FY2010 Intel Authorization Act

September 29, 2010

* FY2010 Intelligence Authorization Act

This one appears set for enactment shortly, once the House gets to it. The full text of the bill and the precise details of the compromise among the White House, Senate, and House can be found here (FAS has posted an excerpt from the Congressional Record that opens with Senator Feinstein’s explanatory statement introducing the amended bill, followed by a letter from ODNI-GC Robert Litt setting forth the administration’s understanding of the compromise, and then the (lengthy) amended text of the bill itself). Here are the key points regarding the compromise, as well as a selection of other interesting items in the bill:

1. Oversight of Covert Action – Gang of Eight Notification

Nothing earth-shattering here after all. The executive branch continues to have the option in exceptional cases to limit distribution of a covert action finding to the Gang-of-Eight; when it uses that option it now must alert the other members of the intel committees that it has done so and must provide a “general description” as to why; and the executive branch must revisit the decision not to permit wider notification after 180 days.

2. Notification of the Legal Predicate for Covert Actions and for Intelligence Activities Other than Covert Action

The bill amends 50 USC 413a(a)(2) so as to make clear that the committees may request information about “the legal basis under which the intelligence activity is being or was conducted”. It does the same re covert action notification under 50 USC 413b(b)(2). According to the letter from ODNI-GC described above, the administration understands this

“only to require that the Executive Branch provide the committee with an explanation of the legal basis for the activity; it would not require disclosure of any privileged information or disclosure of information in any particular form.”

Thus this provision would not purport to entitle the committees to demand to see, say, an OLC memo discussing the legal foundation for some particular activity. Presumably the same is true with respect to the comparable language added to the covert action notification provision.

3. GAO Auditing

Here is how the ODNI-GC letter summarizes the compromise:

The proposed Senate amendment includes a new provision that would require the Director of National Intelligence to issue a directive, in consultation with the Comptroller General, governing access of the Comptroller General to information in the possession of an Intelligence Community element. Nothing in this provision changes the underlying law with respect to GAO access to intelligence information. We interpret this provision to provide the DNI with wide latitude when developing the directive to ensure that it conforms with (1) the statutory provisions governing GAO’s jurisdiction and access to information; (2) the intelligence oversight structure embodied in the National Security Act; and (3) relevant opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice.

4. Cybersecurity Provisions

Section 336 of the bill directs the President to notify Congress in 30 days after enactment of all cybersecurity programs then “in operation,” and to do the same within 30 days of any new program thereafter. The notification must include “the legal basis for the cybersecurity program,” any certification that may have been required under 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B), the concept of operations for the program, any privacy assessment from the relevant agency, any plans for independent audit or review, and any recommendations for legislative change. Then the responsible agency head must give Congress an annual report, after consultation with the agency’s inspector general (note the increasing reliance on this form of intra-executive checking; you might also want to look at various other IG-related provisions, the general thrust of which is to touch up their independence a bit; note, too section 433 which creates an NSA “director of compliance”), concerning the results of any audits/reviews or similar compliance-type inquiries.

In addition, the same provision requires the DHS IG and the IG for the Intelligence Community [who is that, you ask? See section 405 of the bill] to jointly submit to Congress and the President a report on “the sharing of cyber-threat information.” Further, the DNI, in coordination with others, has one year to produce a report to Congress proposing legislation or guidelines relating to cybersecurity.

5. A Public Report on Recidivism by Released GTMO Detainees

Who says Congress won’t pass laws dealing with detention policy? Why right here in section 334, Congress will require DNI in 60 days to produce a public, unclassified summary of intel relating to recidivism of GTMO detainees, and an assessment of the likelihood that past or current detainees “will engage in terrorism or communicate with persons in terrorist organizations.” Seriously, that’s in there.

6. More reports…

I’m not sure how many total reports are required by this bill, but there are a whole lot. Many sound quite useful, some less so. Either way, it’s going to make a lot of people very busy….

