(Associated Press | June 13, 2019) An expert in constitutional law tells the Associated Press that President Donald Trump’s assertion that he would be open to accepting a foreign power’s help in his 2020 campaign is not appropriate and “it may be unlawful.”
(Re-published from Jurist | June 9, 2019) Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (Bemba) is the leader of the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC) and was the commander-in-chief of its military forces during the Central African Bush War from 2003-2004, during which the MLC was accused of committing war crimes, as well as, crimes against humanity.
Bemba was arrested on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role as the leader of the MLC near Brussels in May 2008 and was handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on July 3, 2008. Bemba was held by the ICC for over two years before his trial began in November 2010, throughout the duration of his trial which lasted until 2014, and still after the conclusion of his trial, until his convictions on March 21, 2016.
The ICC sentenced Bemba to 18 years detention for war crimes and crimes against humanity convictions, plus an additional year and a €290,000 fine for witness tampering.
Bemba appealed his convictions in 2016, citing procedural and legal errors in the lower court judge’s ruling, which Bemba’s counsel said should have resulted in a mistrial. The ICC chamber to which Bemba appealed found on June 8, 2018 that the trial chamber had ignored significant testimonial evidence proving that Bemba had a limited ability to investigate and punish war crimes in the Central African Republic during and after the violence in 2003 and 2004. This conclusion lead to Bemba’s acquittal.
Bemba submitted a request for compensation to the ICC on March 8, 2019. The ICC Prosecutor and Registrar asked the judges to dismiss this claim, but the Pre-Trial Chamber II judges presiding over the claim denied this request.
Bemba’s claim totaled €68.8 million, including: €12 million for the period of his alleged unlawful incarceration, €10 million in aggravated damages, €4.2 million in legal fees, with the remaining €42.4 million being for property damage.
Bemba’s request for property damage compensation stems from those losses consequent to Bemba’s arrest and detention as well as those losses caused by the ICC’s mistakes in managing Bemba’s frozen assets, as the assets seized by the ICC upon Bemba’s conviction were allowed to rot.
The provisions of the law are that Article 85 of the ICC’s Rome Statute governs compensation claims by persons who have been arrested pursuant to the ICC’s jurisdiction or convicted by the ICC. The governing clause provides two primary bases for bringing claims for compensation: the first is found in Article 85(1) while the second is laid out in Article 85(3). Article 85(1) of the Rome Statute states that “[a]nyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.” Article 85(3) is vaguer and states that “[i]n exceptional circumstances, where the court finds conclusive facts showing that there has been a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice, it may in its discretion award compensation . . . according to the criteria provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to a person who has been released from detention following a final decision of acquittal or a termination of the proceedings for that reason.”
Claims for compensation must follow the ICC’s Rules of Evidence and Procedure, specifically Rule 173(2), which requires that a request for compensation be submitted to the court no later than six months from the date the person making the request was notified of the decision of the court concerning unlawful arrest or detention; reversal of a conviction; or existence of a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice.
Any party seeking compensation on such grounds must submit a written request containing the grounds for and the amount of compensation being sought to the ICC’s Presidency. The ICC then designates a three-judge chamber to consider the request. Rule 174 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides that judges handling such requests may hold a hearing or determine the matter based on the request along with any written observations by the prosecutor and the party who filed the request.
In cases in which damages are awarded, judges shall take into consideration “the consequences of the grave and manifest miscarriage of justice on the personal, family, and social professional situation of the claimant.” However, it has been acknowledged that there is no exact formula for calculating such damages.
The ICC does not have precedent in awarding damages to those seeking compensation under the court’s jurisdiction, and there does not seem to be a set test to determine whether a party seeking compensation from the ICC will receive such damages – at this point, it is purely discretionary. However, it does seem as if the ICC tends to look to whether the claim for damages is viable under Article 85(1) or 85(3) of the Rome Statute and proper under Rule 173(2) before considering the amount of compensation requested …
David M. Crane is a Syracuse University College of Law Distinguished Scholar in Residence.
The US Intelligence Community has designated Syracuse University as one of eight national Intelligence Community Centers for Academic Excellence (ICCAE), with a funding award of $1.5 million over five years. Established in 2005 by Congress, the ICCAE program is designed to increase the number of culturally and ethnically diverse, multi-disciplinary professionals in the intelligence community. Syracuse University is one of only eight universities nationwide—including the University of Arizona, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and University of Southern California—and only one of two private universities selected.
