Corri Zoli Collaborates on IVMF’s “Women in the Military: From Service to Civilian Life” Infographic

Women_in_the_MilitaryThe Institute for Veterans and Military Families’ (IVMF) “Women in the Military: From Service to Civilian Life” infographic provides key highlights on women in service along with invaluable data on women veterans. 

The information and statistics in the document are taken from various data collection efforts by the IVMF centered on military life, transition, employment, entrepreneurship, and higher education. This data collection includes “Missing Perspectives,” an ambitious research program, supported by a Google Global Impact Award, aimed at cultivating a deeper understanding of the social, economic, and wellness concerns of post-9/11 transitioning service members and veterans, and particularly the role of higher education in the transition experience. INSCT Director of Research Corri Zoli collaborated with IVMF and other researchers on both the “Missing Perspectives” and “Women in the Military” efforts.  

On April 26, 2018, the “Women in the Military” infographic and research was the topic of conversation for the Transition Researcher’s Forum, a group of military servicemembers, veterans, medical professionals, researchers, and others convened monthly by the US Department of Defense’s Transition to Veterans Program Office. Zoli and IVMF’s Rosalinda Maury presented the research during this teleconference.

“Women in the Military” Data highlights include:

  • Population
    • There are over 2 million female veterans.
    • Female post-9/11 veterans are one of the fastest growing population.
    • They represent 17% of the post-9/11 veterans’ population.
  • Military Service
    • Top motivations for women entering the military include educational benefits; opportunity to pursue new experiences, adventures, or travel; desire to serve country; a sense of purpose; and career opportunities.
  • Most Significant Transition Challenges:
    • Navigating VA programs, benefits, and services
    • Finding a job
    • Financial struggles
    • Depression
  • Employment
    • Female veterans earn less than male veterans.

Download Women in the Military: From Service to Civilian Life infographic

Download Accessible Version

William C. Banks Speaks to Bloomberg Law on the One Year Anniversary of Mueller’s Appointment

Senate Releases New Document Trove in Russia Probe

William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University Law School, discusses the release of 2,500 documents related to the chamber’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He speaks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso on Bloomberg Radio’s “Politics, Policy, Power and Law.”

Banks, Baker Serve on ABA Military Commissions Workshop, Report Published

On Dec. 7, 2017, INSCT Founding Director William C. Banks and incoming Director the Hon. James E. Baker joined colleagues on the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security (ABA SCOLANS) for a one-day workshop investigating law and policy related to the military commissions at the US Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Workshop Report—The US Military Commissions: Looking Forward—has been published and is available from ABA SCOLANS.

Co-convened by George Washington University Law School, the purpose of the workshop was to provide a forum for expert discussion of issues that face the US military commissions. The commissions were first authorized by President George W. Bush in a Military Order in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and subsequently by the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009. Forty-one detainees are currently held at Guantanamo Bay. On Jan. 30, 2018, President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists” allows the US to transport additional detainees to Guantanamo Bay “when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.”

The workshop’s four sessions addressed:

  1. An overview of the military commissions at Guantanamo.
  2. Legal questions related to existing detainees not charged before the commissions.
  3. Legal issues that could arise if new detainees were brought to Guantanamo.
  4. The implications for the commissions posed by a new authorization to use military force.

Workshop rapporteurs were Judge Baker, who will succeed Banks as INSCT Director in July 2018, and Professor Laura Dickinson of George Washington University Law School. The workshop’s non-partisan report is intended to inform policymakers, commentators, and the public on possible paths forward in the interest of US national security, law, and justice.”The group assembled by ABA SCOLANS brought together scholars and practitioners in the US who are most knowledgeable about the Commissions and who are in the best position to think clearly and positively about reforms that could set the Commissions on a path toward achieving their goal of justice in individual cases,” says Banks.

Among the prominent national security scholars joining Banks and Baker at the workshop were Geoffrey Corn of South Texas College of Law, Jennifer Daskal of American University Washington College of Law, Ryan Goodman of NYU Law School, Andrea Harrison of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Robert Litt of Morrison & Foerster, and Steve Vladeck of University of Texas Law School.

