Happy 2016 From Military Legitimacy Review!
Merry Christmas From Military Legitimacy Review’s Home
“Americans Held Hostage in Iran Win Compensation 36 Years Later” – NYT 24 DEC 15
Buried in the omnibus spending bill signed into law last week are provisions to give each of the former hostages or their estates up to $4.4 million.
HOW ROGUE TECHIES ARMED THE PREDATOR, ALMOST STOPPED 9/11, AND ACCIDENTALLY INVENTED REMOTE WAR
ARTHUR HOLLAND MICHEL WIRED MAGAZINE DATE OF PUBLICATION: 12.17.15.
12.17.15
TIME OF PUBLICATION: 7:00 AM.
7:00 AM
See also:
A book that came out a year and two months prior to this article: Richard Whittle’s interesting Predator book which had many of these details – and more:
For archival documents, see
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB484
UAVs have been used since the 19th C to drop ordnance; one of the first recorded usages of drones was by Austrians on August 22, 1849. They launched some 200 pilotless balloons mounted with bombs against the city of Venice. And less than two decades later, balloons were flown in the U.S. Civil War in 1862, with both Confederate and Union forces using them for reconnaissance and bombing sorties. Numerous WWI, II and later weaponizations of aircraft to become what we might now term UCAVs would be for the historians among us to appreciate.
For drone / UCAV use in targeted killing, see
Targeted Killings- Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/targeted-killings-9780199646487?cc=us&lang=en&
And with respect to the targeted killing of bin Laden (with UAV mission support but ground action) in particular:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083584
“The military’s real problem: Fewer Americans are joining” – Politico 15 DEC 15
http://www.politico.com/agenda/the-militarys-real-problem-fewer-americans-are-joining-000005
When I was a commander in Iraq, many of my men were unfit for the battlefield. My unit needed them anyway.
By John Spencer
12/15/15 06:40 AM EST
And see also:
Ready, Willing, And Unable To Serve – 75 Percent of Young Adults Cannot Join the Military Early Education across America is Needed to Ensure National Security:
http://cdn.missionreadiness.org/NATEE1109.pdf
Today in History – The General Framework Agreement for Peace, widely known as Dayton Accords, was formally signed in Paris on December 14, 1995
Today in History – December 14, 1995, The General Framework Agreement for Peace, widely known as Dayton Accords, was reached on November 21, 1995 and formally signed in Paris on December 14. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the early 1990s was the worst conflict in Europe since 1945. The indecisiveness of the United Nations and NATO over the nature of the war and lack of common vision between the European Union and the United States prolonged the bloodshed. In late 1995, however, several developments on the ground and pressure from Congress provoked the US in to finally taking a determined lead and pushing for a military intervention. That intervention would be the NATO-led Implementation Force (IFOR).
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oODjsdLoSYo&sns=em
and see:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/Lessons-Learned_Balkans.pdf
and see:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_96-8_toc.htm
Human rights and security in US history – OUPBlog 9 DEC 15
http://blog.oup.com/2015/12/human-rights-and-security-in-us-history/
BY KEVIN GOVERN DECEMBER 9TH 2015
This Human Rights Day, commemorating the 10 December 1948 proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we embark on a year-long observance of the 50th anniversary of the two International Covenants on Human Rights: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966. Together these documents form an International Bill of Human Rights, the birthright of all human beings with respect to civil, political, cultural, economic, and social rights.
The United States has drawn world focus on rights and freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear – often in the context of preserving and promoting human rights through strong national and homeland security efforts, and requisite defense support to civil authorities, in the wake of natural and man-made disasters threatening each of those rights and freedoms.
Defense support of civil authorities must be considered in light of an evolution, rather than revolution, involving over a century of domestic federal troop deployments and 200-plus years of legal precedent, starting with the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 as the basis for Federal government support, including Department of Defense assistance, to State and local authorities, as well as the 10th Amendment, inasmuch as “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, are reserved to the States respectively.”
The Insurrection Act of 1807 was one of the first and most important US laws still in force on this subject to limit executive authority to conduct military law enforcement on US soil, and was followed some 71 years later by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Each of those and other civil support laws has evolved over time — consistent with the times and the popular will expressed through Congress.
Amongst the many lessons re-learned or real-world experiences validated, US interagency cooperation demonstrates that after state and local authorities had reached their capacity in dealing with previous disasters, additional federal authorities may have to assist local authorities with response to civil unrest and other challenges. Months after the disastrous effects of the October 2012 Superstorm Sandy, and weeks prior to the devastating 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, the Summer 2013 El Reno tornado in Oklahoma, and the wildfires in both Arizona and Colorado, the US Department of Defense (DOD) issued a DoD instruction and a strategy document clarifying the rules for the involvement of military forces in civilian law enforcement and DOD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances. This is especially important in the realm of so-called complex catastrophes that would overwhelm local and state agencies individually and require federal agency involvement with the DOD supporting an overall effort.
Thereafter, during the Spring of 2014, another series of domestic natural disasters included deadly severe storms, tornadoes and flooding; in the aftermath of destruction, National Guard members worked, “in coordinated efforts with civilian agencies … responding to communities in several states across the south.”