In its proposal, Syracuse University will lead a consortium of schools—known as the Partnership for Educational Results/Syracuse University Adaptive, Diverse and Ethical Intelligence Community Professionals (PER/SUADE)—to recruit and educate talented, diverse students interested in public service careers in the intelligence field. The consortium’s partner schools include Norfolk State University, a historically black university; The Grove School of Engineering at The City College of New York and other institutions.
This multi-faceted recruitment and education initiative leverages the University’s leadership and strengths in a wide range of security-related disciplines, cutting across STEM, public affairs, law, forensics, military affairs, disability studies, and language and cultural studies. Building dynamic and sustained partnerships with the consortium partners will enable PER/SUADE to share complementary strengths and attract diverse students, like military veterans, as well as historically underrepresented students, including women; ethnically, culturally and religiously diverse students; and students with disabilities.
“It is an honor for Syracuse University to be selected for this auspicious designation,” says Vice Chancellor and Provost Michele Wheatly. “This recognition acknowledges the tremendous research of faculty members engaged in these interdisciplinary fields and the strength of our academic enterprises committed to supporting a diverse set of scholars in the classroom and the field.”
Affiliated faculty members will support PER/SUADE’s mission by developing an intelligence-related curriculum, including major and minor degree options and a certificate program; professional development and faculty research opportunities; and culturally immersive experiences.
“This significant designation as an academic center of excellence and funding demonstrate scholarship and the impact of the University’s broadening research portfolio,” says Vice President of Research John Liu. “Syracuse University has a long history and commitment to excellence in research and education in public service and to the highly regarded values of diversity and ethics. Our faculty across various interdisciplinary fields are well positioned to further advance scholarship and education in global understanding and elevate our work in educating under-resourced students with diverse experiences and backgrounds.”
The program will provide students interested in pursuing a career in the area of intelligence with a strong academic foundation and experiences that will increase their success in finding a career in any of the US intelligence agencies. Along with their studies, ICCAE students will have opportunities to study abroad at more than 45 locations, with language instruction, cultural immersion and regional studies, and to participate in seminars, career talks, field trips and conferences.
“The goal of national security is to defend liberty as well as our physical security,” says Hon. James E. Baker, Co-Principal Investigator, Professor of Law, Professor of Public Administration, and Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT). “This program will benefit our nation and all who live in it by producing a diverse group of adaptive and insightful intelligence professionals who hold an unwavering commitment to public service with a keen understanding of ethics and the rule of law. These values and virtues were embodied in the life of Judge Jack Downey [a US intelligence officer who was captured and detained in Chinese prisons during and after the Korean War], whose service is recognized in the form of the Downey Fellowship for academically excellent students.”
The partnership consortium will take a three-part approach to address current educational needs and challenges for the intelligence community. The approach recognizes that emerging professionals need to adapt to the demands of highly dynamic and changing environments; acknowledges that diverse perspectives and experiences enhance a person’s ability to analyze situations; and recognizes that the next generation of the best security and intelligence professionals will put ethics and the rule of law at the forefront of their analysis and practice.
“At its heart this effort aims to build a diverse workforce for the intelligence community that represents the full spectrum of our country’s population—reflected ethnically and culturally, and by gender, through sustainable national security education programs that will complement students’ primary areas of study,” says Vice Admiral Robert Murrett (Ret.), Principal Investigator, Maxwell School Professor of Practice, and Deputy Director of INSCT. “It will leverage contributions from virtually all the schools and colleges at Syracuse University, and provide additional career opportunities for our students.”
Zoli, Corri & Aliya H. Williams G’17. “ISIS Cohort Transnational Travels and EU Security Gaps: Reconstructing the 2015 Paris Attack Preplanning and Outsource Strategy.” Terrorism and Political Violence, 31 (June 2019).
In this article Zoli and Williams explore the underappreciated role of organizational tactics in terrorist violence in an understudied single case: ISIS’s execution of the Nov. 13, 2015 Paris attacks.
It is one of the first systemic reconstructions of the journeys made by two ISIS strike cohorts in the coordinated attacks, as teams traveled from the Levant to Europe. In contrast to other high-profile attacks, terrorism scholars have not undertaken a detailed reconstruction of this event, even while open source information is now available. By examining the transnational travels of foreign terrorist fighters, the authors identify ISIS’s distinctive terrorist outsourcing strategy in which operatives used their experiences to adapt to changing security conditions, while EU governments revealed limited responses.
