Search: self-defense

capable partners in their own defense,” Mr. Gates said. Mr. Gates complained of what he called a “two-tiered” membership structure, “between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership but don’t want to share the risks and the costs.” He added that some NATO partners are “apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.” The broader issue is that nations commit major resources...

began their operations without a formal determination of the legal status of the conflict, but instead resorted to the Department of Defense policy of applying the law of war to any armed conflict no matter how characterized. For the hundreds of Panamanian Defense Force personnel captured by U.S. forces, this resulted in treatment “consistent with” the Third Geneva Convention. The U.S. never formally classified these captured personnel as prisoners of war, because subsequent to initiation of combat operations, the government determined that the conflict in Panama was not an international...

...for perpetrating the acts of abuse at Abu Ghraib. That finding had been supported in the 12 other major reviews conducted by the Department of Defense, the delegation said. There had been a total of 120 deaths of detainees in Department of Defense control in Afghanistan and Iraq. There had been no deaths in Guantanamo. The vast majority of deaths were caused by factors such as natural causes, injuries sustained on the battlefield, or detainee-on-detainee violence. In only 29 cases had abuse or other violations of law or policy been...

...that they will be tortured” – a claim that everyone outside the Administration knows to be patently false. Worse still, he has rationalized his refusal to offer evidence in defense of that mantra with the excuse that “as much as we would like to deny the numerous inaccurate charges made against our government, because many of the accusations relate to alleged intelligence activities, we have found that we cannot comment upon them except in a general way.” And what about military activities? Is it hyperbolic and absurd to be outraged...

inapplicability of the "law enforcement" paradigm when targetings are justifiable under the laws of war and/or the law of self-defense. The U.S. has claimed lawfulness under the laws of war (which I disagree with regarding targetings outside of the theatre of the real war in Afghanistan and, de facto, parts of Pakistan or regarding targetings of persons who are DPH in connection with that international armed conflict who are located elsewhere) as well as the law of self-defense. Both the AI and HRW reports use the wrong tests and criteria...

...executive powers, abridged individual liberties and collective self-sacrifice. Second, Mr. Bellinger’s belief that the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda is the sin qua non of his overarching analysis. The United States acts in self-defense after attacks on its “embassies, military vessels, financial center, military headquarters and capital city, killing more than 3000 people in the process.” However, this assertion depends upon these assaults being “armed attacks”. In the aftermath of 9/11, sympathetic international organizations – foremost, the UN Security Council and NATO – averred that they...

...decision. But the issue was not before the Court in this case, and had not been raised by the defendant as a reason for dismissal, apart from asserting the defense in their answer to the complaint filed in 2006. Let’s back up and review the facts. When Plaintiffs filed their original suit in 2002, they chose to sue only two Shell entities: the Shell parent entity, based in the Netherlands and U.K. (“Shell Europe” for the purposes of this post), and Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary, which allegedly aided and abetted the...

...out by the Luftwaffe rather than the 2nd SS Panzer Division? And here’s a snippet from Ronald Radosh’s opening argument, for the “defense”: The essence of Nobile’s case is based on a highly legalistic and a-historical citation of Article 6 of The Nuremburg Charter. Nobile takes it further, by extending the description of war criminal to Truman’s entire atomic cabinet, his chain of command, the pilots on the Enola Gay, and all those politicians who through the years have praised what he calls “the atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” His...

By Marty Lederman and Steve Vladeck* Editorial pages and blogs have been overrun in the past couple of weeks with analyses and speculation about the detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, which the President has just signed into law. One of the major disputes concerns whether and how the NDAA might alter the status quo. In this post, we’ll try to synthesize the competing views offered by David Cole and Raha Wala, who remain quite critical of the provisions because of the changes they possibly presage, with those...

...is a different one. Instead of enhancing robust interaction between the prosecution and defense, these trial-avoiding and trial-condensing procedures have created a separate track of expedited, prosecutor-dominated justice alongside the adversarial one. The vast majority of defendants see their cases decided at the prosecutor-controlled investigation stage or directed through an abbreviated adjudication stage with little activity by either the judge or defense. Admittedly, that most cases are decided without a contested trial is not shocking. What is concerning is that the trumpeted adversarial reforms are not permeating into efficiency-driven procedures...

the treaties grant investors rights but not obligations, while imposing upon states obligations unaccompanied by rights. Accordingly, he suggests that the corruption defense effectively creates investor obligations, which begin to address the BIT imbalance. I am not entirely persuaded such a perspective adds to the analysis. After all, a corruption defense does not impose any meaningful obligation whose breach entitles states to bring claims against investors; it simply affords states cover from investor claims, cover that is surely undeserved if the states themselves participated in the misbehavior. In closing, let...

Ryan — friend of Opinio Juris and friend of Kevin — has been appointed Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Here is a snippet from NYU’s press release: In his new role at the Department of Defense Goodman will focus primarily on national security law and law of armed conflict. “I am very humbled to have this opportunity to work with the General Counsel and the outstanding people of the Defense Department,” said Goodman. “I look forward to the hard work and challenges ahead in...