Advertisements

General Dynamics v. United States (cert. granted in state secrets case), al-Odah v. United States (cert. petition filed in GTMO habeas case

September 29, 2010

1. General Dynamics v. United States (Supreme Court grants cert. in a state secrets case)

The Supreme Court granted cert. yesterday in General Dynamics v. United States and Boeing v. United States, both arising out of the massive, long-running contract dispute associated with the cancellation of the A-12 Avenger II program. The question presented? As framed in General Dynamics: ”Whether the government can maintain its claim against a party when it invokes the state secrets privilege to completely deny that party a defense to the claim.” As framed in Boeing, it’s basically the same thing, but with specific reference to Fifth Amendment Due Process concerns.

While any Supreme Court decision on the state secrets privilege is newsworthy, and much rides on this one both for the immediate litigants and others who become embroiled in similar disputes, we should not expect this to have much impact on the far-more controversial state-secrets cases such as Mohamed v. Jeppessen Dataplan. At the end of the day, the controversy surrounding cases like Jeppessen stems in large part from the idea that the privilege can be used even when its effect is to prevent courts from considering claims of illegal government conduct. The A-12 litigation, in contrast, presents the issue whether the government can itself advance a claim against a private entity while simultaneously invoking the privilege to deprive that entity of a defense. Should a majority of the Court side with the General Dynamics and Boeing in this instance, anticipate that the decision will be written narrowly so as to avoid being seen to speak to the Jeppessen controversy. Of course, it remains possible that the Court also will grant cert. in Jeppessen itself, though I predict they won’t.

SCOTUSblog provides access to the cert petition and other papers here. The links to the decision below were not working just now, however, so for immediate decision below (from the Federal Circuit) try here, and for a related earlier Fed Circuit decision dealing with the same issue try here.

2. Al Odah v. United States (GTMO detainee files cert. petition challenging the hearsay rules and burden-of-proof used in the post-Boumediene litigation)

For about a year and a half after the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, district judges were left to their own devices in grappling with the Guantanamo habeas litigation. Beginning in January this year, some of their resulting decisions began to percolate up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and by summer’s end we had some half-dozen Circuit opinions to consider. More district and circuit opinions are on the way, of course, but in the meantime the question arises whether the Supreme Court might take one of the existing 2010 Circuit decisions for review this term. In hopes that the answer will be yes, a GTMO detainee named Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah–who lost on the merits in his bid for habeas relief both at the district court (before Judge Kollar-Kotelly) and at the circuit (before Chief Judge Sentelle and Judges Rogers and Garland)–has just filed a cert. petition presenting two questions:

1. Whether the Federal Rules of Evidence and 28 U.S.C. 2246 limit the admissibility of hearsay in a habeas corpus case challenging indefinite imprisonment, potentially for life.

2. Whether a preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than a clear and convincing evidence standard, is sufficient under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. 2241 to support a ruling in favor of indefinite imprisonment, potentially for life.

One thing worth noting about the hearsay argument: it is not an argument about what the Constitution requires, but rather an argument about what the Federal Rules of Evidence and the federal habeas statute require. Thus Al Odah writes that “[e]ither Congress or this Court could change the Federal Rules of Evidence to accomodate the particular circumstances of a class of habeas cases such as Petitioner’s.” (pet. at 16) If the Supreme Court were to grant cert. on this question, it is not hard to imagine it having quite a galvanizing effect on Congress, generating interest in legislation in quarters that otherwise might have been prepared to live with the status quo. And of course that legislation would not likely be limited to the hearsay issue. Ironically, then, al Odah’s petition if successful could ultimately result in the adoption of rules either entrenching the status quo or perhaps making it still-more strict. One wonders, too, if some Justices when considering whether to grant cert. might actually bank on such a legislative reaction…. In any event, Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog has more coverage here.


call for papers; resending item on two GTMO habeas denials; forthcoming scholarship

September 28, 2010

1. Call for Papers: Florida Coastal Law Review, “A Decade of Transformation: The Continuing Impact of 9/11 on National Security and Civil Liberties in America” (Deadline December 1st)

Florida Coastal Law Review seeks submissions:

2011 marks the ten-year anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. The events of that day prompted rapid and widespread changes to the American legal landscape. In remembrance of those indelible events, the Florida Coastal Law Review would like to announce the topic of its third annual Spring Symposium, scheduled for March 4, 2011: A Decade of Transformation: The Continuing Impact of 9/11 on National Security and Civil Liberty in America.

