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. 

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.

The following op-ed was published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In the post 9/11 world, life has changed both globally and locally. A few examples: We arrive at airports well before scheduled departure times because of long security lines; we arrive earlier at large public events because of bag checks; and increasingly, while riding public transportation to work, we check to see if something or someone seems suspicious.

Not everything about this new reality is obvious, but this much is: We need to develop a counterterrorism training model for protecting the public; a model that must be exponentially different from yesteryears. This requires a multidisciplinary, integrative approach that facilitates discussion of two issues fundamental to counterterrorism: effectiveness and protection of human rights.

As we prepare and train those involved in operational counterterrorism, we need to ask: What we are training for?” What do we expect and demand the trainee to learn and implement?

How should those protecting us respond when someone seemingly ill seeks to pass through a security line? There have been cases where illness was feigned for purposes of conducting terror attacks.

How should those protecting us respond when an apparently pregnant woman requests special consideration? After all, terrorist organizations have previously used such scenarios for duplicitous reasons.

And where do we draw the line? Should every shoe be removed and scanned after an attempt at London airport to use shoes to smuggle a dirty bomb or do we make an exception when an elderly woman with a wooden leg connected to a shoe tries to pass a security line?

These questions are relevant to military personnel, Transportation Security Administration personnel and security officials at public events worldwide. Thus, training programs should be based on the experience of others. Israel, which has been forced to respond to terrorism for many years, can be seen as the “world’s laboratory” for operational counterterrorism. Israel has developed security strategies for, among others, airports, public transportation and shopping mall protection.

These strategies are predicated both on their cost and protection of human rights. They presume a need to prepare security personnel for complex situations in which they will be required to distinguish between a civilian and a terrorist, whether in the West Bank or Jerusalem’s central bus station.

Under my command, the Israel Defense Forces School of Military Law engaged senior commanders to co-develop an interactive training program that addressed the confluence of human dignity and armed conflict. Teaching the soldier how to distinguish between an innocent civilian and a terrorist carrying a suicide bomb belt hidden in a prayer rug or an ambulance is extraordinarily complicated. It is also mandatory. Otherwise both human rights violations and ineffective counterterrorism will rule the day.

The great battles of the past were conducted on large battlefields. The enemy wore a uniform, was readily identified, carried his weapon openly and represented a nation-state. Military training was very much “within the box.” Given the enormous complexity of terrorism and counterterrorism alike, both domestically and globally, today’s training model requires us to think “outside the box.”

The “enemy” may cause unimagined damage in an ever-moving “zone of combat” that extends far beyond the traditional battleground. Whether in Berkeley or Mumbai, Salt Lake City or Mosul, Wichita or, Tel Aviv, the “enemy” does not wear a uniform, generally does not openly carry a weapon and does not represent a nation-state.

In order to prevent loss of innocent life, violations of human rights and waste of public funds, we must develop sophisticated training models to address these profound concerns.

Effective counterterrorism training models must teach our protectors:

– International and domestic law;

– Moral standards in armed conflict;

– International relations and history;

– Cultural norms and sensitivities;

– Language and communication skills.

We must think “outside the box” in developing a worldwide training model that enables our protectors to more effectively protect us. This is a critical first step. And one we need to take today.

Amos N. Guiora is a professor of law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, is speaking on Nov. 15 on legal and policy global perspectives on Counterterrorism at the Santa Clara School of Law, San Jose State University and Stanford University.

This article appeared on page B - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle

View comments to this article online at San Francisco Chronicle.

Cross-posted on the National Security Advisors Blog

Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism

Amos N. Guiora
University of Utah

500 pages. Paperback. ISBN: 978-0-7355-6800-6. With Teacher’s Manual.

About the Book

Author Amos N. Guiora compares the four aspects of counterterrorism-law, policy, intelligence gathering, and operational decisions-from the perspectives of five different countries: the United States, Spain, Russia, Israel, and India. With engaging writing and an interdisciplinary approach, Guiora illuminates a wide variety of timely issues, including interrogation, judicial review, international law, and the proper forum for trying terrorists.

A perfect complement to the study of international law, constitutional law, criminal law, national security law, and counterterrorism, Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism is ideal for anyone seeking insight and a broader perspective on a subject at once national and personal, offering:

• Expertise that draws on first-hand knowledge of law, policy, military operations, and intelligence gathering
• An interdisciplinary approach that examines law, policy, intelligence gathering, and operational decisions in the context of counterterrorism
• Extensive comparative analysis of the counterterrorism efforts of five different nations
• A rich selection of materials that includes case law, policy documents, and case studies
• Highly engaging text supported by simulation exercises and suggested topics for discussion
• Timely coverage of a range of issues from the ethical boundaries of interrogation to judicial review, international law, and the proper forum for trying terrorists

View this online at Aspen Publishers Legal Education.
Cross posted from the National Security Advisors Blog.