At least 62,000 unaccompanied children from Central America have come across the US-Mexico border from the Fall of 2013 up through the time of this writing; they were believed fleeing gang activity that could threaten to US national security. In defense support to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the unaccompanied children stopped by US Border Patrol are now being cared for by HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF).
Aside from the aforementioned bases for support, Section 1208 of the 1990 National Defense Authorization Act (later titled Section 1033, which subsequently became Section 2576a), has allowed the Secretary of Defense to transfer to Federal and State agencies personal property of the DOD, including small arms and ammunition, suitable for use by such agencies in counter-drug activities and excess to DOD needs. Since its inception, the “1033 program” has transferred more than $5.1 billion worth of property. Critics of the program, such as the ACLU, claimed “a disturbing range of military gear [is] being transferred to civilian police departments nationwide.” This “1033 program,” coupled with National Guard deployment in Ferguson, MO, became the subject of critical media focus in the wake of police response to riots in August 2014 following the police shooting of crime suspect Mike Brown. Thereafter, President Obama issued the 16 January 2015 Executive Order 13688, which, along with the 18 May 2015 Law Enforcement Working Group Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order 13688, directs executive departments and agencies to better coordinate their efforts to operate and oversee the provision of controlled equipment and funds for controlled equipment to law enforcement agencies.
The FBI has aptly observed that “[t]here’s no room for failure—when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, even a single incident could be catastrophic.” Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the Nation in Fall 2012 of a potential coming “cyber Pearl Harbor; an attack that would cause physical destruction and the loss of life … [that] would paralyze and shock the nation and create a new, profound sense of vulnerability.” The policies and legal authorities governing Defense Support to Civil Authorities extend to cyber operations, as they would in any other domain. The Department of Defense works closely with its interagency partners, including the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, to address threats to the United States from wherever they originate and to protect the rights of its citizens from foreign and domestic threats.
As George C. Marshall, the great soldier-statesman remarked in his 23 September 1948 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, “in the modern world the association of free men within a free state is based upon the obligation of citizens to respect the rights of their fellow citizens. And the association of free nations in a free world is based upon the obligation of all states to respect the rights of other nations.”
Kevin Govern is an Associate Professor of Law at Ave Maria School of Law. He is a contributing author to U.S. Military Operations: Law, Policy, and Practice and co-editor of Cyberwar: Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts. Kevin was a US Army Judge Advocate, serving 20 years at every echelon during peacetime and war in worldwide assignments involving every legal discipline. Presently, in addition to teaching, he serves as an Executive Board Member for the University of Pennsylvania Law School Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL), a non-partisan interdisciplinary institute dedicated to the preservation and promotion of the rule of law in twenty-first century warfare and national security.
Image credit: Army Spc. Anthony Monte helps a woman displaced by Hurricane Sandy at an emergency shelter at the Werblin Recreation Center in Piscataway Township, N.J., Oct. 29, 2012. Monte is assigned to the 50th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, New Jersey Army National Guard. Department of Defense. Public domain.
– See more at: http://blog.oup.com/2015/12/human-rights-and-security-in-us-history/#sthash.BNbazJja.dpuf
Penn Law conference explores PTSD among veterans
http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/12/law-school-post-traumatic-stress-order-conference
Interfaith Dialogue Blog From Military Legitimacy Review Founder COL (R) Rudy Barnes Jr. Has Alternate URLs
http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.blogspot.com/?m=1
Or
http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/?m=1
Featured Presentations During Upcoming December 3-5, 2015 Conference on Preventing and Treating the Invisible Wounds of War: Combat Trauma and Psychological Injury
PTS
DEC 3
Sexual Violence and Trauma in Conflict: Rethinking the Cost of War
4:30 pm
Golkin 100, Michael A. Fitts Auditorium
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/events/51474-sexual-violence-and-trauma-in-conflict-rethinking
DEC 4
Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law Keynote Panel: Mental Health Injury as a Cost of War
4:00 pm – 6:00 pm
Golkin 100, Michael A. Fitts Auditorium
https://www.law.upenn.edu/newsevents/calendar.php#event_id/51572/view/event
and see:
https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/cerl/conferences/legalethicalinvisiblewounds/
The Rise of ISIS /Daesh – Various Perspectives
In Rise of ISIS, No Single Missed Key but Many Strands of Blame
The New York Times
By the time the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, it thought it had subdued the Islamic State. The group is now on a very different trajectory. Read the full story at:
https://apple.news/AMlHKWN9DTFeCNDioP4hMqw
Also, for a non-exhaustive Webliography on the rise of ISIS/Daesh, see, e.g.,
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/isil-resources
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/islamic-state/p14811
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R43612.pdf
http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/situating-the-emergence-of-the-islamic-state-of-khorasan
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CTC-The-Group-That-Calls-Itself-A-State-December20141.pdf
http://www.economist.com/search/gcs?ss=ISIS#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=ISIS&gsc.page=1
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=legal+status+Isis+daesh+&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C10&as_sdtp=
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2014/08/28/Prosecution-of-ISIS-poses-challenge-to-intenational-justice.html
https://www.academia.edu/9951214/The_Statehood_of_ISIS_between_practice_international_law_and_religion
http://jurist.org/hotline/2014/07/bilal-khan-force-isis.php
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/09/war_against_isis_in_syria_obama_s_legal_and_political_justifications.html
And for the declassified Judicial Watch-obtained 5 AUG 12 DoD Intelligence Summary on Iraq:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/
And see PBS Frontline’s
The Rise of ISIS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/rise-of-isis/
and
ISIS in Afghanistan:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/isis-in-afghanistan/
In Flanders Fields
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKoJvHcMLfc&sns=em
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place, and in the sky,
The larks, still bravely singing, fly,
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the dead; short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe!
