nationalsecuritylaw more upcoming events: HPCR on Libya, CIAJ on Recent Developments in Anti-Terrorism

March 31, 2011

* More upcoming events:

1. Harvard University Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, “Crisis in Libya: Planning the International Response”

On April 5 at 9:30 (EDT – Boston) we’ll be presenting our next Live Web Seminar on the “Crisis in Libya: Planning the International Response.” The presenters include Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor, ICC; R. Nicholas Burns, The Sultan of Oman Professor of the Practice of International Relations, Harvard KSG; Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, Middle East and North Africa Division, HRW; Dirk Vandewalle, Associate Professor of Government, Dartmouth College; and Philippa Thomas, Nieman Fellow, Harvard University & Foreign Correspondent, BBC.

As always, registration to the Live Web Seminar is free, and we’ve posted a few background materials on the IHL Research Initiative Portal (where a registration link is available, too): http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=2130.

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

This is a very impressive event. I can’t copy over the details into the text of this email because of my own formatting issues, but please click through to see the schedule and the registration details: http://ccct-cctj.ca/terrorism-law-democracy-10-years-after-911/

Advertisements

nationalsecuritylaw (today – right now in fact) teleconference discussion on Miranda Warnings & Terror Suspects

March 31, 2011

* (today – right now in fact) teleconference discussion on Miranda Warnings & Terror Suspects

With apologies for the last minute notice, please note that a teleconference discussion on Miranda and terrorism is just about to begin. Details below; anyone may call in.


nationalsecuritylaw call for paper: ABA SCOLANS student writing competition (national security and the First Amendment)

March 28, 2011

* call for paper: ABA SCOLANS student writing competition (national security and the First Amendment)

See the attached flyer for the details, and note both the $500 prize and the August 15th deadline.

YOUNG LAWYERS Writing Competition 2011.pdf


nationalsecuritylaw Al Haramain 9th Cir. oral argument

March 26, 2011

* Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Geithner (9th Cir. 2011) (oral argument)

C-SPAN has posted the video from the oral argument in al-Haramain v. Geithner, which involves two constitutional challenges: one to the OFAC terrorist designation process and the other to prohibitions on coordinated advocacy. Watch the video here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AlHa


nationalsecuritylaw corrected Amnesty International, et al. v. Clapper, et al. (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2011) (reversing grant of summary judgment to government in FISA Amendments Act challenge)

March 21, 2011

An error in my description below. Judge Koetle granted summary judgment to the defendants, of course, not the plaintiffs, in the original district court ruling.

From: Robert Chesney [mailto:rchesney@law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 4:54 PM
To: nationalsecuritylaw@utlists.utexas.edu
Subject: [nationalsecuritylaw] Amnesty International, et al. v. Clapper, et al. (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2011) (reversing grant of summary judgment to government in FISA Amendments Act challenge)

* Amnesty International, et al. v. Clapper, et al. (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2011) (reversing grant of summary judgment to government in FISA Amendments Act challenge)

The plaintiffs in this suit are a mix of individuals and groups relating to law, media, human rights, and labor. They argued that FISA section 702 (50 USC 1881a), added to FISA by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, is unconstitutional. Section 702 involves electronic surveillance for non-US persons located outside the United States, though the plaintiffs claim it impacts US citizens and residents in a manner that violates the First and Fourth Amendments as well as Article III and the separation of powers principle. Previously, Judge Koetle (SDNY) granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that they failed to establish standing. Today, in a 63-page opinion (Lynch, joined by Sack and Calabresi) posted here, the Second Circuit reversed. The bottom line:

“Because standing may be based on a reasonable fear of future injury and costs incurred to avoid that injury, and the plaintiffs have established that they have a reasonable fear of injury and have incurred costs to avoid it, we agree that they have standing.” (p. 5)


nationalsecuritylaw Amnesty International, et al. v. Clapper, et al. (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2011) (reversing grant of summary judgment to government in FISA Amendments Act challenge)

March 21, 2011

* Amnesty International, et al. v. Clapper, et al. (2d Cir. Mar. 21, 2011) (reversing grant of summary judgment to government in FISA Amendments Act challenge)

The plaintiffs in this suit are a mix of individuals and groups relating to law, media, human rights, and labor. They argued that FISA section 702 (50 USC 1881a), added to FISA by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, is unconstitutional. Section 702 involves electronic surveillance for non-US persons located outside the United States, though the plaintiffs claim it impacts US citizens and residents in a manner that violates the First and Fourth Amendments as well as Article III and the separation of powers principle. Previously, Judge Koetle (SDNY) granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that they failed to establish standing. Today, in a 63-page opinion (Lynch, joined by Sack and Calabresi) posted here, the Second Circuit reversed. The bottom line:

“Because standing may be based on a reasonable fear of future injury and costs incurred to avoid that injury, and the plaintiffs have established that they have a reasonable fear of injury and have incurred costs to avoid it, we agree that they have standing.” (p. 5)


nationalsecuritylaw newly released OLC memoranda regarding NSA surveillance

March 19, 2011

* newly released OLC memoranda regarding NSA surveillance

In response to FOIA litigation brought by the ACLU, the government has released a pair of heavily-redacted memoranda from OLC relating to warrantless surveillance. One is from John Yoo, the other from Jack Goldsmith. Both are available here. Please note the following observations, posted by Jack this evening at www.lawfareblog.com in response to the release:

…. To protect classified information, the released version of the memorandum I wrote is heavily redacted. It discloses only portions of a legal analysis, and very little of the context in which the legal principles were applied. (The unclassified Inspector General Report on this topic provides more context.) To cite but one fact that remains unexplained, the memorandum states that “[t]he scope of the authorization for electronic surveillance . . . has changed over time [and the changes] are most easily understood as being divided into two phases: (i) those that occurred before March 2004, and (ii) those that occurred in March [] 2004,” two months before the memorandum was completed. An understanding of my views and actions requires reading the memorandum and other classified documents in their entirely, which is not possible today. I continue to believe that the memorandum provides a sound analysis of a difficult set of legal issues encountered in a difficult context.