Posts

Government Trying to Fudge on Its Claim to Absolute Power

/in , /by

I’m working on a post on the news that DOJ will not charge Jose Rodriguez for destroying the torture tapes. But that’s going to take a while (read the NYT on the news in the meantime).

In the meantime, though, I wanted to point to Adam Serwer’s summary of yesterday’s hearing on the Anwar al-Awlaki suit. The most amusing detail in Adam’s story is that the government only wants to rely on its invocation of State Secrets as a fallback position.

Letter explicitly asked Bates to dismiss the lawsuit on state-secrets grounds only as a last resort.

See?!? They have some shame about their abuse of executive power, even if they’re going to rely on it anyway.

The most important issue, IMO, pertains to standing–I have already suggested that Judge Bates might reject the suit for lack of standing, not least because it’s the easiest way to punt. Adam suggests that Bates was thoroughly uninterested in one of two potential ways to establish standing.

The ACLU/CCR contends they have standing under two criteria, “Next Friend” and “Third Party.” Meeting the standard under “Next Friend” requires the ACLU/CCR to show that the younger al-Awlaki would want to sue but can’t, while “Third Party” demands that the elder al-Awlaki show that he would “suffer a concrete, redressable injury” from the government’s actions. Although Ben Wittes, who was also there, would disagree with me, I think Bates was more sympathetic to “Next Friend” than he was to the “Third Party” question, as he warned the latter could lead to a flood of lawsuits based on government action, and an “unprincipled landscape” in which judges arbitrarily decide standing based on the plaintiffs they’re sympathetic to.

But perhaps the most dramatic part of the hearing appears to have been when Jameel Jaffer stood up and stated that this suit was about whether or not the President can order the assassination of a citizen with no review. I actually differ with Adam’s take on some of this.

There was an exchange at the end of arguments that, beyond the legalese, really crystallized what this case is about. Both sides had offered their final rebuttals, but ACLU attorney Jameel Jaffer stood again and stated that the lawsuit was really about whether the president possesses an “unreviewable authority to order the assassination of an American citizen.” It moved Bates to ask Letter if he wanted to respond.

[DOJ Attorney Douglas] Letter rose and called Jaffer’s statement “absurd” and “ridiculous” but what followed was less convincing. He pointed out that the AUMF limits the president to overseas operations, that al-Awlaki was part of an “officially designated” terrorist group who was “attempting to carry out operations” against Americans.The fact that al-Awlaki had just released a new video calling for Muslims to kill Americans probably weighed on reporters in the courtroom.

Only the first of Letter’s statements is beyond dispute. The other two concern unproven — but not necessarily inaccurate — assumptions of fact that go to the heart of the case: whether or not al-Awlaki is actually an “operational leader” of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or simply a vicious hatemonger who justifies and exhorts terrorism against Americans. The government is actually saying that its unilateral determination that the latter two assumptions are accurate that allow the government to deprive al-Awlaki of life without due process.

First, note that Letter’s claim that al-Awlaki was part of an “officially designated” terrorist group is a bunch of baloney. He is now part of that group, at least according to the unproven allegations of the government. But the State Department didn’t get around to designating al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as such until several weeks after they had put al-Awlaki on the JSOC kill list (though he was not yet on the CIA kill list), so the suggestion that the President would only target someone formally designated a terrorist for assassination is a lie.

But the other claim–that the AUMF only covers operations overseas–is even sillier.

Consider: the government has not yet withdrawn the White Paper retroactively authorizing the illegal wiretap program under the AUMF. Thus, DOJ still supports claims that the AUMF authorized the President–any President–to conduct operations (in that case, military operations in the form of NSA wiretapping) in the United States.

Mind you, Tom Daschle has made it clear that Congress specifically refused to grant the President authority to operate in the United States. But so long as DOJ supports that White Paper, they stand by a public claim that the AUMF authorized the President to operate within the US.

So Jaffer is right: there’s nothing about Douglas Letter’s claims that rebut Jaffer’s argument that this is about whether the President can unilaterally assassinate an American citizen. As Adam has shown, simply asserting someone is a member of a terrorist organization does not make the assertion any less unilateral. And Letter’s claims that the AUMF does not authorize operations in the United States seems to ignore DOJ policy that supports just such a claim.

A Defense of Tyranny?