Fox News Interviews Robert B. Murrett on North Korea Summit

Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un expected to discuss denuclearization, economy during historic summit

(Fox News | May 8, 2018) Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un expected to discuss denuclearization, economy during historic summit

President Donald Trump says a date and location have been set for the U.S.-North Korea summit, though he has yet to give specifics.

“It’s important because of the potential opening it has; there is potential diplomatic progress.”

“We now have a date and we have a location. We’ll be announcing it soon,” Trump told reporters from the White House South Lawn in early May.

In the past, Trump said the meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un would take place sometime in May or early June. It will be the first-ever meeting between a U.S. president and a North Korean leader.

“It’s important because of the potential opening it has; there is potential diplomatic progress,” former Vice Adm. Robert B. Murrett, a professor of practice, public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University, told Fox News.

Murrett, who also serves as deputy director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at the college, specializes in national security, international relations, military and defense strategy.

“This is something we haven’t been able to do for many years,” he added.

Fox News asked Murrett to explain what the summit could mean for this nation’s future, and he answered three questions about the historic event that Americans should know.

Why is this meeting so significant?

Aside from the potential diplomatic benefits between the U.S. and North Korea, the summit could benefit other countries.

“It not just about the United States,” he said, explaining that the meeting could also be a win for “our partners in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, but also areas in the South Pacific region such as Australia.”

He added, “These talks have the ability to reduce security tensions in East Asia and present an opportunity for the U.S. to reinforce the strong links with South Korea, Japan and even China.”

What topics should we expect Kim and Trump to discuss?

Denuclearization will be at the forefront, Murrett said.

North Korea’s “nuclear weapons and ability to deliver them at long distances should be central,” said Murrett, who added that recent talks between North and South Korea “would suggest that it would remain a core issue.”

President Trump says meeting with the leader on North Korea has a chance to be a big event.

But Murrett also expects discussion of the Hermit Kingdom’s role in the global economy.

Despite various sanctions placed on the country, North Korea’s economy grew by 3.9 percent in 2016. But Murrett said diplomatic talks represent the “prospect of North Korea rejoining the family of the Asians” if only from an economic standpoint, potentially opening the door for the country to trade with more than just China.

“It would be in the interest of the people of North Korea,” Murrett added.

Does Trump deserve credit for the summit?

In short: Yes. In part.

While Trump does deserve credit for agreeing to meet with Kim, his decision to do so was likely sparked by “the window of opportunity that has existed because of ongoing pressure” on North Korea to better its relations with surrounding countries and beyond, Murrett said …

Read the full article here.

Hon. James E. Baker Joins Syracuse University College of Law as Professor, Director of INSCT

James E. BakerJurist, scholar, and law and policy practitioner the Hon. James E. Baker will join the faculty of Syracuse University College of Law, as well as the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, as a Professor in Fall 2018. Judge Baker will lead the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism as Director, succeeding Professor William C. Banks, who founded the Institute in 2003.

One of the most highly regarded national security lawyers and policy advisors in the nation, Judge Baker’s career has evolved from an Infantry Officer in the US Marine Corps; to the staff of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan; to the US Department of State, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and National Security Council. Mostly notably, Judge Baker served on the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for 15 years—the last four as Chief Judge.

“He is a gifted teacher and an accomplished scholar, whose penetrating analyses of national security law problems are routinely cited as exemplars in the field.”—William C. Banks

Since 2015, Judge Baker has served as a Member of the Public Interest Declassification Board; as a Consultant for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity; and as Chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security. Judge Baker has taught at several universities, including his alma mater Yale Law School and the Georgetown University Law Center. From 2017-2018, he was a Robert E. Wilhelm Fellow at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Previous recipients of this prestigious fellowship include former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Adm. William Fallon, former Commander of US Central Command.

“I am extremely pleased to welcome Judge Baker into our College of Law family and, given the interdisciplinary approach to national security at Syracuse, I look forward to introducing him to the University as a whole,” says College of Law Dean Craig M. Boise. “Not only will he strengthen the College’s reputation and reinforce INSCT’s leadership position in national security law and policy, he is positioned to transform how the topic is studied and taught and to respond with intellectual agility as new security challenges emerge. Under his guidance, I fully expect INSCT to continue its exceptional track record of graduate placement in this practice area.”

