by Amos Guiora

by Amos Guiora

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.

Friday, October 26th, 2007 3:43 pm | Posted in: Law Blog, Counterterrorism, Teaching | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This

Payment Successful

by Lara – Blog What? Design

Thank you! Your payment was successful.

Friday, October 19th, 2007 2:56 pm | Posted in: Law Blog | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This

2007 Book & Article Awards Announced for AIDP

by Michael Kelly

The AIDP (American National Section) has awarded a Book of the Year Award and an Article of the Year Award at its Annual Meeting in October every year since 2003. As winner of last year’s Book of the Year Award, I was asked to serve as Chair of the three-person Committee which selected the winners of this year’s awards. The three finalists for 2007 Book of the Year Award were “War Crimes and Just War” by Larry May; “Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law” by Mark Drumbl; and “Saddam on Trial: Understanding and Debating the Iraqi High Tribunal” by Michael Scharf and Greg McNeal.

And the winner of the 2007 Book of the Year Award was … “Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law” by Mark Drumbl. In addition, I am pleased to announce that the winner of the 2007 Article of the Year Award was “From the eXile Files: An Essay on Trading Justice for Peace,” 63 Washington and Lee Law Review 339 (2006), by Michael Scharf. Congratulations to Mark and Michael on their scholarly achievement.

Thursday, October 18th, 2007 3:15 pm | Posted in: Law Blog | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This

New GITMO Prosecutor

by Greg McNeal

Colonel Larry Morris has been appointed Chief Prosecutor for the Department of Defense Offiice of Military Commissions.

Colonel Morris, currently the Chief of Trial Defense Services for the Army JAG Corps served on the inter-service team responsible for developing rules and strategies for trying suspected terrorists by military commissions, expertise which I’m sure will serve him well in his new position.

Losing Colonel Davis was a big loss for the prosecution, but it looks like the Department of Defense has made the right choice by appointing someone from outside the convening authority’s office who also has military commissions expertise. Coming from the Trial Defense side of the house is an extra bonus (although most JAGs frequently shift from one side of the v. to the other throughout their career).

Congratulations to Colonel Morris.

Full bio here.

Monday, October 15th, 2007 9:53 am | Posted in: Law Blog, International Criminal Law, Counterterrorism, International Humanitarian Law | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This


by Greg McNeal

This story is sure to make you uncomfortable:

In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers – including Spc. Jimenez – were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the “Triangle of Death.”

Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.

* * * * *

A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers – obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance – cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.

Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

* * * *

“The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law,” a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.

“How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?” he asked. “It should be zero.”

The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied.

More here 

Monday, October 15th, 2007 9:39 am | Posted in: Law Blog, Counterterrorism | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This

Laura Dickinson

by Laura Dickinson

Laura Dickinson Professor of Law

University of Connecticut School of Law

Laura A. Dickinson is a Professor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, where she has taught since 2001. During the 2006-07 academic year, Dickinson was a Visiting Research Scholar and Visiting Professor in the Law and Public Affairs Program at Princeton University. A graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, she subsequently served as a senior policy adviser to Harold Hongju Koh, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the U.S. Department of State. In addition, she served as a law clerk to Justices Harry A. Blackmun and Stephen G. Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court, and to Judge Dorothy Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Dickinson’s work, which has focused on transitional justice, legal responses to terror, foreign affairs privatization, and the interrelationship between international and domestic law, includes: “Public Values/Private Contract,” in Outsourcing the U.S. (Jody Freeman & Martha Minow eds., Harvard Univ. Press, forthcoming 2007); “Legal Regulation of Private Military Contractors, the New Mercenaries,” in International Criminal Law (Cherif Bassiouni ed., forthcoming 2007); “Contract as a Tool for Regulating Private Military Companies,” in Mercenaries to Market (Simon Chesterman and Chia Lenhardt, eds., Oxford University Press forthcoming 2007); “Public Law Values in a Privatized World,” 31 Yale J. Int’l L. 384 (2006), (selected for inclusion in Yale/Stanford Junior Faculty Forum); “Government for Hire: Privatizing Foreign Affairs and the Problem of Accountability in International Law,” 47 Wm & Mary L. Rev. 135 (2005) (selected for inclusion in American Society of International Law (ASIL) “new voices” panel); “Terrorism and the Limits of Law: the View from Transitional Justice,” in Terrorism and the Limits of Law (Austin Sarat et al. eds., Stanford University Press, 2005); “The Promise of Hybrid Courts,” 97 Am. J. Int’l L. 295 (2003); “The Dance of Complementarity: Relationships Among Domestic, International, and Transnational Accountability Mechanisms in East Timor and Indonesia,” in Accountability For Atrocities: National and International Responses (Jane Stromseth ed., Transnational Press 2003); and “Using Legal Process to Fight Terrorism: Detentions, Military Commissions, International Tribunals, and the Rule of Law,” 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1407 (2002).

