The Rand Corporation has released an interesting new book, How Terrorist Groups End. The research centers around the ineffectiveness of current U.S. strategy against al Qaida, while providing recommendations for the future. As with all Rand publications, the book can be purchased from their website or for those who prefer electronic texts, can be dowloaded in .PDF format.
An Economist review of the research described it this way:
“Many studies have asked how terrorist groups are born; relatively few have described how such groups are best put out of business. A recent effort to do the latter, by RAND Corporation, an American think-tank, is therefore welcome. It considers the fate of some 650 groups (defined widely), between 1968 and 2006, asking in particular what put an end to them. In the process it casts some useful light on a hoary old question of counterterrorism: whether military force or smart policing is the more effective method for tackling terrorists and insurgents… The recommendations of the report are not just of interest to anti-terrorist organisations; their opponents may be worried that the insights can help to bring about their own demise. Possibly to guard against this possibility one jihadist apparently translated much of the RAND report and posted a copy online within only a few days of its original publication.”
The Pace International Law Review is hosting a symposium on national security law, I’ve pasted their announcement below:
Pace International Law Review 2009-2010 Symposium
Call for Submissions
Pace International Law Review will hold a symposium entitled Comparative Constitutional Law: National Security Across the Globe.
The symposium is scheduled to be held in November of 2009 as an all day event with multiple panelists and guest speakers. The editors of Pace International Law Review invite proposals for articles, essays and book reviews from scholars, researchers, practitioners, and professionals for contributions to be considered for presentation at the symposium and subsequent publication on our newly developed and comprehensive International Law Website.
I was recently interviewed by Patty Satalia, a journalist with WPSU a PBS and NPR affiliate. The interview was approximately one hour long (divided into segments) and questions ran the gamut from a discussion of the challenges the President will face in closing Guantanamo, to lessons from the CIA memos. We also discussed similarities and differences between President Bush and President Obama, the role of the courts and Congress in these debates, and other related topics.
The interview is available for viewing at http://conversations.psu.edu. Readers who want to offer feedback can also comment on the “discussion board” immediately below the videos. I look forward to hearing your comments.
Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who most notably was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case has rejected an offer by Attorney General Holder to join the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy. His letter is here. In light of the fact that the President’s policy decision was made on January 20th, Andy’s criticism that “[w]hatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues” seems fair.
Julian Mortenson wrote an insightful essay for Slate, providing details about the facts and law applicable to the Spanish investigation of Bush administration officials regarding allegations of torture at Guantanamo Bay.
He does a pretty good job of summarizing the state of the law, and the policy issues involved, a few quick hits:
First, “Nobody’s been charged with anything yet. The Spanish civil law system allows criminal complaints to be filed by individual civilians, screened by an investigating magistrate like Garzon, and then referred to a prosecutor’s office for preliminary assessment. After the prosecutors make their recommendation, an ultimate go/no-go decision on pursuing criminal charges follows. In the Guantanamo case, the process has only just cleared the first screening. That said, the referral makes a full investigation quite likely, and at least one official Spanish source has called eventual charges ‘highly probable.’”
Second, even if an arrest warrant were issued, it’s pretty unlikely that the U.S. would extradite Bush administration officials to Spain; although it may very well mean that those individuals may not be able to travel abroad.
Finally, a broader issue, according to Mortenson, is the fact that these individuals are facing criticism, not for their role in individually ordering specific acts of torture, but rather for creating a framework that would facilitate torture. Mortenson importantly notes that while some of the legal advice may have ended up being wrong “in the eyes of the Supreme Court” it wasn’t insane.
In this issue we feature three contributions which address the important topic of direct action against alleged terrorists and the legal framework which should govern in those circumstances.
First, David Luban (Georgetown University Law Center) and Amos N. Guiora (University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law) debate the legal framework applicable during the recent conflict in Gaza. Professor Luban asks “Was the Gaza Campaign Legal?” while Professor Guiora suggests a new legal framework which he terms “Proportionality ‘Re-Configured’.”
Also, Sarah Miller (Harvard Law School), winner of The ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security’s 2008 Student Writing Competition, pens an essay entitled “Covert Action and the War on Terror: Reconciling Secrecy and Public Legitimacy” in which she examines the current legal framework governing covert action and makes the case for transparent guidelines.
Check it out here. If you’re interested in proposing your own article or debate for an upcoming issue, please contact me here.
If you would like to receive: a FREE hardcopy subscription to The National Security Law Report, plus email updates on workshops, seminars, speeches, events, and career postings in national security fill out this form here.
I’ve posted a draft version of my article Institutional Legitimacy and Counterterrorism Trials to SSRN and SelectedWorks. The article is forthcoming in the Richmond Law Review and addresses the relationship between conformity and legitimacy in the institutional design process. I specifically address how legitimacy is an important factor for counterterrorism trials, the military commissions and national security courts. The article is aimed at national security law scholars and institutional design theorists. Here is the abstract:
Much of the current debate in national security law scholarship focuses on institutional design issues related to the balancing of values such as legitimacy, effectiveness, fairness and efficiency. A part of that debate centers around the legitimacy of tribunals established to try alleged terrorists. Critics of those tribunals assert they are an illegitimate form of justice and require reform or replacement by a new national security court. These scholars are principally engaged in a debate over institutional design. This article seeks to contribute to that debate, and also to the larger institutional design literature by providing a theoretical framework for understanding and evaluating legitimacy considerations in the institutional design process. While adding legitimacy as an analytical component may further complicate an already complex legal and policy debate, I contend Read the full entry »
About
Gregory S. McNeal is a professor at the Pennsyvlania State University. He employs organizational theory to analyze the institutions and challenges associated with counterterrorism, with a particular substantive focus on criminal law and procedure, national security law and international criminal law.
Full Biography
“The expertise of the authors and the contributors (all specialists in the rarified world of international criminal tribunals and the broader fields of international human rights) ensured that the essays are uniformly well written, focused on important topics, and interesting.” –The Law and Politics Book Review