“I am very delighted that Judge Baker will be joining Syracuse University and leading INSCT,” says Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Dean David M. Van Slyke. “His commitment to interdisciplinary research with policy implications and to working across the sectors and levels of government makes him an ideal leader and one that we in the Maxwell School are very excited to work with.”

“Judge Baker’s path to excellence spans appointments in the US military, in public service and on the bench, and in academia,” says Professor William C. Banks, Founding Director, INSCT. “He is a gifted teacher and an accomplished scholar, whose penetrating analyses of national security law problems are routinely cited as exemplars in the field. That he has compiled an impressive record of publications while engaged as a judge and legal adviser in government is a testament to his energy and drive to educate about national security.”

“I am excited and honored to be joining Syracuse University and the faculty of the College of Law and Maxwell School. It is also a privilege to take INSCT’s helm from Bill Banks. Bill is a friend, an educator, and a scholar whose vision created the Institute and whose leadership enriched it for more than 15 years,” says the Hon. James E. Baker. “INSCT’s excellent reputation for interdisciplinary scholarship and hands-on national security academics attracted me to this position. So did the University’s deep and sincere commitment to public service and to veterans. I look forward to continuing the Institute’s research, teaching, service, and legal and policy analysis initiatives; to expanding its portfolio of sponsored programs; and to working on critical, emerging challenges in national security law and policy with colleagues in the College of Law, Maxwell School, and across the University. I especially look forward to mentoring the next generation of national security practitioners and thought leaders.”

Judge Baker is the author of two books, In the Common Defense: National Security Law for Perilous Times (Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Regulating Covert Action (Yale University Press, 1992, with Michael Reisman) as well as numerous chapters and articles. Among his several awards, Judge Baker has been honored by the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, and the US Army Command and General Staff College (Honorary Master of Military Arts and Science, 2009). He holds a B.A. from Yale University (1982) and a J.D. from Yale Law School (1990).

David M. Crane Donates Papers to JAG School

Professor of Practice David M. Crane will donate his papers, photographs, and other memorabilia from his time as Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL) to the Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, an ABA-accredited law school in Charlottesville, VA.

Crane was SCSL prosecutor from 2002 to 2005. Before this appointment, he was Waldemar A. Solf Professor of International Law and Chairman of the International Law Department at the JAG School, a position he held after a US government career in the Office of Intelligence Review, Defense Intelligence Agency, and elsewhere.

The JAG School is one of the premier military legal history and war crimes research institutions in the world. Crane’s papers will join others related to notorious war crimes and crimes against humanity, including those on US vs. Calley, a court case arising from the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. Once housed at the JAG School, Crane’s SCSL papers will be available to academic and other researchers interested in international tribunals.

Crane announced his retirement from the College of Law faculty in March 2018.

Travel Ban Has Slippery Slope to Giving President Too Much Power

By David Driesen

(Republished from The Hill | May 4, 2018) Lawyers frequently argue that accepting an argument in one context may lead to unacceptable consequences in another. Lawyers call this a slippery slope argument. The slippery slope dominated the oral argument on the legality of the administration’s travel ban before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii. No justice suggested that a sound national security rationale undergirds this travel ban.

The court’s reluctance to review a proffered national security rationale at all puts our entire democracy on a dangerous slippery slope.

But Justice John Roberts worried that recognizing the principle that the president cannot restrict travel on the basis of religion or nationality might have bad consequences at other times. He asked, for example, if the president could ban travel from Syria if 20 Syrians were about to enter the United States with chemical and biological weapons.

Roberts also asked about a longer lasting danger with Congress unable to pass legislation. The court’s conservative wing seemed inclined to uphold an unnecessary ban motivated by religious animus, because a decision striking down the ban might someday stop a president from unilaterally addressing a real danger.

But upholding this travel ban also would create a slippery slope. If neither the statutory restriction on nationality-based restrictions nor the Constitution’s prohibition of religious discrimination restrain the president’s authority to ban classes of aliens, then Trump could add all Muslim-majority countries to his travel ban list, perhaps adding some other countries as window dressing.

The court can avoid sliding down a slippery slope by issuing an opinion tied tightly to the facts. The court could hold that Trump’s statements about religion make this ban discriminatory. Such a ruling might limit Trump’s options in responding to security threats, but would likely have no effect on future presidents. Or the court could overturn this travel ban based on the lack of an adequate national security rationale, since no immigrants from the banned countries have carried out terrorist attacks.