In addition, Dickinson is the editor of an essay collection on Empirical Approaches to International Law, recently published by Ashgate, and is a co-editor of International Law Stories, to be published by Foundation Press. Dickinson is also a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations and co-organizer of a Collaborative Research Network on Empirical Approaches to International Human Rights Law, convened under the auspices of the Law & Society Association. Dickinson’s current work-in-progress is a monograph entitled Outsourcing War and Peace. This book focuses on the increasing privatization of military functions, foreign aid, and diplomacy, the impact of such privatization on the efficacy of international human rights law, and the possibility that alternative mechanisms (such as contract, tort, and trust) could be used to help ensure accountability over private actors working abroad under government contracts.

Saturday, October 13th, 2007 11:19 pm | Posted in: Law Blog | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This

US Congressional Committee Approves Armenian Genocide Resolution

by Greg McNeal

Well this is about time and a welcomed measure. It’s my sense that claims this will “damage relations” with Turkey and Iraq are overblown, but I suppose time will tell.

The House of Representatives foreign affairs committee has approved a non-binding resolution calling the massacre of Armenians nearly a century ago a genocide. The vote was 27 to 21. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill, President Bush and senior officials in his administration strongly oppose the measure, saying it will damage relations with Turkey and set back U.S. efforts in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.”


Wednesday, October 10th, 2007 6:15 pm | Posted in: Law Blog, Public International Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This

Poor Excuses for Bad Practice

by Amos Guiora

The following is an op-ed written by the East Valley Tribune – Mesa, AZ, USA regarding the 2005 White House memo concerning torture.  

October 8, 2007 – 8:33PM

Poor excuses for bad practice

Tribune Editorial

After publicly renouncing torture as a tool against terror, it turns out the Bush administration secretly reserved the right to do so.

In 2002, the administration announced that al-Qaida prisoners were not subject to international law against the torture of captives. Later that year, the administration produced a legal opinion authorizing the CIA to use interrogation techniques that stopped short of the sort of pain caused by serious physical injury, organ failure or death. This was our government talking.

There was enormous public outcry when the opinion became public in 2004, and it was quickly rescinded. The Justice Department stated: “Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms.” It is dismaying that the government felt it had to say what most us believe is self-evident. But the Bush administration couldn’t bring itself to relinquish its self-delegated power to treat prisoners as it saw fit.

According to The New York Times, in early 2005, soon after Alberto Gonzales became attorney general, the Justice Department drafted a secret opinion authorizing the CIA to use such brutal interrogation techniques as simulated drowning, stress positions, head slaps, sleep deprivation and sustained loud noise.

Late that same year, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act, which President Bush ultimately supported, banning the “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of prisoners. But, according to the Times, the Justice Department secretly drafted another memo reinterpreting the law so that the CIA’s harsher techniques were effectively exempted.

Disclosure of the two secret memos has caused a storm in Congress, where many lawmakers feel that the Bush administration once again told it one thing and did another. The practical effect of the outcry is that Michael Mukasey, Bush’s nominee to succeed Gonzales, faces rough questioning about his views on torture from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush defended the interrogation methods on the grounds that they work. But Amos Guiora, a law professor at the University of Utah and a former counterterrorism expert for the Israeli Defense Forces, reminded us recently that torture has failed time and again to deliver reliable intelligence – despite what we see on television and in the movies. A tortured suspect usually tells their captors what they want to hear to escape the pain, not what the suspect actually knows.

No president should be subverting a law that he signed forbidding an immoral and ineffective practice, and then invoking national security to justify his secretive actions.