Both elements in this tightly-knit dynamic—terrorist outsourcing savvy using FTFs and EU security policy failures—were necessary to achieve this high-profile attack.
Zoli’s and Williams’ essay contributes to descriptive empirical and theoretical knowledge of terrorist tactical innovation and adaptive operational learning, as these capacities are enhanced by on-the-ground organized networks to increase organizational (versus so-called “lone wolf”) campaign success. By using a single case interdisciplinary and exploratory framework, the authors claim that terrorism studies can delve deeper into superficially understood phenomena to isolate concepts with future cross-case value, such as cohorts and tactical adaptation.
(Re-published from The Hill | May 19, 2019) In the headlines again recently was the tragic case of University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier, when it was disclosed that North Korea billed the United States $2 million for his medical treatment while a captive. Warmbier died in 2017 shortly after arriving home following more than a year in North Korean detention. Arrested by the North Koreans for spying, Warmbier was accused of ripping down a propaganda poster in a restricted area of his hotel in Pyongyang. He likely suffered unimaginable torture during his time in detention, but because of the opaque nature of the North Korean regime, little is known about his treatment and what caused the severe brain injury that led to his coma and death.
The news raised questions about the negotiations for Warmbier’s release and whether the medical bill the U.S. apparently had agreed to pay essentially was a ransom payment. The Trump administration has denied that it ever was paid. Warmbier’s mother, Cynthia, said that if she knew the North Koreans were after money she would have given it to them from day one. It is understandable that the relatives of victims of torture and cruelty by foreign governments are prepared to do anything to see them released and to gain justice for their families.
The Warmbiers received a modicum of justice in a federal court last December, when North Korea was ordered to pay the family over $500 million in damages. At the time of the ruling, his parents commented, “We are thankful that the United States has a fair and open judicial system so that the world can see that the Kim regime is legally and morally responsible for Otto’s death. … We promised Otto that we will never rest until we have justice for him.” The judge in the case noted that the award was substantial to deter the North Koreans from engaging in this type of behavior again.
Although the U.S. courts have offered a legal venue for the Warmbiers to seek judicial redress, under Article 14 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) and international legal standards, they also should have meaningful access to legal proceedings where the torture took place. They have a right to judicial redress, adequate compensation and means for as full a rehabilitation as possible. This is something that the United States and the 163 other signatories to the CAT have committed to and is an important tool for ensuring reconciliation, healing and prevention.
Unfortunately for the Warmbiers and their quest for justice, North Korea is unlikely to pay a damages award or to provide this sort of judicial process for redress and compensation. But imagine if similar torture, cruel treatment and even death happened to a U.S. citizen in a country that had signed the CAT. The United States surely would demand the right of our citizens to have access to judicial redress and the ability to seek adequate compensation for their treatment.
Indeed, if the United States expects other countries to open their courts for U.S. victims overseas, it needs to do that for those who claim torture and ill-treatment by the United States. Specifically, victims of the U.S. post-9/11 Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) program thus far have been unable to seek meaningful redress in U.S. courts. These individuals were suspected of terrorism, rounded up in Afghanistan on promise of a bounty. After months or years of detention, many were released without charge or explanation …
David M. Crane is a Syracuse University College of Law Distinguished Scholar in Residence.
By the Hon. James E. Baker
(Re-published from ABA Journal | May 9, 2019) Cybersecurity is necessarily an issue that crosses international boundaries, raising complex questions of sovereignty, jurisdiction, law and policy. In response, lawyers have struggled to find the right legal metaphor or framework to apply to cyberspace. Each of these issues concerns the American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative because the way we as a society choose to address these challenges implicates what it means to live and operate under the rule of law.
The United States government produces almost as many reports and strategies as the ABA. One recent document warrants the attention of the bar, and not just security practitioners. The Department of Defense Cyber Strategy released in September—or more precisely, the unclassified part of the Strategy available to the public—breaks new and important ground, potentially marking a significant shift in the federal government’s strategic posture. How important the Strategy is will depend in large part on whether it is tied to an effective policy and decision-making process.