A narrower approach would combine these two options. The court could hold that once religious animus is shown, the president must proffer a reasonably robust national security rationale for his actions. The court could more narrowly hold that the president must make the entire record available so it can judge whether the national security rationale provides a mere pretext for violating constitutional rights. The administration’s failure to put the full interagency review it conducted in the record suggests that it does not support the travel ban that Trump chose.

The court’s reluctance to review a proffered national security rationale at all puts our entire democracy on a dangerous slippery slope. Given the persistence of global terrorism, almost any action limiting our liberties, no matter how unnecessary at the time, can be justified as the type of national security measure that could be needed in the future …

Read the full article.

David Driesen is a law professor at Syracuse University.

Corri Zoli Offers Thoughts on Human Rights Training to US GAO

Corri Zoli, Director of Research for the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, discussed human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) training with the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) on April 19, 2018.

Zoli was invited to a teleconference session by recent graduate James I. McCully L’17, G’17, now an Analyst in International Affairs and Trade at GAO. A joint J.D./M.P.A. student, while at Syracuse McCully was a research assistant to professors Robert Ashford and David Driesen and Lead Articles Editor for the Journal of International Law and Commerce.

Explained McCully, the GAO is in the process of responding to a mandate in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act to review human rights and IHL training provided by the departments of State and Defense to the security forces of foreign nations.

Specifically, McCully’s team asked Zoli, an expert in international law, about her observations and views on human rights and IHL training being provided to foreign security forces; her thoughts about the Leahy Laws, which prohibit the US from providing military assistance to foreign security forces that violate human rights; and what assessments, monitoring, and evaluation are most effective when reviewing and auditing this type of training.

The US-Led Military Strike in Syria: Germany Steps Aside, as Always

By Kamil Szubart

On April 14, 2018, the US, British, and French military launched a precision strike on the Assad Regime’s chemical weapons facilities nearby Damascus and Homs. The strike was an answer by Western allies to the alleged chlorine gas attack in Douma, about 10 miles east of the Syrian capital Damascus, carried out by the Assad regime’s forces on April 7, 2018. According to the UN’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the World Health Organization (WHO), at least 40 civilians died in this attack, and almost 500 people sought medical treatment.

This missile strike was twice the size of the US attack in April 2017. Nevertheless, the British and French contribution to the operation was mostly symbolic. The British deployed only four Tornado GR4 jet fighters, armed with Storm Shadow missiles, from the Akrotiri RAF Base in Cyprus. However, the deployment showed the willingness of both Britain and France to respond to the severe violation of international law committed by the Assad Regime. It was also the first well-coordinated military operation against other state carried out by European NATO countries since the 2011 military intervention in Libya.

The German chancellor’s position on Syria is being criticized both from both right and left.

But, separating itself from Britain and France, Germany remained on the sidelines of this military action in Syria—why?

Rhetoric, But No Hardware

Germany and its newly-elected-but-very-familiar Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to back Germany’s allies with rhetoric but not with missiles. At the press conference after the meeting with Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen in Berlin on April 12, 2018, the Chancellor ruled out Germany’s engagement in a possible military operation against the Assad regime.

Merkel condemned the Douma chemical attack, iterated that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and said it is necessary to formulate a united position by the West in response to this barbaric attack against innocent people. She added that the West should send a strong signal to the regime in Damascus and that Germany supports its allies—but she stressed that Germany will not be militarily involved. And she avoided specifying how her country would help allies in military action in Syria.

In the aftermath of the US-led raid in Syria, spokesman for the German Federal Government Steffan Seibert continued the rhetoric, stating that Germany backed the air strikes by the US, France, and Britain as a “necessary and appropriate” action to warn Syria against further use of chemical weapons. Merkel added, “We support the fact that our American, British, and French allies have taken responsibility in this way as permanent members of the UN Security Council.”

Why the German Reluctance?

German foreign policy toward Syria refers to the UN Security Council and the actions taken by OPCW to provide clear evidence of chemical weapons use by the Assad Regime, and German leaders prefer to use diplomatic measures instead of military action. Insisting on the deep involvement of the UN is also related to Germany’s efforts to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2019-2020 (the final decision will be taken by the UN General Assembly on June 6, 2018).