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high!
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
– John McCrae
NATO aims to send clear message with Trident Juncture
Steven Governo/AP
Marines drive their armored vehicle off the beach at Pinheiro da Cruz, Portugal, during a mock amphibious assault with Portuguese troops Oct. 20.
and see:
Upcoming Event: Preventing and Treating the Invisible Wounds of War: Combat Trauma and Psychological Injury
December 4-5, 2015
Contact Info:
cerl@law.upenn.edu
https://www.law.upenn.edu/newsevents/calendar.php#event_id/50177/view/event
Preventing and Treating the Invisible Wounds of War: Combat Trauma and Psychological Injury
Time: All Day (until December 5)
Location: Penn Law, Silverman 147
By invitation only. Details TBA later this year.
JURIST – A Sino-American Cyber Security Agreement: Crisis Composed of Danger and Opportunity?
http://jurist.org/forum/2015/09/Kevin-Govern-cyber-security.php
and see
http://militarylegitimacyreview.com/?p=1256
US, China reach deal on cyber-theft amid hacking accusations
Published time: 25 Sep, 2015 21:15
Edited time: 25 Sep, 2015 21:17
U.S. President Barack Obama (R) and first lady Michelle Obama (2ndL) wave from the White House balcony with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan during an official State Visit in Washington September 25, 2015 © Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
After months of US allegations that the Chinese have been launching hack attacks, US President Barack Obama says he and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, have reached a “common understanding” on cyber spying issues.
“We’ve agreed that neither the US government nor the Chinese government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property including trade secrets or other confidential business information for commercial advantage,” Obama said Friday, adding that the agreement is “progress.”
See http://www.rt.com/usa/316539-us-china-deal-security/
And see http://opiniojuris.org/2015/09/22/book-symposium-cyber-war-introduction/
Forthcoming Soon (December 2015): U.S. Military Operations Law, Policy, and Practice
U.S. Military OperationsLaw, Policy, and Practice $150.00 |
|
Geoffrey S. Corn, Rachel E. VanLandingham, Shane R. Reeves… 9780199328574 |
|
U.S. Military OperationsLaw, Policy, and Practice $69.95 |
Geoffrey S. Corn, Rachel E. VanLandingham, Shane R. Reeves…
9780190456634
Paperback
01 December 2015
https://global.oup.com/academic/search?q=VanLandingham&cc=us&lang=en
“China’s Communist Party Hails Its Own Legitimacy Amid Online Skepticism” And Contemporary Context
Chinese President Hu Jintao (Centre L) and former President Jiang Zemin (Centre R) with members of the Presidium raise the hands during the closing ceremony of the Party Congress at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on November 14, 2012. China’s Communist Party will on November 15 unveil the new set of top leaders who will run the country for the next decade, one day after its week-long congress ends. AFP PHOTO/Mark RALSTON (Photo credit should read MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)China’s Communist Party Hails Its Own Legitimacy Amid Online Skepticism
Web users and academics cast doubt on the official claim, citing lack of free speech and popular representation.
By
and see:
A Chinese attack targeted personal emails of “all top [U.S.] national security” officials just days after a “spear-phishing” attack of suspected Russian origin on the Pentagon’s joint staff email system, which exposed some 4,000 civilian and military employees.
and see:
A Chinese delegation met with representatives from the FBI, the intelligence community and the state, treasury and justice departments for a “frank and open exchange about cyber issues” in advance of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s October visit to the U.S., and the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told the House intelligence committee the next phase of escalating online data theft most likely will involve the manipulation of digital information, with a lower likelihood of a “cyber Armageddon” of digitally triggered damage to catastrophically damage physical infrastructure.
National September 11 Memorial & Museum
http://www.911memorial.org/national-september-11-memorial-museum
National September 11 Memorial & Museum
The National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center Foundation, Inc. began formal operations in the spring of 2005 and worked with the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation on the design and construction management plan. In the summer of 2006, the organization assumed responsibility for overseeing the design and working with The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), the construction manager on the project.
In the beginning of October 2006, the Honorable Michael R. Bloomberg, the 108th Mayor of New York City, became Chair of the Foundation’s Board of Directors. Following the election of the Mayor as Chairman, the Foundation named Joseph C. Daniels as President. Initially the Foundation’s General Counsel, Mr. Daniels served as Acting President for five months before accepting the permanent post in the fall of 2006.