The Law Review invites the submission of articles, notes, essays, and other scholarly writing. We encourage submissions from practitioners, authors, and academicians. The Law Review will select five to seven individuals to participate in panel discussions and present papers within each topic. Articles by symposium participants will also be included in the symposium edition of the Florida Coastal Law Review, scheduled for publication in approximately September of 2011.

We encourage scholarly debate regarding related to changes in the law in reaction to the September 11 terrorist attacks and welcome you to consider the full range of topics related to “changes in the law.”Florida Coastal Law Review will consider all proposals for publication even if the proposal is not suitable or pertinent to this year’s symposium.

Proposals should be in the form of abstracts, not to exceed 500 words, and accompanied by the author’s name, title, institutional affiliation, and contact information. The deadline for submission is December 1, 2010. Please direct inquiries and submissions to Submissions Editor, Nathan R. Ross at lawreview@fcsl.edu. The Law Review prefers electronic submissions; however, submissions may also be mailed to the Submissions Editor at: Florida Coastal Law Review, 8787 Baypine Road. Jacksonville, Florida 32256.

2. Re-circulating update re Kandari v. Obama (D.D.C. Sep. 2010) and Tolfiq al Bihani v. Obama (D.D.C. Sep. 24, 2010) (GTMO habeas denials)

When I circulated this item last Friday, it came through the system garbled (I don’t know why this happens once every now and then, and apologize for the disruptions this causes). So here is the item once more

The underlying opinions are not yet available, but readers may be interested in knowing that merits decisions in two more GTMO habeas cases were reported recently. The government prevailed in both instances.

First, Judge Kollar-Kotelly has denied habeas to Fayiz al Kandari of Kuwait (see here for links to the papers from his CSRT and ARB proceedings).

Second, Judge Walton has denied habeas to Tolfiq al-Bihani of Saudi Arabia (see here for the CSRT and ARB papers; note that this is not Ghaleb al-Bihani, whose case has generated a much-discussed D.C. Circuit opinion already).

3. Forthcoming Scholarship

“The Terrorist Detention Review Reform Act: Detention Policy and Political Reality

Walter E. Kuhn
Seton Hall Legislative Journal, Forthcoming

Since the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Boumediene, federal judges have fashioned a variety of procedural rules to govern habeas proceedings involving detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. While judges and commentators have called for statutory guidance, politics and substantive disagreement have prevented Congress and the President from clarifying the applicable procedural rules.

In the Terrorist Detention Review Reform Act, Senator Lindsey Graham offered legislation to untangle the many procedural issues facing the courts. From the scope of the President’s detention authority to the use of coerced testimony, the bill would construct a statutory framework for adjudicating habeas petitions by law of war detainees. The current political environment creates incentives for Congress and the President to abdicate their responsibility for detention policy to the courts, but the nation would be better served by the certainty of procedural rules considered and ratified by the political branches of government.

Time for International Cooperation in Terror Justice: A Proposed International Criminal Justice System to Address Transnational Terrorism

Shane Reeves (U.S. Army – The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School)

Harvard International Review (Apr. 2010)

From the Conclusion:

Admittedly, the proposed framework must clear many significant and difficult hurdles to be viable. However, the increasingly prolific violence of transnational terrorist groups provides a warning to the international community that continued indifference and incoherence in policy will only encourage future indiscriminate attacks on individual nations and their civilian populations. The urgent need for collective action is apparent as these ideologically based, non-state affiliated groups continue to gain influence and ability. Only a comprehensive international criminal justice system built through global cooperation will provide the moral force required to counteract the recurring threat presented by transnational terrorism and thus dissuade future generations from embracing ideologically driven violence.

“Loftier Standards for the CIA’s Remote-Control Killing”

Statement to House Subcommittee on National Security & Foreign Affairs
William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-11

AFSHEEN JOHN RADSAN, William Mitchell College of Law
Email: jradsan

International humanitarian law can be developed into specific regulations for the CIA’s targeted killing. Accordingly, the drone operator must be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the trigger is being pulled on a functional enemy combatant. In addition, she must conclude that the requirements of military necessity and proportionality have been met. Afterward, the CIA’s Inspector General must review each CIA drone strike, including the agency’s compliance with a checklist of standards and procedures.

A program that establishes a very high certainty for targeting as well as a hard-look after each strike will be fair and reasonable whether the people in the cross-hairs are Americans or citizens from other countries. In the language of IHL, these are feasible precautions for the remote-control weapons of the new century.