Most of us blogging here love International Law— and with that oftentimes comes a love of internatioanl cuisine. In the spirit of that I’ve decided to post a quick video about how to make a mouthwatering dish, courtesy of my good friend Dave Caputo (who I’m hoping becomes a Food Network star someday).

From his description:

Regional/Seasonal cooking, Harvest Sausage and Grapes is the recipe demonstrated in this video. If you are looking for an easy dish that is sure to impress at a wine tasting…this is the perfect dish. We all know that people eat with their eyes first, and this dish is as beautiful on the plate as it tastes. Sweet and Savory is the perfect way to describe this delicious dish! I know that I have what it takes to be the Next Food Network Star…if you agree, let me know!

WATCH the short video HERE 

Fresh off the presses International Criminal Law and Its Enforcement, Cases and Materials.

Beth Van Schaack and Ron Slye provide this description of their new book:

This casebook draws from the jurisprudence of the various international and hybrid criminal tribunals (in The Hague, Tanzania, Sierra Leone, East Timor, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Baghdad, and Cambodia), United Nations bodies (such as the Human Rights Committee), regional human rights institutions, formal domestic courts, alternative or traditional courts (such as the gacaca proceedings in Rwanda), and transitional justice institutions (such as truth commissions). It also draws upon domestic and international jurisprudence involving civil, as opposed to criminal, liability to the extent that such cases are predicated upon tort analogs of international crimes and forms of responsibility such as complicity and command responsibility.

An exciting new entrant to the ever growing field of international criminal law!

(Hat Tip to IntlLawGrrls)

A new site has joined the blogosphere.  The International Law Reporter, run by Professor Jacob Cogan at University of Cincinnati College of Law.  Professor Cogan describes the blog as this:

International Law Reporter is a new blog on scholarship, events, and ideas in international law, international relations, and foreign affairs law.

Looking at the posts thus far it seems to be a definite addition to the RSS reader!

Welcome to the blogosphere International Law Reporter.

I was reading an article in The Washington Post entitled “Troops at Odds with Ethics Standards” and was struck that the Pentagon report issued yesterday regarding ethics and the US military relates to two papers I have written on the subject: “National Objectives in the Hands of Junior Leaders: IDF Experiences in Combating Terror” (co-written with Prof Martha Minow”) and “Teaching Morality in Armed Conflict.”

The Pentagon study addressing the issue of ethics in combat is directly related to my last posting in the Israel Defense Forces when I had command responsibility for the development of the first interactive video teaching soldiers how to conduct themselves in armed conflict with respect to a civilian population. In creating the video I worked closely with junior and senior commanders alike as the issue is one of “command responsibility” and “command influence”. I stress both in my scholarship and lectures in academic conferences and to the military (US and Israel) that morality is another “tool in the commander’s toolbox” in many ways no less significant than traditional operational capability which the Pentagon study confirms.

Teaching morality and ethics during armed conflict to combat units presents unique challenges to both military educators and commanders. However, it must be understood from the outset that the ultimate responsibility of morality and ethics is the commander’s, in terms of both words and action. If the commander is unwilling to go beyond “talking the talk,” or if his actions contradict what he has instructed his forces regarding issues of morality, the potential for violations by his forces are great.

In the context of “armed conflict short of war,” operational considerations have expanded to include subject areas not traditionally associated with military operations and training. However, the reality of modern combat is that states will rarely be engaged in warfare with other states. Rather, states will be engaged in combat with non-state entities, comprised of individuals dressed like innocent civilians.

Accordingly, the tool box of the contemporary junior commander must include skills not critical to the operational success of his predecessor forty years ago. These skills must include an understanding of cultural mores of the local peoples, an ability to communicate on a basic level with the local population, an understanding of morality in armed conflict and of international law, and an appreciation for the power of the media. Furthermore, the junior commander is required to integrate these skills in stressful conditions in a foreign land while facing a hostile, local population.

I’ll be joining the faculty at Penn State this Fall where I’ll be teaching Civil Procedure, so I’ve been following the Civil Procedure Prof Blog lately.  Jeremy Counseller links to a story I sent his way that has recently made it into the news.

The short version is this:   Roy Pearson dropped his pants off at his local cleaner for alterations, the cost of the alterations $10.50, Pearson’s demand, $65,462,500.  Not surprisingly, Pearson is a lawyer.  (He’s also an administrative law judge, bio here).   What specifically are Pearson’s damages, well according to the article:

he deserves millions for the damages he suffered by not getting his pants back, for his litigation costs, for “mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort,” for the value of the time he has spent on the lawsuit, for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years and for a replacement suit, according to court papers.

According to DCIST, the case is scheduled for June.  Here’s the bleg, if you come across the pleadings– please send them my way.  I’d like to use this as a fun example in class this Fall.