In response to the previous comments, I very much appreciate the justified concern raised regarding my identification of the danger posed by religious extremists. Prof Movsesian is, of course, correct that non-religious terrorism (the groups he identifies) is also a contemporary reality. However, where we disagree is that I believe the greatest (not only) danger is posed by religious extremists...
So, I finished my book on the Nuremberg Military Tribunals last Friday. Okay, that's a lie. Or at least an exaggeration. I still have about 2,500 footnotes to fix (literally). And a few thousand precious, perfectly crafted words to cut. But I have a very polished first draft of the text. I even printed it out to see how big it...
I thank Professors Guiora and Cliteur for their thoughtful interventions. As I see it, the basic distinction Prof. Guiora draws is between terrorism motivated by religious convictions – “religious terrorism” – and terrorism motivated by non-religious convictions – “non-religious terrorism.” Despite their arguments, though, I fear I am still not persuaded that this distinction is very helpful. For instance, Prof. Guiora...
Certainly Professor Guiora has raised very profound issues. It would help me to have a specific scenario of how this would play out. For example - some well known Christian radical fundamentalist preacher (who has been known to call on God's wrath against some group) gets up in the pulpit one Sunday and says; "I have had a direct revelation from God and...
Thank you to Prof Movsesian, Prof Cliteur and Rev. Lentz for their thoughtful and informed comments in response to my initial posting. With respect to Prof Movsesian's concern regarding my identification of religious extremism as posing the primary threat today, I would suggest that analysis of contemporary terrorism clearly suggests that religious extremist actors (in all three monotheistic faiths) are,...
As a pastor of a church I find Professor Guiora's words both challenging and problematic. Here are four points: 1. Professor Guiora writes, "Society has historically - unjustifiably and blindly - granted religion immunity." What society? Separating "society" from "religion" is very much a modern issue. Society didn't grant immunity to anything. Rather, society was shaped by religion and was pretty...
We are very pleased to host for the next three days a discussion of Amos Guiora's new book, Freedom from Religion: Rights and National Security(Oxford 2009). Amos is probably well known to many readers of this blog, a professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law and a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Israel Defense Forces Judge...
On behalf of my co-bloggers, I want to thank Professor Alvarez for his recent spate of posts as a guest-blogger. I hope we can persuade him to revisit us in a few months to tell us what he does with his winter break....
Under a bill approved by the Senate on Monday night,the White House would be required to notify the full membership of both congressional intelligence committees of presidential directives to conduct covert action, known as "findings." At present, the administration is required to notify only the "Gang of Eight": the chairmen and ranking members of each committee and the party leadership in both chambers. But the new language still gives the White House flexibility, including a 180-day period in which to notify all 22 House and 15 Senate intelligence committee members of a finding. The White House can defer full notification even longer, according to the bill, if it provides "a statement of reasons that it is essential to continue to limit access" because of "extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States."The Senate bill also contains a couple of specific provisions of interest in today's environment, including a new cybersecurity element of reporting, and a provision requiring that the "White House provide the legal grounds for certain intelligence operations and estimates of whether "significant" costs or a "significant risk of loss of life" might be involved." My own general view is that Congressional oversight of covert activities needs to be strengthened and reformed - not because I think the CIA is out doing rogue stuff with, say, targeted killing, but instead because I think it is the only way to ensure that the political branches are on the same page on policy, what is acceptable and lawful and what is not. It is an essential element in protecting intelligence agency personnel from actions by courts or, for that matter, Congress itself claiming that they overstepped their authority. Likewise it is a crucial element in ensuring that the political branches retain their role - Steel Seizure cases-style - in foreign policy and the conduct of self-defense operations abroad and armed conflict.
I'm delighted to introduce José Enrique Alvarez as our guest blogger for the next few days. Professor Alvarez is the Herbert and Rose Rubin Professor of International Law at NYU Law School, and serves as a special adviser to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on a pro bono basis. He is also a past President of the American Society...
I am struck by the remarkable number of legal fictions salted throughout our discussion of failed states. All states, of course, are fictions. But the fictional norms of statehood carry with them a series of assumptions of how states will function and how they can be persuaded or compelled to act. Thus, as Chiara discusses at length, the requirement that...
Congratulations to David Bosco and the rest of the folks at American University's School of International Service on the conference over the last couple of days on the future of global governance. I took part on a panel on how to globally govern for which my advice, readers will not be surprised to learn, was very little if at all. That...