If I were briefing a senior policymaker on the substance and import of this new Strategy, I would highlight the following key statement:
What is remarkable here is not the content of the statement, but the willingness to say it publicly. What would be even more remarkable would be if the U.S. government did in fact use all the instruments of national power to enforce cyber norms, as it once used all the instruments of national power to contain the Soviet Union. Gen. Paul Nakasone, in his capacity as the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, has advocated this approach encapsulated in the concept of “persistent engagement” …
(Bloomberg Law | May 9, 2019) William Banks, Syracuse University Law School Professor discusses the clash between House Democrats and Attorney General William Barr over a subpoena for the unredacted version of the Mueller report and Trump’s decision to assert executive privilege. He speaks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso.
Constitutional Law: Structure and Rights in Our Federal System (7th Edition)
Eds. William C. Banks & Rodney A. Smolla
Carolina Academic Press, 2019
“Twenty-five years ago we set out to create a constitutional law casebook that teaches well,” write Professor Emeritus William C. Banks and Dean Rodney Smolla of Widener University Delaware Law School in the Preface to the seventh edition of Constitutional Law: Structure and Rights in Our Federal System (Carolina Academic Press, 2019). “We wanted to teach from a book that would engage students in learning basic constitutional law and would enable teachers to work with cases and problems relatively unencumbered by extensive secondary source materials and treatise-like notes.
“In preparing the seventh edition of our casebook, we have continued to develop the characteristics that distinguish our book from others. First, we continue to place heavy emphasis on the structure of government, the constitutional concepts of federalism, and separation of powers.”
Traditional in scope, with full coverage of separation of powers, federalism, and individual rights, Constitutional Law emphasizes structural issues more so than many other constitutional law casebooks. Individual rights are discussed in context and within chapters focusing on traditional doctrinal categories, such as economic and social rights, rights of conscience and expression, and rights in the public arena.
The seventh edition makes heavy use of contemporary constitutional conflicts to present in a vivid manner the cases and secondary material traditionally covered in comprehensive constitutional law courses, including case studies in issues such as gun control, problems on the special counsel investigation by Robert Mueller, the Supreme Court’s resolution of which branch controls recognition of Jerusalem in providing passports, and controversies surrounding the Affordable Care Act.
This edition also expands dramatically the coverage of the religion and speech clauses, so that the casebook is useable for comprehensive courses on the First Amendment at law schools that break out coverage of constitutional law into a basic course and a follow-up course on civil liberties or the First Amendment.
- The Origins: “We the People”: Where Does Power Reside in Our Constitutional System?
- Separation of Powers: Constitutional Checks and Balances
- Federalism Limits on Federal Courts
- Federalism Limits on the Elected Branches and on the States
- Public and Private Domain
- Exclusion and Equal Protection
- Economic and Social Rights
- Freedom of Speech and Association
National Security Expert at SU Speaks About What’s Next After the Mueller Report
(WAER | April 19, 2019) WAER’s Chris Bolt spoke with Professor Emeritus William Banks on some of the legal and historical aspects of the report and what it means going forward.
One of most significant things about the report William Banks says, might be what’s not there. President Trump was never directly interviewed about any of the allegations.
“His responses to the written questions were that he simply didn’t recall, most of the time when the questions probe his state of mind. Had they obtained oral testimonial from the president would be far more difficult to walk away from direct answer to the question about his state of mind.”
Intent would have to be established for prosecutors to be able to bring any charges for obstruction of justice against the president. But that doesn’t mean the investigation didn’t have legal ramifications … he notes two dozen indictments of others came out of it. Still, no direct questioning of President Trump leaves a hole in any possible criminal case.
He found in the report less redaction that he thought by Attorney General William Barr. Most things blacked out had to do with grand jury materials, things relevant to ongoing congressional investigations, and identification of ancillary witnesses. What does concern him, is the lack of objectivity from the Attorney General’s office.
“The willingness of the justice department to go behind the scenes to allow them to prepare their rebuttal today speaks more of an effort to support the administration than it does to simply speak for the rule of law for the United States. So I think this is a very unfortunate aspect of investigation and one that somewhat unique in our history.”
Of course you can’t escape the political aspects of the investigation and the report. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who’s a presidential candidate, called it an embarrassing display of propaganda. She said in a release that the nation can’t trust a hand-picked attorney general and that congress should see the full, un-redacted report to really find the truth.
Area Congress members John Katko and Anthony Brindisi had different reactions to the release of the report, both speaking at a public event in Oswego. Katko told Syracuse.com he had no problem with Barr’s press conference and then releasing the report. He’s more concerned with what’s in it and how we reduce Russian influence in elections. Brindisi wants to see a full, un-redacted version before drawing conclusions, though he also does not want the investigation to overshadow other issues that need attention. Professor Banks meanwhile believes the prospect of Congress starting impeachment proceedings is not in the cards.
