23 May Obama and Counterterrorism: A Timely Conference
23.05.09
|
19 Comments
The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation have put together a timely conference on Counterterrorism and the Obama Administration. It starts at 9:00 a.m. next Thursday, May 28 at the Capital Visitor Center in DC. I have a feeling it won’t be entirely supportive of the Obama Administration policies, but at least it will benefit from the insights of Opinio Juris blogger Deborah Pearlstein and guest blogger Benjamin Wittes. I certainly wish I could go, but I’ll be out of the country during this event. Our DC OJ readers should check it out!
It’s good to see that they have the usual suspects (Rivkin, McCarthy) and others together on the panels and happy to see TWO count them TWO women! Now one day a person of color other than John Yoo.
Best,
Ben
I tangled with Edwin Williamson at the ASIL Council meeting in 2006 on the adoption of the Centennial Resolution on law of war and detainee treatment. I suspect the “policy differences” crowd will be out in force. I hope someone there speaks strongly and firmly about criminal prosecution of the high-level civilians and military generals. If the kids take the fall, so should the so-called grownups.
Best,
Ben
Ben,
I think its three women.
It is so interesting when leftists discount the voices of conservative “persons of color” as somehow inauthentic.
Ben,
The organizers of this event went out of their way to provide ideological balance from the left and the right. The panels include leaders from the left, including Mike German and Jonathan Hafetz of the ACLU, Gabor Rona and Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First, and Deborah Pearlstein of Princeton. It also includes well-known leaders from the right.
I really fail to see why you find it so difficult to recognize and compliment the hard work of organizers of conferences such as this who succeed in offering ideological diversity on such a sensitive topic.
Roger Alford
Roger,
The reason is that Ben’s complaint isn’t about ideological diversity.
Humblelawstudent:
Yes I know, but I have never heard Ben Davis explain why conference organizers should not focus first and foremost on ideological diversity.
Would he, for example, prefer a conference on affirmative action in which every single panelist speaks from the same perspective, despite the fact that there is gender and racial diversity?
Having organized dozens of panels for many different organizations, I can assure Ben that ideological diversity is one of the principal objectives of almost every committee that organizes conferences, with gender, racial, age, and geographic diversity typically a secondary objective.
And of course Ben appears to assume that every person who is invited to speak always says yes.
I challenge Ben to offer a slate of high-quality panelists for a conference on counterterrorism that includes ideological diversity and meets his other diversity criteria. Let’s see what he can come up with that does a better job than what these organizers have come up with. I seriously doubt he can do so.
Roger Alford
Hi, nice posts there 🙂 thank’s for the interesting information
Well I suppose that Ben’s misgiving might be better understood by considering how much “intellectual diversity” warrants including actual criminals or those who might incite, aid, or abet crimes on such panels….
[comment edited by OJ]
It would be nice to see ‘ethnic diversity’ as well. Can’t they find a Muslim and Arab lawyer and human rights activist? Sheesh
You’re right Charles, intellectual diversity would include a freed DETAINEE PERHAPS?
Anyway I wish I could be there; but I have a prior obligation.
Good luck! I hope it is videocast.
Regards,
Sameera Daniels
Julian,
…
Something that you and everyone else should understand about me is that there isn’t any political or personal about my project: for seven and half years I have tried to follow the facts and the laws just as objectively and dispassionately as a systems analyst with 30 years of experience. One of my principal interests over that period of time has been the various arguments, rationalizations, alibis, etc, of the apologists. I know your arguments inside out, and I have yet to hear a single on me that was honest or logically sound.
If you really think you are justified in editing my comment, then ought to be able to defend your views in an open debate….
Charly
[Comment edited by OJ]
An open debate on the merits Julian —-
[comment edited by OJ]
And that’s not anything but a literal statement of fact, the truth and nothing but.
I stand corrected: THREE women count THREE! Excellent! I guess I even get grief when I praise progress but get my math wrong. Rodney Dangerfield must be smiling in his grave. I also seek ideological diversity and am happy they have tried to do that. I have also tried to do that at sessions I organized. For example, I organized a panel at the American Branch of the International Law Association International Law Weekend in New York in which we asked so many persons that are defenders of the then Bush policies to be part of the panel. Ultimately, I believe it was David Rivkin who was willing to accept and there was thoughtful discussion. I regret if my points on diversity may stick in the craw of some of you but think what it has been like all these years watching Congressional hearings, talking heads on television, etc. and almost uniformly they have been white people speaking and almost uniformly white males at least on what I see. The only African-American I have seen speaking on this has been a guy named Nance who was a SERE trainer and he is only infrequently seen. Harold Koh has been the… Read more »
Can’t handle the truth Julian??
Gee, what a surprise.
…
[Comment edited by OJ]
I don’t think Professor Davis will be happy until the have a blue left-handed smoke shifter on the panel.
Just trying to lighten the mood.
Ben,
When you crassly justify your stance against EITs with an appeal to veterans, you should consider that some of the most prominent vets, who were actually tortured, do not consider waterboarding and other EITs to be torture. (for example, Leo Thorsness and George “Bud” Day — the last I know fairly well.)
Ben,
I agree with your recommendation to have Charles Gittings serve on a panel. And certainly, to include members of a vulnerable minority, like the American Muslim community. I am perplexed at the reluctance to include the very community that has been most affected. Then again, the politics of human rights communities are a bit of an enigma to me.
Regards,
SD
Humblelawstudent,
I recognize I may not be up on what is crass or not crass in the United States at this time, but I fail to see why stating that uniformed soldiers have been court-martialed, served time, and dishonorably discharged for doing the bidding of their higher ups is crass. That it may be uncomfortable or an inconvenient truth to have it stated so plainly for some may be true, but that is my attempt to write and speak plainly rather than artfully dodge. I am glad there are two veterans who were tortured who do not consider waterboarding and other forms (EIT’s! – please do not let the euphemisms of the state delude you as to what it is of which you speak) to be torture. I want a jury of peers to look at it. If the jury agrees with the veterans and acquits – so be it. If they agree with the precedents of which you are aware and with me and convict – so be it. In a court of law.
Best,
Ben
Ben,
Those soldiers who were courtmartialed for torturing detainees were rightfully prosecuted. We all agree on that.
Regarding EITs, if a jury of peers looked at the techniques and concluded they weren’t torture, would you stop calling them torture?
Well if they were rightfully prosecuted, so should the people who set the whole thing up.
If the jury acquits, they acquit. How I will feel about it depends on the way they got there. We all remember the Leipzig trials my friend.
Best,
Ben