge, Prosecutor, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al) in an effort to understand from experience the dilemmas they face and how they make critical decisions predicated on minimal intelligence information.

The students are assigned roles two weeks before the simulation and are expected to prepare for the “position” from a legal and policy perspective. However, they do not know the facts ahead of time; rather, the events unfold during the course of the simulation via “dummied” newscasts. Thanks to Utah’s extraordinary IT team, the students (divided into three locations—DC, NYC and Paris) communicate via video-conferencing (with all of its attendant problems and tensions) in an effort to provide the President with legal and policy advice relevant to their position regarding the multiple fact patterns (potential bombing of NYC port, possibility of attack against US Ambassador in Paris, and potential suicide bomber on a plane).

Cross posted on The National Security Advisors Blog.