Call for papers: Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, “Terrorism, Law, and Democracy: 10 Years after 9/11

September 28, 2010

* Call for Papers, Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice, "Terrorism, Law, and Democracy: 10 Years after 9/11

Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice

2011 Annual Conference

October 13 & 14, 2011

Montreal, Quebec

Terrorism, Law and Democracy: 10 years after 9/11

About the Conference

The conference will focus on how Canadian law has changed with the threat of terrorism in the decade since 9/11. Many of these changes have been controversial, especially in the way in which they reconcile (or not) civil liberties and human rights with enhanced state power to combat terrorism. At the same time, the last decade has been one of several public inquiries, investigating the actual practice of anti-terrorism by Canada’s security services. Key questions arising from the 2011 conference include, at the broadest level, whether Canadian law has successfully preserved fundamental rights and values of substantive and procedural justice while at the same time contributing to anti-terrorism.

More specifically, the CIAJ 2011 conference will grapple with the practice and law of anti-terrorism, focusing on themes such as:

Anti-terrorism in Context

o Understanding the Threat Environment 10 years after 9/11

o The Challenge of Intelligence Collection and Sharing

o Overview of Recent Canadian and Comparative Legal Developments

Developments in Substantive Anti-Terrorism Law

o Developments in Canadian Criminal Law and Anti-terrorism

o Developments in Canadian Administrative Law and Anti-terrorism

Procedure and Accountability in Anti-terrorism Matters

o Due Process and the Adjudication of Terrorism Cases

o Oversight and Review of Security and Intelligence Agencies

Call for Papers

Panels on these themes will comprise judges, government and private practitioners and academics. By this call for papers, the CIAJ welcomes expressions of interest from academic participants. Expressions of interest should consist of a brief cover letter explaining the applicant’s research interest in the area, a curriculum vitae and an abstract of one page or less describing the paper the applicant proposes delivering. Successful applicants will deliver a fully analytical paper offering a perspective on one of the themes listed above, or a subset of it.

Papers will be submitted to a peer-reviewed process for possible publication in a volume produced by the CIAJ after the conference.

Deadlines

Expressions of interest: By Friday, October 29, 2010, via email to Christine.Robertson@ciaj-icaj.ca

Notice to successful candidates: By end of December 2010

Draft conference paper: By Friday, May 27, 2011

Final pre-conference paper: By Friday, September 9, 2011

Contact persons for further information: Christine Robertson, Christine.Robertson

Call for Papers (CIAJ Anti-terrorism Conference).pdf

Call for Papers.docx


forthcoming scholarship

September 27, 2010

* Forthcoming scholarship

[Note: ok, so this first one is not directly relevant to national security law…but I think it has tangential relevance.  The part that caught my eye was this sentence: “The divide between the over- inclusive criteria for gang membership employed by law enforcement and the decidedly more complex and nuanced relationship between youth in neighborhoods dominated by street gangs described by social scientists is more than an issue of academic interest.”  Seems that one might say something similar about the elusive concept of “membership” in a terrorist organization in at least some settings.] "Fear Itself: The Impact of Allegations of Gang Affiliation on Pre-Trial Detention"

BABE HOWELL, CUNY School of Law
Email: babe.howell

This article examines the impact of allegations of gang affiliation on the right to reasonable bail guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment.

In criminal courts, the phrase “the defendant is on a gang list” often eliminates any possibility of release or reasonable bail, regardless of the merits or severity of charges. This is the case whether or not the arrest is related to gang activity. A person who would otherwise be released to defend himself, during which time he can go to work or attend school, will face bail that will all but insure his pre-trial incarceration if the label “gang member” is affixed to him at the bail hearing. This is so because the label triggers fear of gang violence.

Allegations of gang membership are often inaccurate and tremendously over-inclusive of young men of color. These allegations are simultaneously substantially under-inclusive of women and white men. The divide between the over- inclusive criteria for gang membership employed by law enforcement and the decidedly more complex and nuanced relationship between youth in neighborhoods dominated by street gangs described by social scientists is more than an issue of academic interest. Depending on the jurisdiction, alleged gang affiliation can have a greater impact on bail, admissible evidence at trial, and sentencing than a prior conviction.