Critical Global Conversations: Iran’s Nuclear Chess: After the Deal; Thursday, September 17, 2015
Iran’s Nuclear Chess: After the Deal
Sponsored by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law and International Programs
Thursday
September 17 Fitts Auditorium 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
Please join us for a vital conversation on the Iran Nuclear Deal
PANELISTS
General (ret) James “Hoss” Cartwright
Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), and the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Dr. Haleh Esfandiari
Public Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and the Founding Director of the Center’s Middle East Program
Professor David S. Jonas
Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University Law Center and George Washington University Law School, and the former General Counsel of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Dr. Robert Litwak
Vice President for Scholars and Director of International Security Studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and the Former Director for Nonproliferation at the National Security Council
MODERATOR
Professor Claire Finkelstein
Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law, University of Pennsylvania
Followed by cocktail reception
RSVP for this event
https://www.law.upenn.edu/newsevents/calendar.php#event_id/50737/view/event
BBC News Magazine: Who, What, Why: When is it legal to kill your own citizens?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34184856
Who, What, Why
The Magazine answers the questions behind the news
8 September 2015
From the section Magazine
Who, What, Why: When is it legal to kill your own citizens? Two British jihadists were killed by an RAF drone strike in Syria.
For a related article, see, e.g.,
Govern, Kevin H., Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective? (Chapter 13) (April 1, 2012). Targeted Killings Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, Editors: Claire Finkelstein, Jens Ohlin, and Andrew Altman (Oxford University Press, 2012). Available at SSRN:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083584
Bowe Bergdahl faces life in prison after facing rare charge of ‘misbehaviour before the enemy’
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/bowe-bergdahl-faces-life-prison-6401555
Image: Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, before his capture by the Taliban in Afghanistan
Bergdahl went missing from his post in Afghanistan on June 30, 2009. He was the only US service member known to be held captive there. Bergdahl was freed May 31, 2014 in exchange for five Taliban inmates held at the Guantanamo prison in a dramatic deal brokered by Qatar. U.S. Army via AFP – Getty Images file
UPDATE 14 DEC 15:
Bowe Bergdahl to Face Court-Martial on Desertion Charges
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
DECEMBER 14, 2015
A top Army commander on Monday ordered that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl face a court-martial on charges of desertion and endangering troops stemming from his decision to leave his outpost in 2009, a move that prompted a huge manhunt in the wilds of eastern Afghanistan and landed him in nearly five years of harsh Taliban captivity.
The decision by Gen. Robert B. Abrams, head of Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C., means that Sergeant Bergdahl, 29, faces a possible life sentence. That is a far more serious penalty than had been recommended by the Army’s investigating officer, who testified at the sergeant’s preliminary hearing in September that prison would be “inappropriate.”
According to Sergeant Bergdahl’s defense lawyers, the Army lawyer who presided over the preliminary hearing also recommended that he face neither jail time nor a punitive discharge and that he go before an intermediate tribunal known as a “special court-martial,” where the most severe penalty possible would be a year of confinement.
UPDATE
Added on 3:04 PM ET, Sun December 20, 2015
Bowe Bergdahl to be arraigned Tuesday (22 DEC 15)
http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/12/20/bowe-bergdahl-arraignment-preview-valencia-pkg.cnn
5th Edition Forthcoming Soon Of Leading Text on Private Security And The Law
Private Security and the Law, 4th Edition
21 Oct 2011
Butterworth-Heinemann
9780123869227
9780123869234
640
A comprehensive analysis of private security case law, regulatory oversight, administrative procedures and statutes, with a fresh look at recent developments!
Select format
Print Book
Hardcover
In Stock
Estimated Delivery Time
eBook
eBook Overview
VST (VitalSource Bookshelf) format
The Quiet Demise of the Army’s Plan to Understand Afghanistan and Iraq
A Milestone for Justice in Africa
On Monday [20 JUL 15], a landmark trial began that could herald a new era of justice and accountability in Africa. The former president of Chad, Hissène Habré, is being tried over atrocities committed during his rule in a new court set up in Senegal under the legal principle of universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity.
A truth commission in Chad found that more than 40,000 people were killed and thousands more tortured during Mr. Habré’s eight-year regime, which ended with his ouster in 1990.
This is the first time a court in one country will try the former leader of another country for alleged crimes against humanity. Victims in Chad and their advocates fought for over two decades to bring Mr. Habré to justice. Along the way, they had to overcome a series of legal hurdles, including stalling by Chad’s courts and the reluctance by Senegal, where Mr. Habré had taken refuge, to extradite him to Belgium, where a judge issued a warrant for his arrest in 2005.
In 2012, after a new government was elected in Senegal, the International Court of Justice at The Hague ordered Senegal to put Mr. Habré on trial or send him to Belgium. In 2013, Mr. Habré was finally arrested by the police in Senegal, and Senegal and the African Union together created the new Extraordinary African Chambers where Mr. Habré’s case is being heard. Although the trial was suspended the day after it began to allow Mr. Habré’s court-appointed lawyers to prepare his defense, it is to resume in September and expected to last several months.
Mr. Habré did not come quietly to his first day of reckoning — he had to be hustled out of court on Monday after he and supporters in the courtroom began yelling in protest — and advocates for justice in Chad have been subject to relentless intimidation. The Chadian lawyer Jacqueline Moudeina, who played a crucial role in holding Mr. Habré accountable, barely survived a grenade attack in Chad in 2001.
Mr. Habré’s pursuers had important allies, though. International human rights groups, especially Human Rights Watch, helped gather critical evidence and raise international awareness. Chad, the European Union, the African Union, the United States, France and other European countries contributed financing for the new court.
This is a transformative moment for justice in Africa, and the public will be able to witness it firsthand. Excerpts from the proceedings are to be broadcast on television and radio in Chad. Not only will the trial cast much needed light on a brutal chapter in the country’s history, it will also send an important message to the continent’s strongmen: murderous regimes will not go unpunished.