Germany’s diplomatic position in this case is nothing new as it relates to its general approach toward military engagement abroad, especially in overseas missions known as “out-of-area” missions carried out by the German Armed Forces outside of NATO and EU territories.

Since Reunification in 1990, Germany has largely evaded engagement in combat operations conducted by other NATO countries. This trend was not changed by Germany’s involvement in the 1999 Allied Force operation against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis. Later, both the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent “Global War on Terror” compelled Germany to act in solidarity with the US. Germany supported the invocation of NATO’s Article 5 (for the first time in the organization’s history) on September 12, 2001. Berlin then approved the deployment of its troops to Afghanistan but it opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion, which strained bilateral relations between Germany and the US.

The next crucial moment for Germany took place when European NATO countries, backed by the US, launched a military operation against Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya in 2011. At that time, Germany, as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC), abstained on Resolution 1973 to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. This decision subsequently marginalized Germany and undermined its role as a main solicitor of the rule of law and of human rights, placing the country with China and Russia, which also voted against the resolution.

Merkel Under Fire

The German chancellor’s position on Syria is being criticized both from both right and left. The Greens, the anti-immigrant and populist AfD, and post-communists from Die Linke have all attacked Merkel and her government and its rhetorical support for the strikes. They argue that the combat operation against the Assad Regime was carried out before releasing clear proof of Assad regime’s responsibility for the attack in Douma.

On the other hand, liberals from the Free Democratic Parties rubbish Chancellor Merkel for ruling out Germany’s military engagement in the operation, even though Germany could provide logistical support to the allies (as Germany is one of the biggest logistical hubs for the US in the world). The heavy fire has even come from a former defense minister in the previous Merkel government, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who called Merkel “a grandmaster of dialectics.”

Merkel’s Fear & Goals

Since the end of the World War II, German foreign policy has been driven by multilateral diplomacy and international law. On the one hand, Germany knows that the use of the chemical agent in Douma is the violation of international law and that Syria ratified the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention in 2013. On the other hand, it is aware that the use of military power against other countries without the UN Security Council authorization would violate international law and the UN charter. Thus, Germany prefers to emphasize the role of the UN in finding a solution to the Syrian conflict, which helps to explain Germany’s absence during the Syria strike and in carrying out special obligations to the US, Britain, and France as permanent members of the UNSC.

Alongside the UN, Germany would like to strengthen the role of the EU in resolving the conflict in Syria. Berlin is developing special relations with France and, ahead of Brexit and the potential absence of Britain, looks forward to launching an EU roadmap for Syria.

There is also a domestic factor to the reticence. Since the 2015 migration crisis, about 600,000 Syrians have sought political asylum in Germany. Most of the refugees are anti-Assad and consequently could show their disappointment in the federal government’s position. Moreover, Merkel is afraid of a possible military confrontation in Syria between the US and Russia, sparked by US-led attacks on Assad’s facilities. Such as result could drag Germany into a military confrontation between Russia and NATO, a potential world war.

Finally, Chancellor Merkel has struggled to steady her relations with President Donald Trump, trying to hide her contempt for his policies and rhetoric, especially Trump’s “Twitter diplomacy.” There are constant tensions between both leaders, even though German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen and US Defense Secretary James Mattis seem to understand each other quite well.

Dropping a few cruise missiles—Germany’s Taurus KEPD 350 missiles are comparable to the US JASSM missiles—could have helped Merkel gain Trump’s trust. When it comes to getting back into Trump’s good books, Merkel attempted to retrieve the situation during a trip to Washington on April 27, 2018. However, both politicians were occupied with questions about import duties on steel and aluminum and the Iran nuclear agreement.

INSCT Research and Practice Associate Kamil Szubart was a 2017 visiting fellow at INSCT, via the Kosciuszko Foundation. He works as an analyst for the Institute for Western Affairs in Poznan, Poland, where he is responsible for German foreign and security policy, transatlantic relations, Islamic threats in German-native-speaking countries and topics related to NATO, CSDP, OSCE, and the UN. Currently, he is working on a doctoral dissertation examining US-German relations in the field of international security since 9/11.