This article will confine itself to the impact of gang membership at the initial detention/bail determination for three reasons. First, the right to non-excessive bail is one of constitutional dimension. Second, although trial testimony about gangs presents a number of issues that merit exploration, the vast majority of criminal cases are either dismissed or resolved by plea. This is particularly so where the charges are less serious. Where misdemeanors or low-level felonies are alleged, the incarceration of the defendant on excessive pre-trial bail will alter negotiation dynamics such that a defendant is likely to plead guilty in order to obtain release. Thus, the imposition of high bail based on gang membership may be the only decision that affects the majority of defendants. Third, the allegation of gang affiliation is often inaccurate and unrelated to the offense; yet a defendant alleged to have a gang affiliation will often be treated as an extremely violent and dangerous individual. The invocation of gang membership suggests senseless violence, danger to others, and can lead to misguided preventive detention in the form of excessive bail.

The paper examines these issues and sets forth proposals for how to limit improper use of allegations of gang affiliation at the pre-trial detention stage.

"Avoiding the Extremes: A Proposal for Modifying Court Member Selection in the Military"

VICTOR HANSEN, New England Law | Boston
Email: vhansen

This article address the method used in the military court-martial system to select jurors (referred to as panel members). Under military law, the panel members who sit in judgment of a military service member are hand picked by the court-martial convening authority. The question often raised in how is a fair trial possible when the very person who determines if there should be a trial at all, and if so, what charges should be brought, is also the person who gets to hand-pick the people responsible for deciding guilt? Often the court-martial convening authority is the senior military officer on the base. If the convening authority determines that the charges should go to trial, can we really expect the military subordinates he selected to serve as panel members to exercise an independent evaluation of the case? Nonetheless, this is the very system that exists in the military today.

This article addresses this issue and offers a proposed change – not to the military’s panel selection system itself, but through an expansion of the accused’s rights to exercise peremptory challenges as a means of addressing the potential for unfairness and the threat of panel member-stacking. Part I of the article explores the current law associated with panel member selection, and the rationale behind this system. It examines the most common criticisms of this selection process, the solutions that have been proffered to date, and why those proposed solutions have failed to take hold. Part II looks at the law of challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. It focuses specifically on the historical development of peremptory challenges within the military and how the system of peremptory challenges currently operates. Part III proposes an expanded use of peremptory challenges for the military accused. Specifically, this part addresses how the selection process should be modified, the costs and benefits of such a modification and why this proposed change strikes an appropriate balance between the rights of the accused and the unique needs of a military justice system. In the final part, the article addresses the likely criticisms of this proposal.

"Federal Cybersecurity Programs"

Federalist Society New Federal Initiatives Project

ADAM ROSS PEARLMAN, affiliation not provided to SSRN
Email: arpearlman

This brief paper summarizes recently declassified provisions of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, and the efforts across the federal government to protect the integrity of our nation’s information and communications infrastructure, as of April 2010.

Is Publication of Classified Info a Criminal Act?

Steve Aftergood

Secrecy News (posted 9/27/10)

[Note: In this post at the blog Secrecy News, Steve Aftergood links to a recent CRS report  and provides some very interesting additional commentary.]

"Bagram, Boumediene, and Limited Government"

DePaul Law Review, Vol. 59, p. 851, 2010

ROBERT KNOWLES, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Email: rknowles
MARC D. FALKOFF, Northern Illinois University College of Law
Email: mfalkoff

The United States’ prison at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan is the latest front in the battle over the extraterritorial reach of the Constitution. Habeas litigation on behalf of Bagram detainees has begun establishing how the writ of habeas corpus extends beyond U.S. territory to active war zones, and it has begun to refine the limits of presidential power in the war on terror. This Article explains why, as the courts wrestle with these issues, their foremost task should be to determine whether the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to suspend the protections of the writ, rather than to discover whether detainees abroad possess a “right” to judicial review of the legality of their detentions. More broadly, we suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court’s new multifactor balancing test for determining the extraterritorial reach of the writ (announced in June 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush1) must be understood as embodying a limited government approach, rather than a rights-based approach, to defining the global reach of the Constitution.