[for related articles by the MLR’s EIC, see Govern, Kevin H., Warrant Based Targeting: Prosecution-Oriented Capture and Detention as Legal and Moral Alternatives to Targeted Killing. Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2012) (published 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2279704 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2279704, and see Govern, Kevin H., Smart Power for Hard Problems: The Role of Special Operation Forces Strengthening the Rule of Law and Human Rights in Africa (July 10, 2013). 1 U. Balt. J. Int’l L. 154 et. seq. (2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2292716, and see Kevin H., 21st Century Africa as an ‘Arc of (In)Stability’: U.S. And African Economic, Security, and Development Policies Advanced Through U.S. Africa Command Initiatives (2011). Connecticut Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 281, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2093440]
Upcoming Conference – Southeastern Association of Law Schools July 27-August 2
The next annual meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools will be held July 27-August 2 at The Boca Resort in Boca Raton, FL. Registration is still open.
http://sealslawschools.org
Monday, July 27
9:30 AM –
12:00 PM
Discussion Group: Policing Police & Soldiers
Police and soldiers operate with some level of separation from the communities they police and protect. The right level of separation, however, is difficult to identify and somewhat situational. In the last year, the sexual assault crisis and the outcry following the reported events in Ferguson, Missouri caused Americans to re-evaluate separate military justice and the lack of integration between police and the communities they serve. Finding the right level of separation for these government servants is a shared dilemma of every community in the world. We will compare the laws, policies and methods of states, communities, and international bodies regarding the relationship between law enforcement, the military, and the local populace.
Moderator: Professor Richard Meyer, Mississippi College School of Law
Discussants: Professor Eric Carpenter, Florida International University College of Law; Professor Steven Friedland, Elon University School of Law; Professor Kevin Govern, Ave Maria School of Law; Professor Elizabeth Ludwin King, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law; Professor David Ritchie, Mercer University Law School; Professor Ronald Rychlak, The University of Mississippi School of Law; Professor Morse Tan, Northern Illinois University College of Law; Professor Russell Weaver, University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law
Thursday, July 30
10:15 AM –
12:00 PM
WORKSHOP ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Congressional Force Authorization: Constitutional Necessity or Nicety?
President Obama’s decision to fight the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL) renewed longstanding debates about war powers in the U.S. constitutional scheme. The Administration welcomed congressional authorization for its military campaign against ISIL, yet also claimed pre-existing authority based on the 2001 Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the wake of 9/11, and the 2002 AUMF with respect to Iraq.
A year after the first strikes, this panel will assess the Administration’s actions in the context of the War Powers Act, the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, any subsequent authorizations, and inherent Article II powers. The panel will address whether congressional authorization for military action against ISIL and/or additional terrorist threats is constitutionally necessary, advisable, or unwise.
Moderator: Professor Kate Shaw, Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Speakers: Professor Jennifer Daskal, American University, Washington College of Law; Professor Kevin Govern, Ave Maria School of Law; Professor Martin Lederman, Georgetown University Law Center; Professor William Marshall, University of North Carolina School of Law; Professor Andrew Wright, Savannah Law School
Syrian Rebel Train and Equip Program Update
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ash-carter-syrian-rebel-training-119812.html
By Austin Wright and Philip Ewing
7/7/15 4:11 PM EDT
Updated 7/7/15 10:36 PM E
AP Photo
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ash-carter-syrian-rebel-training-119812.html#ixzz3fVRbSqmF
Defense Secretary Ash Carter caused a stir Tuesday when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the $500 million program to train and equip “moderate” Syrian rebels to take on the Islamic State had so far yielded just 60 vetted candidates.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ash-carter-syrian-rebel-training-119812.html#ixzz3fVROgWPf
The Warrior’s Bible – New Publication
https://www.agts.edu/news/news_archives/2015_01warriors_bible.html
The Warrior’s Bible is specifically designed to help the military community (warriors, family, and friends) understand and apply the timeless truths of God’s Word to daily life. From cover to cover, this Bible speaks in language that connects with military people about things that really matter.
The Warrior’s Bible also speaks volumues to any individual, church, educational institution, or other organization seeking to understand the unique challenges faced by our brave citizens and family members who sacrifice to keep our nation safe.
Religious Dialogue Website From MLR Founder COL (R) Barnes:
http://www.jesusmeetsmuhammad.com/?m=1
May 2, 2015: 4th Anniversary of Bin Laden Targeted Killing – A Retrospective On Military Legitimacy
Govern, Kevin H., Operation Neptune Spear: Was Killing Bin Laden a Legitimate Military Objective? (Chapter 13) (April 1, 2012). Targeted Killings Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, Editors: Claire Finkelstein, Jens Ohlin, and Andrew Altman (Oxford University Press, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2083584
CERL presents Sarah Chayes, “Counterproductive Coalitions”
Sarah Chayes
©2014 Kaveh Sardari
Map
Contact Info:
cerl@law.upenn.edu
CERL presents Sarah Chayes, “Counterproductive Coalitions”
Time: 4:30pm – 6:00pm
Location: Golkin 100, Michael A. Fitts Auditorium
The Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law presents “Counterproductive Coalitions”. This event will be held at the University of Pennsylvania Law School at 4:30 pm; followed by a cocktail reception with a book signing. This event is open to the public. Books will be available for purchase.
