The Consequences today of the United States\u27 Brutal Post-9/11 Interrogation Techniques

Penetrating the minds and souls of alleged terrorists while still upholding the constitution, federal law, and the human rights obligation to treat the suspects with dignity and without torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment was not the immediate objective for high-ranking American officials and military interrogators in the early years following the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Although the United States was a party to the Geneva Conventions (GC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—all three of which prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (CIDT)—the U.S. chose to ignore the restrictions of these documents.4 Propelled by the fear of another attack comparable to that of September 11th,5 the administration violated these treaties, focusing instead on the short-term goal of obtaining intelligence at any cost to deter another major attack.6 Today, anyone who has followed the evolution of U.S. interrogation methods post-9/11 knows all too well that the United States pursued an admitted policy of harsh treatment, which has been defined by many commentators as comparable to CIDT and torture.7 And the devastating consequences of our unlawful behavior have become evident over the years

Unfairness in Access to and Citation of Unpublished Federal Court Decisions

An unfair system has evolved over the past fifteen years in the federal courts. The federal courts changed the concept of stare decisis. In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States decided that they needed to reduce the increasing workload of the federal judges. The best way to do so, they thought, was to distinguish between decisions. Some would be worthy of publication and some would not be. Thus, federal judges were instructed to separate out those rulings which would be useful to future litigants or which did more than merely repeat and mechanically apply well-settled rules of law. These decisions would be published. If a judge felt that a decision would not have precedential value, the decision and accompanying opinion would not be published. Although this seemed like a sensible solution at the time, it has created several unfavorable consequences. Since more than fifty per cent of all federal opinions are no longer published, a significant body of unpublished case law has developed. And the unfavorable consequences are directly tied to the non-publication of these decisions

Unfairness in Access to and Citation of Unpublished Federal Court Decisions

An unfair system has evolved over the past fifteen years in the federal courts. The federal courts changed the concept of stare decisis. In 1972, the Judicial Conference of the United States decided that they needed to reduce the increasing workload of the federal judges. The best way to do so, they thought, was to distinguish between decisions. Some would be worthy of publication and some would not be. Thus, federal judges were instructed to separate out those rulings which would be useful to future litigants or which did more than merely repeat and mechanically apply well-settled rules of law. These decisions would be published. If a judge felt that a decision would not have precedential value, the decision and accompanying opinion would not be published. Although this seemed like a sensible solution at the time, it has created several unfavorable consequences. Since more than fifty per cent of all federal opinions are no longer published, a significant body of unpublished case law has developed. And the unfavorable consequences are directly tied to the non-publication of these decisions

Essay: Inside Guantanamo

In May 2007 I visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What I saw and experienced then are fading away and will soon disappear, now that two-thirds of the nearly 800 detainees have been released and President Obama will close the detention centers within the year. Consequently, this essay provides a historical account of one person\u27s media visit to Guantanamo, when it was a fully-operational prison violating human rights, due process and international law. The essay describes not only the visit but also the application process - a bizarre experience. The military\u27s application concluded with two quotes from the New Testament and included an attachment of another person\u27s application, complete with his social security and passport numbers. The flight to Guantanamo from Fort Lauderdale Florida was on a ten-seater propeller plane, without bathrooms. It took over three hours, having to circumvent Cuban air space. Once on the island, we were introduced to the senior military officials on the base and escorted to the detention centers, where we could observe detainees but not speak to them. Every evening, an Operations Security contractor reviewed our digital photos, deleting what were described as security lapses, such as images of the coastline, water towers, guard towers, and faces of the detainees and the guards. On the second day of the three-day trip, I was confronted by an officer who asked whether I was a habeas lawyer, a lawyer who represented the detainees. Although I was not a habeas lawyer, but rather an author of a forthcoming book on Guantanamo and the war on terror, I was informed that the military had erred in permitting me to visit. The story behind this confrontation, why the military believed they had mistakenly granted me permission to visit the island, and my fears and apprehensions in response to their confrontation appear in this essay

The Consequences today of the United States\u27 Brutal Post-9/11 Interrogation Techniques

Penetrating the minds and souls of alleged terrorists while still upholding the constitution, federal law, and the human rights obligation to treat the suspects with dignity and without torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment was not the immediate objective for high-ranking American officials and military interrogators in the early years following the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Although the United States was a party to the Geneva Conventions (GC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—all three of which prohibit torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (CIDT)—the U.S. chose to ignore the restrictions of these documents.4 Propelled by the fear of another attack comparable to that of September 11th,5 the administration violated these treaties, focusing instead on the short-term goal of obtaining intelligence at any cost to deter another major attack.6 Today, anyone who has followed the evolution of U.S. interrogation methods post-9/11 knows all too well that the United States pursued an admitted policy of harsh treatment, which has been defined by many commentators as comparable to CIDT and torture.7 And the devastating consequences of our unlawful behavior have become evident over the years