"The Relevance of International Law to the Domestic Decision on Prosecutions for Past Torture"

BARTRAM BROWN, Illinois Institute of Technology – Chicago-Kent College of Law
Email: bbrown

The US, as a champion of human rights abroad, has often been skeptical and even critical when other states have granted de facto amnesty allowing impunity for gross violations of human rights. Nonetheless, some now argue that the US should turn a blind eye to the evidence indicating that under the Bush Administration US government officials formulated and implemented a policy of torture. Naturally, arguments about US national security have been central to the debate. The CIA’s own reports insist that enhanced interrogation techniques have been effective in yielding valuable information vital to the national security of the United States, but the utility of torture, is subject to question.

Complicated though it may be, the debate over whether to prosecute officials for past acts of torture is a very important discussion to have. Unfortunately, it is being conducted on an unduly narrow basis. It is true that torture violates US law and would be the essential basis of any such prosecution. This might suggest that the decision is a matter solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the US. But in addition to US domestic laws the US has obligations under international law regarding the crime of torture. These too are relevant to this important debate. Enlarging the US internal debate to include relevant aspects of international law should not be objectionable, because international torture norms are essentially US core norms. Their application to the US helps to reinforce the values and processes of our own Constitution. The prohibition of torture under international law mirrors the prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution, while the Torture Convention’s mandatory enforcement regime complements the rule of law under the US Constitution by requiring the investigation and prosecution of those who commit torture. The shocking history of US torture policy under the Bush Administration demonstrates that at times even the US needs external pressure to respect its own values.

Successful prosecution now may be difficult due to reliance upon (subsequently withdrawn) opinions by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) which suggested that many acts of torture, such as water-boarding were indeed legal. Despite this difficulty, US failure to pursue the option of prosecution would only compound any previous US violations of the Torture Convention.


Corrected Date: SEPTEMBER 28, NOT OCTOBER 28 upcoming event: “Nine Years Later: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 America”

September 22, 2010

My bad: the date for the Penn event is SEPTEMBER 28 (next week), not October. Sorry folks!

> * upcoming event: “Nine Years Later: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > in
> Post-9/11 America”(U. Penn. 10/28/10, 6:00-8:00)
>
>
>
> The Asian American Studies Program and South Asia Center of the > University of Pennsylvania invite you to the following panel > discussion
>
>
>
> Nine Years Later: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 > America
>
>
>
> This forum will address the state of civil rights and civil liberties > in the United States in the post-9/11 context, focusing especially on
> the impact of the law on Muslims domestically and the battle for hearts and minds abroad. >
>
>
> Confirmed panelists include:
>
>
>
> * Baher Azmy, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School
>
>
>
> * Hope Metcalf, Clinical Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School >
>
>
> * Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania >
>
>
> * Steve Vladeck, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, > American University
>
>
>
> * Sarah Paoletti (moderator), Practice Associate Professor of Law, > University of Pennsylvania
>
>
>
> The event will be held on Thursday, September 28th from 6:00pm-8:00pm > at the Class of 1949 Auditorium, Houston Hall, 3417 Spruce Street, > Philadelphia, PA 19104. It is free and open to the public. >
>
>
> For more information, please contact Dawinder “Dave” S. Sidhu at > sidhu@alumni.upenn.edu.
>
>
>
> Special thanks to the Muslim Law Students Association


upcoming event: “Nine Years Later: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 America”

September 22, 2010

* upcoming event: "Nine Years Later: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 America"(U. Penn. 10/28/10, 6:00-8:00)

The Asian American Studies Program and South Asia Center of the University of Pennsylvania invite you to the following panel discussion

Nine Years Later: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 America

This forum will address the state of civil rights and civil liberties in the United States in the post-9/11 context, focusing especially on the impact of the law on Muslims domestically and the battle for hearts and minds abroad.

Confirmed panelists include:

* Baher Azmy, Professor of Law, Seton Hall Law School

* Hope Metcalf, Clinical Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School

* Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania

* Steve Vladeck, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University

* Sarah Paoletti (moderator), Practice Associate Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania

The event will be held on Thursday, September 28th from 6:00pm-8:00pm at the Class of 1949 Auditorium, Houston Hall, 3417 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. It is free and open to the public.

For more information, please contact Dawinder "Dave" S. Sidhu at sidhu.

Special thanks to the Muslim Law Students Association