/in /by

I’m pretty fascinated by this attempt by one of John Cole’s readers to defend the Administration’s stance on assassinating US citizens. It’s fascinating and not a little disturbing, but it deserves a response, if only to clarify precisely what the problem with the Administration’s filing last Friday is.

The reader starts with this:

On Al-Awlaki, what’s your response to the argument that targeted killing of him is allowable, under international law, because he’s been designated by the US and the UN as an “active operational member of AQAP” and, as such, if and only if the US determines he presents an imminent threat, the US can take actions to defend itself against an attack (like, say, the Christmas bombing, in which there’s evidence he was involved in planning) by either capturing or killing him?

For starters, this question misrepresents what the suit tries to do. The suit readily admits that the government has the right to kill someone who presents an imminent threat. The plaintiffs are asking for the judge to prevent the government from killing Anwar al-Awlaki unless he is, in fact, an imminent threat.

Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that the Constitution and international law prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings outside of armed conflict except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific, and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury; and an injunction prohibiting the targeted killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi outside this narrow context. Plaintiff also seeks an injunction requiring the government to disclose the standards under which it determines whether U.S. citizens can be targeted for death. [my emphasis]

Moreover, John’s reader misstates the argument the government is making. They refuse to grant that the only legal basis they’d have for assassinating al-Awlaki would be because they had determined him to be an imminent threat and never once argue that he is an imminent threat, particularly not that he, personally, as opposed to AQAP more generally, is an imminent threat.

For example, even assuming for the sake of argument that plaintiff has appropriately described the legal contours of the President’s authority to use force in a context of the sort described in the Complaint,

In fact, as I have shown, the government refuses to lay out its entire argument for claiming it has the authority to target al-Awlaki.

Accordingly, although it would not be appropriate to make a comprehensive statement as to the circumstances in which he might lawfully do so, it is sufficient to note that, consistent with the AUMF, and other applicable law, including the inherent right to self-defense, the President is authorized to use necessary and appropriate force against AQAP operational leaders, in compliance with applicable domestic and international legal requirements, including the laws of war.

One thing is clear, though: the government is claiming to have the authority not only through international law (the “imminent threat”), but also the AUMF. But it’s not at all clear the AUMF does grant them that authority (and this is one reason why John’s reader’s appeal to the political branches is so problematic). AQAP was not included in the AUMF. No  one has ever claimed it had a role in 9/11, which is how the AUMF defines the opponent. The decisions on habeas cases have been mixed about whether attenuated connections like AQAP’s are strong enough to be included in the AUMF and because of it, legally detainable. John’s reader just ignores that the primary basis for which the government claims authority to kill al-Awlaki is the AUMF (even if they refuse to say whether AQAP is al Qaeda, or only affiliated with al Qaeda). But that basis is contested.

But let’s set aside the problems with the government’s claim to authority under the AUMF for the moment and focus instead on what John’s reader seems comfortable with: the “imminent threat.” John’s reader seems satisfied that al-Awlaki’s role in the Christmas day bombing makes him an imminent threat. There are two problems with that. First, we have a tradition in this country of requiring the government to prove the allegations it makes against people. Here’s how the government presents this allegation, in James Clapper’s public declaration.

Since late 2009, Al-Aulaqi has taken on an increasingly operational role in AQAP, including preparing Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab [sic], who attempted to detonate an explosive device aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, for his operation. In November 2009, while in Yemen, Abdulmutallab swore allegiance to the emir of AQAP and shortly thereafter received instructions from al-Aulaqi to detonate an explosive device aboard a U.S. airplane over U.S. airspace.

Particularly given the government’s reported belief, before the Nidal Hasan attack, that al-Awlaki’s activities extended only to First Amendment protected speech, we deserve to know how they determined that his activities since then have become operational. If we know that from classified intercepts, then the government can share them with the Court without disclosing them publicly. If we know that solely through Abdulmutallab’s interrogations, then we deserve to know the circumstances surrounding those interrogations, not least whether Abdulmutallab was promised he would not face the death penalty if he implicated al-Awlaki.

More importantly, we have means to do all this–to have a judge weigh the evidence to make sure the government’s allegations are true. That’s a trial. And for some reason, the government has chosen not to charge al-Awlaki with conspiracy in Abdulmutallab’s crime, and therefore chosen not to expose its evidence to the scrutiny of a judge. I wouldn’t necessarily have much reason to doubt the government’s claims about al-Awlaki, but the government loses a great deal of credibility when they choose not to avail themselves of the means to prove those allegations.

