Maybe. In any event, Harold Koh's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be webcast live starting around 2:15 (thanks to Mark Shulman for the tip). I predict a very boring hearing where nothing of substance will be asked, and nothing of substance will be offered as an answer either. This should work to Koh's benefit, of course. Boring...
Dave Kopel has a post today at The Volokh Conspiracy in which he dusts off John Yoo's argument in the infamous 14 March 2003 memo that a CIA interrogator prosecuted for torture would be able to invoke the defenses of necessity and self-defense. I am not interested in responding to Kopel's post, which grossly mischaracterizes my position on torture prosecutions...
State Department Legal Adviser nominee Harold Koh's written answers to pre-hearing questions asked by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have been posted online at Senator Lugar's site. The Q&A goes for over 60 pages. I have only skimmed it and so, for now, I will simply point out questions/answers that may be of particular interest to Opinio Juris readers (and of course, I...
Harold Koh, who is moderating the last Reisman panel on human rights, asks the panel about the legal status of human rights committees like the CEDAW committee, obliquely referring to a controversy over the legal status of such committees' interpretive authority. Hmm...
I, along with an impressive group of legal scholars from around the world, have gathered in New Haven to celebrate the career and scholarship of Yale Law Professor W. Michael Reisman. So, a wonderful opportunity to blog! But I forgot to bring my laptop, so all I have is my lousy iPhone. Still, I will try to share a few...
Scholars who believe that the individuals who wrote the OLC memos authorizing torture should be criminally prosecuted -- as I do -- normally cite the Justice Case, decided by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) in 1947, for the proposition that a government lawyer can be held criminally responsible for giving erroneous legal advice to his political superiors. Last year, I...
U.S. prosecutors charged the sole surviving Somali pirate from the Maersk Alabama incident, Abduwali Muse, yesterday on charges of piracy, conspiracy to seize a ship by force, discharging a firearm during a ship seizure, conspiracy to commit hostage-taking and brandishing a firearm during a hostage taking. The list of reported charges seems to confirm Eugene Kontorovich's suggestion yesterday in a great post over at...
[Major John C. Dehn is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Law, US Military Academy, West Point, NY. He teaches International Law, and Constitutional and Military Law. He is writing in his personal capacity and his views do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense, the US Army, or the US Military Academy.] First, I express my thanks...
The WSJ Editorial Page takes UN Ambassador Susan Rice to task for claiming that the recent UN Security Council "presidential statement" is legally binding on North Korea. Here is Rice's full statement on this point, I believe. Reporter: Ambassador, there seems to be some debate as to whether there’s any legally binding items in this presidential statement. We talked to one...
More evidence that the CIA interrogators did not rely in good faith on the OLC memos: Bradbury's 30 May 2005 memo acknowledges (p. 37) that the CIA Inspector General's report found that the CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah 83 times in August 2002. That regime far surpasses the CIA's own internal guidelines...
[Margaret K. Lewis is a Senior Research Fellow at NYU Law School's U.S.-Asia Law Institute.] Thank you to the editors of the Virginia Journal of International Law and to Opinio Juris for providing this forum. My article grew out of work on legal reforms in Mainland China, which led to a cross-Strait project. As I learned more about Taiwan’s criminal justice...
I argued below that "good faith reliance" on OLC opinions does not justify promising CIA interrogators that they will not be prosecuted for their criminal acts. With regard to waterboarding, it is important to note that it seems clear some of the interrogators cannot even argue good faith reliance. Consider the following footnote from Bradbury's May 10, 2005, memo, discussing...