Cross posted from the National Security Advisors Blog

Tuesday, October 9th, 2007 2:44 pm | Posted in: Law Blog, International Criminal Law, Counterterrorism, International Human Rights Law | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This


by Dorean Koenig

President Bush stated myth as fact when he called 9/11 an “unprecedented attack on our soil” (Nov. 8, 2006). This myth is that the mainland has never been attacked before. The greatest irony is that the term “patriot” is used in enunciating this myth while the myth obliterates the very attacks on American soil that were suffered and which forged the enduring values of our country. These tribulations on our soil set the stage for the drafting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. American Patriots faced overwhelming odds in attacks from the 50,000 British troops sent to put down the establishment of a new nation. As well, 30,000 Hessians, Scots Highlanders and other hired mercenaries poured into America by sea and through Canada in 1775-76. When, late in the Revolutionary War, the Americans were being routed from New York, the British burned and the Hessians ransacked dwellings. One British soldier wrote that the Hessians used bayonets to “put all to death that fell into their hands.” In that one battle, more than 1,000 patriots died. Early on, the Americans lost the historic battle at Bunker Hill and 14,000 British troops and 5000 British sympathizers occupied Boston for 10 months. This was followed by attacks, often successful for the British, along the Eastern Seaboard, including Falmouth, Long Island, Lake Champlain, Newport, Princeton, and Danbury. Cities were burned and occupied by the enemy. Just before the beginning of the Revolutionary War, John Adams, the future president, intervened on behalf of the young British soldiers arrested for the Boston Massacre. Adams believed that human rights demanded fair treatment of prisoners, a trial, and counsel, even for the enemy. He insisted on serving free as their counsel.

Habeas corpus, a right guaranteed in the Constitution is essentially eliminated in the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which sets up what has been described as a “kangaroo court” for non-citizens at Guantanamo. The newly reintroduced Restoration of Habeas Corpus Bill sponsored by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Arlen Specter, R-Pa. should be passed. This bill will restore judicial procedure for prisoners caught in indefinite summary detention. [Excerpted from Koenig in Lansing State Journal, 9/23/07.]

Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 11:18 am | Posted in: Law Blog | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This

Ahmadinejad and Support of Non-State Armed Groups

by Greg McNeal

Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Columbia University caused quite a bit of controversy. Although his responses to questions about human rights, the absence of homosexuals in the Islamic Republic, and the need to revisit the research behind the holocaust were somewhat amusing and perhaps revealing; the questions he did not answer are particularly noteworthy.

Specifically, how does he reconcile a claim to peacefulness and also want to wipe Israel off the map? Why doesn’t he fully cooperate with the UN with respect to his nuclear facilities? And why does Iran continue to support armed groups as a cornerstone of its foreign policy?

Regarding the latter, while a great deal of attention is given to Iranian involvement in the Iraq conflict, the comprehensiveness of Iran’s support to armed groups worldwide is often overlooked. In a recently posted article, “Veiled Impunity: Iran’s Use of Non-State Armed Groups,” Keith Petty examines the legal underpinnings of Iran’s support of armed groups and the legitimate threat this policy poses (full disclosure, I’ve worked with Keith on counterterrorism issues, he’s a bright legal scholar, an Iraq veteran and previously worked on international criminal law issues at the ICTY so he knows his stuff). Keith’s article focuses primarily on Iran’s backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, and Mahdi’s Army in Iraq, and the threat these groups pose to their host States. Keith writes:

“Surprisingly, Iran’s use of non-state armed groups as an extension of its foreign policy has not met significant deterrence. Many still believe that aggression can only be committed when a State openly attacks another State with military force, a misperception of jus ad bellum law. This paper suggests a closer analysis of what constitutes unlawful aggression under international law. Specifically, the issue is whether State support of non-state armed groups as a means of threatening the territorial integrity or political independence of another State constitutes unlawful aggression.”

International law supports defining Iran’s support to these groups as unlawful aggression. Mr. Petty states that there may be “an ‘effective control’ or ‘acknowledgement’ basis for imputing [the armed groups’] actions to Iran as required by the Nicaragua and Hostage cases [of the ICJ]. Further support is found in General Assembly Resolution 3314, which classifies the “sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, as an act of unlawful aggression.”

In spite of these standards, Iran’s support likely will not fit classic understandings of unlawful aggression, particularly where that finding would lead to the authorization of the use of force. He goes on to recommend timely deterrence options short of armed force, and proposes a mixed-bag of policy proscriptions.

Keith sums up his multi-faceted approach stating: “It is uncertain whether Iran’s support of non-state armed groups is tantamount to aggression vis-à-vis the host States [of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Mahdi’s Army]. The need to deter Iran’s conduct, however, is clear. While coercive measures have been considered, these are unlikely to be effective. For one, the use of force seems disproportionate to Iran’s more sophisticated, clandestine operations within the target States. As mentioned above, outright armed force has not been Iran’s policy. Rather, an equally sophisticated and multi-faceted approach is required to deter Iran’s foreign policy objectives.”

Such a timely piece is definitely worth the download and is sure to be cited by many. Full text available here:

Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 8:27 am | Posted in: Law Blog, Public International Law, International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law | Trackback | 0 Comments
 Print This Post | Share This