If the case against al-Awlaki is strong enough to kill him, then it ought to be strong enough to prove in a court.

And then there’s the other problem with the claim that al-Awlaki is an “imminent” threat: the timing.

Read more →

Koh v. Johnson: Material Support in Far Away “Battlefields”

/27 Comments/in /by

I don’t know about you. But I’m sort of bored with the Holder v. Rahm fight over torture and Gitmo. My hope is they’ll start a military commission trial, it’ll get delayed and challenged, and Holder will be able to demonstrate in terms even Rahm understands that civilian trials are not just a question of politics–they are also clearly more efficacious.

Ah well.

Lucky for us, there’s a new debate to watch, this one between State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh and DOD General Counsel Jeh Johnson, over whether Presidential wartime powers are limited to those actually in al Qaeda, or include those more loosely affiliated with the organization. As Charlie Savage describes, both have written secret memos advocating a position on the issue.

But behind closed doors, the debate flared again that summer, when the Obama administration confronted the case of Belkacem Bensayah, an Algerian man who had been arrested in Bosnia — far from the active combat zone — and was being held without trial by the United States at Guantánamo. Mr. Bensayah was accused of facilitating the travel of people who wanted to go to Afghanistan to join Al Qaeda. A judge found that such “direct support” was enough to hold him as a wartime prisoner, and the Justice Department asked an appeals court to uphold that ruling.

The arguments over the case forced onto the table discussion of lingering discontent at the State Department over one aspect of the Obama position on detention. There was broad agreement that the law of armed conflict allowed the United States to detain as wartime prisoners anyone who was actually a part of Al Qaeda, as well as nonmembers who took positions alongside the enemy force and helped it. But some criticized the notion that the United States could also consider mere supporters, arrested far away, to be just as detainable without trial as enemy fighters.

That view was amplified after Harold Koh, a former human-rights official and Yale Law School dean who had been a leading critic of the Bush administration’s detainee policies, became the State Department’s top lawyer in late June. Mr. Koh produced a lengthy, secret memo contending that there was no support in the laws of war for the United States’ position in the Bensayah case.

Mr. Koh found himself in immediate conflict with the Pentagon’s top lawyer, Jeh C. Johnson, a former Air Force general counsel and trial lawyer who had been an adviser to Mr. Obama during the presidential campaign. Mr. Johnson produced his own secret memorandum arguing for a more flexible interpretation of who could be detained under the laws of war — now or in the future.

Part of me actually wonders whether the debate stems at least partly from Johnson’s greater familiarity with whom we’re already keeping–which includes a bunch of people whose “material support for terrorism” is really quite tenuous. That doesn’t justify holding them, but this may be a question about whom we have already held for 9 years.

Still, the ramifications of holding those who materially supported al Qaeda are pretty ominous, given the fairly expansive notion this country has used to claim material support.

And meanwhile, David Barron–Dawn Johnsen’s stand-in–basically punted on this question, seemingly hoping that some judge who is not a radical Bush appointee will make the decision for him.

Oh, Now They're Trying to Insist on Their Responsibility to Archive

/in /by

It seems like BushCo–particularly Cheney–have been fighting for about 2 years to limit their responsibility under the Presidential Records Act to actually supply their papers to the National Archive in usable and timely fashion.

Well, all of a sudden, they’re arguing the contrary–that the papers have to go immediately.

The new Congress on Thursday asked a federal judge to force the Bush White House to keep documents on the controversial firings of nine federal prosecutors instead of turning them over to the National Archives.

[snip]

They asked U.S. District Judge John Bates to order the administration to leave the documents at the White House in the custody of President-elect Barack Obama’s aides in case the information is needed.

Justice Department lawyers argued that the White House is required to turn the material over to the National Archives.

[snip]

The National Archives has already agreed to segregate the subpoenaed material from the rest of Bush’s documents in case it is needed by the courts or the Obama administration, lawyers said.

"If they want the documents, they can request them from NARA," lawyer Carl Nichols said.

But Bates said he had no doubt "there will be some delay if the materials are sent" to the Archives. The judge suggested that he may order the administration to make copies of the documents so they can send the originals to the Archives and make the copies available to the incoming administration.

He said he would make a final ruling on Friday.