“I think the democrats recognize if they start an inquiry in the house, they may or may not have sufficient votes to impeach there. If they did, they would certainly not have votes to convict to the senate. It would be a way like the Clinton inquiry many years ago, a lot of effort for vey little outcome, any positive outcomes.”
While the President might not face that challenge, Banks says the whole process draws into question just how Mr. Trump views the office.
“One of the aspects of his presidency is to treat it more like a business and a personal fiefdom, as though he was a king or autocrat, rather than a democratically elected leader of a country who shares authority with the congress and the court in between nation government and states. So in many respects, I think the president has treated the office of presidency in a way as no other president has before as though he was above the law. That’s the most dramatic challenge to our constitutional system that I can imagine.”
And he adds things are far from over. There are still ongoing grand jury investigations; congress will have its own investigations and hearings; and Banks expects you should get used to hearing about the report and all manner of reactions to it on the campaign trail.
“I think certainly through the 2020 election, this is not going to be done. And then whatever the result the election produces, certainly the president and perhaps the shape and contour of the congress on the partisan, aside democrats from republicans. Then maybe on the November, 2020, this will all go away, but I doubt that it will before then.”
The Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT)—a collaboration between the Syracuse University College of Law and the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs—has added five senior national security experts to its academic and advisory leadership team.
These Distinguished Fellows—drawn from the upper echelons of the national security and intelligence communities—will assist the Institute’s mission with a variety of assignments that will directly benefit students and expand INSCT’s portfolio of research and policy projects.
Joining INSCT are Steve Bunnell, Co-Chair of Data Security and Privacy at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, former General Counsel of the US Department of Homeland Security, and former Chief of the Criminal Division at the US Attorney’s Office in Washington, DC; Rajesh De, Chair of the Cybersecurity and Data Privacy practice and Co-Chair of the National Security practice at Mayer Brown LLP and former General Counsel for the US National Security Agency; Avril Haines, Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University, former Deputy National Security Advisor, and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Amy Jeffress, Partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and former Counselor to the US Attorney General; and Lala Qadir, Associate and Member of the Artificial Intelligence Initiative at Covington & Burling LLP and Lecturer in Law at George Washington University Law School.
“These Distinguished Fellows are five of the leading experts in the field of national security law and policy, and I am thrilled that they have chosen to affiliate with the Institute,” says the Hon. James E. Baker, Director, INSCT. “They bring extraordinary practice experience and diverse expertise to Syracuse. They will expand the Institute’s reach in areas such as emerging technology, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Even better, if you think they are great at what they do—and they are—they are even better people, among the most honorable and ethical public servants I have known. If your mission is to train the next generation of thought leaders and practitioners in the field of public and private national security law, you would want this team of Fellows on your side.”
Among the Fellows’ roles—in Syracuse, New York City, and Washington, DC—they will help teach national security courses; lecture in the Institute’s speakers program; provide students with career advice and guidance; and offer insights and input regarding the Institute’s classroom and practical curriculum and its research and policy portfolio. They also will help the Institute stand up and teach a cutting-edge course on the practice of private national security law.
“Specifically, the Distinguished Fellows give the Institute the opportunity to fill a need that is not being met,” continues Judge Baker. “They will help us teach students at the College of Law and the Maxwell School what they need to know in order to practice in the area of private national security law and policy—at law firms, as in-house counsel, or as business officers and executives. This is an area of private practice that is growing exponentially, that offers career opportunity for our students, and that is critical to US national security, as well as the protection and advancement of US legal values.” It is anticipated that additional Fellows will join those announced today.
“The addition of these national security experts to the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism significantly strengthens the Institute’s already formidable academic and research portfolio,” says Dean Craig M. Boise, Syracuse University College of Law. “Crucially, INSCT Distinguished Fellows will open up important opportunities and avenues for law and public policy students, especially in emerging areas of national security studies, such as artificial intelligence, data privacy, and transnational crime.”
“With decades of experience working on some of the most pressing law and policy issues of our time, INSCT Distinguished Fellows will add greatly to our students’ understanding of the practice of national security law and policymaking,” says Dean David M. Van Slyke, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. “Their insights as senior civil servants and practitioners in political positions, as well as in private practice and academia, will enrich the student experience and expand the depth and reach of Maxwell’s thought leadership and emerging research.”