Sarah Chayes, author of Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security, served as special assistant to the top U.S. military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. She participated in Cabinet-level decision-making on Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Arab Spring, traveling with Mullen frequently to the region. He tapped Chayes for the job after her work as special advisor to two commanders of the international troops in Afghanistan (ISAF), Generals David McKiernan and Stanley McChrystal. She contributed her unique knowledge of the Afghan south to the ISAF command.
It was a sense of historic opportunity that prompted Chayes to renounce her journalism career in early 2002, after covering the fall of the Taliban for National Public Radio, and to remain in Afghanistan to help rebuild the country. She chose to settle in the former Taliban heartland, Kandahar.
In 2005, Chayes founded Arghand, a start-up manufacturing cooperative, where men and women working together produce fine skin-care products for export. (www.arghand.org) The goal was to revive the region’s historic role in exporting fruit and its derivatives, to promote sustainable development, and expand alternatives to the opium economy. Running Arghand in downtown Kandahar proved to an extraordinary vantage point for observing the unfolding war.
From 1996-2001, Chayes was NPR Paris correspondent. For her work during the Kosovo crisis, she shared the 1999 Foreign Press Club and Sigma Delta Chi awards.
She is now a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in the Democracy and Rule of Law and South Asia programs. Her work focuses on the security implications of acute corruption.
Along with Thieves of State, Chayes is is the author of The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban (Penguin, 2006) and contributes to The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Foreign Policy, and Defense One among other publications.
This program has been approved for 1.5 ethics credits for Pennsylvania lawyers. CLE credits may be available in other jurisdictions as well. Attendees seeking CLE credit should bring separate payment in the amount of $30.00 cash or check made payable to The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
CLE Reading link: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/4212-cleveland-et-al-trends-in-the-international-fight
The Arab League Joint Military Force – Countering Extremism and Political Instability
The Arab League Joint Military Force – Countering Extremism and Political Instability
Wednesday 1 April 2015 at 7:44 PM ET edited by Yuxin Jiang
JURIST Guest Columnist Kevin Govern, Associate Professor of Law at Ave Maria School of Law, Naples, FL, considers the ramifications of the recent Arab League agreement to form a joint force in the context of historic efforts on joint defense and economic cooperation …
© WikiMedia (Jeff Dahl)
JURIST recently noted the 22-member League of Arab States (a/k/a Arab League) formation of a voluntary but unified military force to oppose growing threats to its members, especially the intensifying instability in Yemen. This effort is consistent not only with the Arab League’s September 2014 resolution to combat extremist groups like the Islamic State (IS), but reflective of 65 years of varied cooperation under the Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation.
During the waning days of World War II, six nations formed the nascent Arab League in Cairo on March 22, 1945; Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (Jordan after 1946), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria. In May 1945, Yemen joined the group, joined as a member on May 5, 1945. Amongst its first security actions, Arab League members Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon invaded Israel during the 1948 War of Independence / Palestine War, and, less formally, Arab volunteers forming the Arab Liberation army joined Arab League forces. While armistice agreements were concluded with Israel, conditions for sustainable peace never resulted especially in light of 400,000 Palestinian Arabs fled from Israel to refugee camps in Arab League nations Lebanon, Syria and Jordan.
By 1950, the six original Arab League nations concluded the Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation, ostensibly to “consolidate relations” between member states, “maintain their independence and their mutual heritage,” and “to cooperate for the realization of mutual defense and the maintenance of security and peace” as well as “consolidate stability and security.” Article 6 of that treaty, then as now, provides for a Joint Defense Counsel, assisted by the Permanent Military Commission under Article 5, to draw up plans of joint defense and their implementation, and by two-thirds majority vote, to bind Contracting States regarding joint defense decisions.
This alliance would be tested some six years later when Israeli forces launched air and ground assaults into Egypt’s Sinai peninsula after Egypt’s first President of the Republic, Gamal Abdal Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Not only did this become an Arab League security matter, but also a proxy conflict with an Anglo-French reinforcement of Israeli gains and Soviet support of Arab demands.
The predecessor to the currently proposed Arab League Military Forces was the Joint Arab Command (a/k/a United or Unified Arab Command), under the guise of the Treaty of Joint Defense and Economic Cooperation, established by the then-thirteen member states of the Arab League during their January 1964 summit in Cairo.
That 1964 summit would also set conditions for future conflict, rather than conflict resolution. That summit gave rise to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) , which would sustain an insurgency in Lebanon, reaching an intense level of conflict in the 1982 War in South Lebanon, and acts of terror and violence in Israel and beyond, until Israel and the PLO agreed to mutual recognition in 1993 in an historic bid for peace.
Two conflicts shortly thereafter would show the Joint Arab Command as ineffective in joint defense. Notwithstanding King Hussein of Jordan’s years of secret meetings with Israeli leaders, and assurances that Israel had no intentions of attacking Jordan, in November 1966, Israel undertook Operation Shredder incursion into the Jordanian-occupied West Bank.