This is all follow-up to the rule passed on Tuesday that allows the House Judiciary Committee to pick up its pursuit of testimony in the US Attorney firing investigation right where they left off.

I guess Conyers didn’t want to have any down time during the early days of this Congress.

Update: And in somewhat related move, a different District Court Judge ruled that BushCo doesn’t get to hide what kind of wingnuts were visiting Cheney’s house.

A federal judge on Friday rejected the Bush administration’s latest attempt to keep secret the identities of White House visitors and declared that it engaged in illegal record-keeping practices.

[snip]

A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, asked for the records to determine whether nine conservative religious leaders visited the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney’s residence in October 2006.

Lamberth’s decision means the government will have to find other legal grounds if it wants to block release of the Secret Service logs.

 All this transparency Read more →

Denied! Bates Refuses to Stay Order in Miers/Bolten Suit

/in /by

Judge Bates isn’t helping BushCo sustain their USA purge cover-up and stall. Today, he denied the White House’s motion for a stay of his earlier order pending appeal. He got a bit snarky in his opinion denying the stay–I imagine David Addington is having fits right now.

The Executive has failed to demonstrate that it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the absolute immunity issue or that it has even raised a question “so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful,” id., as to warrant suspending the effect of the July 31st Order pending appeal. To begin with, the Executive devotes almost the entirety of its briefing on this prong to arguing that the Court’s Order is “susceptible to serious debate” concerning the threshold decisions relating to the Committee’s standing and cause of action. See Defs.’ Mot. at 5-6. But even assuming that the Executive’s proposition were correct — which it is not — its reliance upon that point is misplaced. The D.C. Circuit has explained that the stay pending appeal inquiry looks to the likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal itself, see Philip Morris, 314 F.3d at 617. Here, however, the denial of the Executive’s motion to dismiss is not presently subject to appeal because it is not a final order.

[snip]

The Executive’s argument boils down to a claim that a stay is appropriate because the underlying issue is important. But that is beside the point and does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Simply calling an issue important — primarily because it involves the relationship of the political branches — does not transform the Executive’s weak arguments into a likelihood of success or a substantial appellate issue. Hence, the Court concludes that this prong of the stay pending appeal analysis cuts strongly in favor of the Committee. [my emphasis]

Bates goes on at some length, calling out the transparent BS in BushCo’s arguments.

Kagro X and I chatted briefly about what this means–I expect him to do a post on how, absent some enforcement mechanism, this doesn’t exactly guarantee that Miers will show before HJC anytime soon. (Gosh, I’ve never heard him make that argument before.)

Read more →

BREAKING: Judge Bates Rules for the House

/in /by

Judge Bates just issued his opinion in the Miers and Bolten contempt case–and he ruled in favor of the House. Miers will have to appear and Bolten will have to turn over the documents a description of the documents he is withholding. (I guess all it took was for me to post this post.)

This also means Rove will have to appear, as Bates threw out the notion of "absolute immunity."

I’ll have more shortly.

Update: Here’s the opinion. (Note, I’ve fixed my statement above–Bolten has to turn over a description of the documents he is withholding, but not the documents, yet.)

Here’s the crux of Bates’ logic:

Notwithstanding that the opposing litigants in this case are co-equal branches of the federal government, at bottom this lawsuit involves a basic judicial task — subpoena enforcement — with which federal courts are very familiar.

Update: Here’s what Bates thinks of this "absolute immunity" claim:

Indeed, the aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that Ms. Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. The Supreme Court has reserved absolute immunity for very narrow circumstances, involving the President’s personal exposure to suits for money damages based on his official conduct or concerning matters of national security or foreign affairs. The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law. The fallacy of that claim was presaged in United States v. Nixon itself (id. at 706):

neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial [or congressional] process under all circumstances.

Also, bonus points to Bates for mentioning Boumediene, which is sure to cause BushCo a whole lot of heartburn.

Update: Here’s Conyers on the decision.

Today’s landmark ruling is a ringing reaffirmation of the fundamental principle of checks and balances and the basic American idea that no person is above the law. Judge Bates’ decision makes clear that the Congress had the right to subpoena Harriet Miers to learn of her role in the US Attorney firings, that her claim to be immune from subpoena was invalid and that the Committee was entitled to challenge that claim in Court. The Judge also ruled that the White House may not claim Executive Privilege over documents without describing them in reasonable detail Read more →