By mutual defense pact, Jordan and Egypt placed the Joint Arab Command under command of the Egyptian military’s chief of staff in May 1967 as both Arab League nations built up forces along their borders with Israel. The June 1967 Six-Day War was marked by simultaneous Israeli attacks against Egypt and Syria, and resultant Israeli gains in the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Arab League member Egypt attacked across the Suez Canal, and Syria maneuvered from the north, in efforts to reclaim territory lost to Israel during the 1967 war. The final 1974 cease-fire resulted in Israel withdrawing back across the Suez Canal and a portion of the East Bank, and relinquishing some territory to Syria.
In the aftermath of the 1967 Six Day War, eight leaders of the Arab League set the conditions for continued strife with Israel with the September 1967 Khartoum Resolution’s Three No’s: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.” The 1978 Camp David Peace Accords between Egypt and Israel resulted in an abiding peace between the two nations but also Egypt’s suspension from the Arab League until its readmission in 1989 and the Arab League headquarters moving to Cairo.
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has lauded the Arab League’s common security consensus over the Saudi-sponsored Arab Peace Initiative in 2002, yet lamented the League’s failure to coordinate its policy over both the 1990-1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War.
In more recent years, the Arab League did not intervene in most of the Arab revolts throughout the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, but called for the UN Security Council to impose a no fly zone over Libya to protect civilians from air attack. Notable recent Arab League changes bode well for stronger, more cohesive efforts with the appointment of the renowned Egyptian diplomat and foreign rights lawyer Nabil Elaraby, and member nations Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates joining as part of the coalition to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973.
The CFR has also noted that since those actions, the Arab League’s efforts towards security included suspending Syrian membership, attempting to broker an agreement with the Assad regime and, for the first time in its history, assembled a team of observers to monitor the implementation of its plan and officially calling for Assad to step down in January 2012 and requested a resolution from the UN Security Council to support this proposal.
Most recently, in March 2015, 14 of the Arab League’s 22 nations assessed the success of ongoing Saudi-led allied air strikes against Shi’a Houthi rebels in Yemen. Those operations are part of a 10-nation military coalition against the coup by Arab League members Morocco, Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE, joined with nonmember Pakistan. The Houthis are seeking to reinstate the ousted past Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was replaced in a February 2012 referendum that formally ushered in Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, previously Yemen’s vice president, into the role of transitional president.
Reports quote US President Barack Obama has reaffirmed his support for the military action taken in Yemen, and Egyptian president Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi saying he “backs calls for a unified Arab force” to confront security threats in the Middle East and North Africa. Yemen’s President-in-exile Abd-Radu Mansour Hadi has said that the Houthis are “Iran’s Puppet” that has “destroyed Yemen with political immaturity.”
In the words of William Shakespeare from his play The Tempest, “What’s past is prologue.” Considering the historic cohesion, or lack thereof, of past Arab League mutual defense efforts, this future Joint Military Force will do well to study past efforts when it faces this new proxy war between a military force led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, against the Houthi militia, whose allies number Iran, Russia and China, as well as future challenges to mutual defense and the maintenance of security and peace. It should also develop capabilities not only for space, sea, land and air, but the fifth dimension of warfare, cyber warfare, since present and future adversaries are likely to pose threats in each of those domains.
Professor Govern began his legal career as an Army Judge Advocate, serving 20 years at every echelon during peacetime and war in worldwide assignments involving every legal discipline. In addition to currently teaching at Ave Maria School of Law he has also served as an Assistant Professor of Law at the United States Military Academy and teaches at California University of Pennsylvania and John Jay College. Unless otherwise attributed, the conclusions and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, or Ave Maria School of Law.
Suggested citation: Kevin Govern , The Arab League Joint Military Force – Countering Extremism and Political Instability , JURIST – Academic Commentary, Apr. 1, 2015, http://jurist.org/forum/2015/04/kevin-govern-arab-league.php
PERCEPTIONS OF RISK: How We Manage Emergencies
University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate Symposium
Co-sponsored by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL)
PERCEPTIONS OF RISK:
How We Manage Emergencies
April 1, 2015
3:00 – 5:00 p.m., reception to follow
Fitts Auditorium | University of Pennsylvania Law School
The study of risk management across a variety of domains is an essential part of policymaking today. From public health to national security, market analysis, and natural disaster emergency response, the question of how to assess and to respond to risks is of the utmost importance.
Important questions pertaining to the public perception include:
Does the public perceive risks accurately or are public perceptions distorted by cognitive biases?
Should public perceptions of risk be taken into account in risk management plans even if they seem “irrational”?
Should preparedness for disasters follow the same template as management of more ordinary risks?
Should the management of risk in the public sector differ from that in the private?
Should the risk of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, be handled in the same way as the risk of human threats, such as terrorism or criminal activity?
Does a serious threat that persists over a protracted period of time, such as a daily threat of terrorism, still count as a security emergency?
When are restrictions of civil liberties, such as quarantines or preventive restraint, justified to pre-empt risk of harm to the general public?
The purpose of this Symposium is to foster multi-disciplinary and inter-professional conversation about risk perception and strategies of emergency management. The panelists will engage in a conversation about emergency preparedness and how our perceptions of risk factor into those efforts.
Panelists:
Professor P.J. Brennan, M.D.
Chief Medical Officer and Senior Vice President for the University of Pennsylvania Health System
Lieutenant General (Ret.) Russel Honoré
Led the Department of Defense Task Force in response to Hurricane Katrina
Professor Dan Kahan
Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School, specializing in risk perception
Vice President Maureen Rush, M.S., CPP
Vice President for Public Safety, University of Pennsylvania
Moderator:
Professor Claire Finkelstein
Algernon Biddle Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy, Founder and Director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law
For more information please contact cerl@law.upenn.edu
Penn Law School ·
3501 Sansom Street
·
Philadelphia, Pa 19104
· USA
Cyber War Law and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts
Cyber WarLaw and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts $185.00 |
|
Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern, and Claire Finkelstein 9780198717492 |
|
Cyber WarLaw and Ethics for Virtual Conflicts $49.95 |
Jens David Ohlin, Kevin Govern, and Claire Finkelstein
9780198717508
Paperback
19 May 2015
- Explores the controversial legal and ethical problems raised by cyber war, critically assessing the received wisdom about its legal implications
- Examines the complex questions of which legal regimes apply to cyber attacks, whether principles of humanitarian law work in cyber warfare situations, and how these principles can be translated into the operational reality
- Provides an unique analysis of the foundational questions of the legality and morality of cyber warfare
Ethical Dilemmas in the Global Defense Industry
Ethical Dilemmas in the Global Defense Industry
The defense industry operates at the intersection of the public and private sectors in a global arena and routinely interacts with foreign legal systems and diverse cultures. Navigating these different contexts creates challenges for the defense industry, particularly where legal and ethical norms conflict. How should a defense industry company conduct business in countries where government officials operate according to different moral norms? Should the defense industry be responsive to ethical objections to technological developments in the context of surveillance or controversial new weapons such as autonomous weapons systems? Should the global defense industry be held to a higher standard than other industries given the sensitive and potentially controversial nature of its enterprise? Domestically, other pressing questions arise. Should partnerships between the defense industry and institutions of higher learning be encouraged? Do such partnerships raise ethical concerns?
The purpose of this conference is to inspire constructive discussion pertaining to such questions, by bringing together distinguished practitioners and scholars from the private sector, academia, government service and the military to engage in an in-depth exploration of the moral and legal challenges facing the global defense industry.
2014 Military Legitimacy Review
Military Legitimacy Review Volume 4, Winter 2014
and
The Year In Review: 2014 Posts
The Future of Interrogation: National Security in 21st Century Conflict
February 25, 2015
Contact Info:
cerl@law.upenn.edu
Time: 6:00pm – 9:00pm
Location: The National Press Club | 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor | Washington, DC 20045
6:00 – 8:00 p.m., followed by a cocktail reception
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program (SSCI Report) has reignited debate about the ethics and legality of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. The Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL), of the University of Pennsylvania, in collaboration with the Perry World House, will host a public panel discussing the Report’s findings. The panel will address the moral and legal status of harsh interrogation methods, the rights of detainees, as well as the role of international law in regulating interrogation practices.
In addition, the panel will discuss the role of professionals engaged with national security, many of whom are bound by professional codes of ethics. What are the duties of professionals when national security imperatives conflict with the standards of their professions? How should violation of such duties be handled?
Finally, the panel will address the controversy surrounding the SSCI Report itself. Some see the report as a long overdue exposure of a doleful chapter in our nation’s recent history. Others see the report as an exercise in partisan politics.
The panel brings together illustrious speakers from different backgrounds to explore these topics in a respectful, thought-provoking and non-partisan manner. There will be a reception after the formal proceedings.
This program has been approved for 2.0 ethics credits for Pennsylvania and D.C. attorneys. CLE credits may be available in other jurisdictions as well. Attendees seeking CLE credit should bring separate payment in the amount of $30.00 cash or check made payable to The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
Obama Seeks an Expansive War Authorization to Combat ISIS
Nearly five months after launching a war against the Islamic State, in Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration has gotten around to requesting formal authorization from Congress to conduct that war.
While indefensibly late, the move is nonetheless welcome if it triggers the long-needed substantive debate about the goals, scope and justification of a military intervention that was launched with the claim of authority from laws passed more than a decade ago to allow the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In seeking a three-year authorization, President Obama appears to be trying to avoid leaving an open-ended mandate that his successor could interpret unjustifiably broadly, much as his administration has. The request sets limits on the use of ground forces, which is good news if Congress and the White House view that as explicitly ruling out another protracted intervention.
The parameters of a proposed war authorization the White House sent to Congress on Wednesday, however, are alarmingly broad. It does not limit the battlefield to Syria and Iraq, the strongholds of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which is attempting to form a caliphate. It also seeks permission to attack “associated persons or forces” of the brutal group, a term that appears to be excessively expansive and could undermine Mr. Obama’s stated intent to limit the force authorization.
While a new Authorization for Use of Military Force, or A.U.M.F., would sunset the 2002 law Congress passed to pave the way for the invasion of Iraq, it would leave intact the 2001 mandate for the war in Afghanistan. That is problematic, considering that the Obama administration has relied on that law to start attacks that were well beyond the scope of what lawmakers authorized at the time. In a letter to Congress delivered on Wednesday, Mr. Obama reiterated his intent to “refine, and ultimately repeal” that statute, which serves as a foundation for American military operations in Afghanistan. He should go further and set a date for its expiration.
If the White House prevails, it would get virtually unrestricted power to engage in attacks around the globe as long as it can justify a connection, however tenuous, to the Islamic State.