Opinio Juris

A weblog dedicated to reports, commentary, and debate on current developments and scholarship
in the fields of international law and politics

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Just One Question...
The British newspaper The Guardian is currently having Hay Festival, major book festival.

With all these writers and public figures around, there are some fun possibilities. As the folks at The Guradian put it:
Hay is full of the cleverest and sharpest minds, but if they could ask one person just a single question, who would they choose - and what would they ask? We brought them together to find out.
Here are two examples that I thought Opinio Juris readers might find interesting:
George Monbiot, author and Guardian columnist asks John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN

Q The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that "to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime". You were instrumental in manufacturing the case for war with Iraq, using false intelligence. Why should you not be put on trial as a war criminal?

A Since the Security Council's unanimous 1991 adoption of Resolution 678 - the ceasefire resolution ending the first Persian Gulf war - Saddam Hussein's regime repeatedly violated it. By systematically demonstrating its unwillingness to abide by Security Council resolutions, Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire in countless ways. By so doing, Iraq vitiated the ceasefire, and revived the initial authority under Security Council Resolution 678 to use all necessary means to deal with the threat posed to international peace and security by Iraq. Accordingly, the premises of your question are erroneous in law and erroneous in fact.



John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN asks James Naughtie, broadcaster

Q
How much longer will the state own the BBC and why?

A If John Bolton hasn't yet worked out the difference between state-owned and publicly funded, it's probably too late to hope for enlightenment. But the distinction is the one that matters. The implication that the BBC's public funding puts it in thrall to government is simply wrong. The founding charter protects us from interfering ministers just as it obliges all of us to practise independent journalism. I think that has produced a healthier broadcasting environment than the one the US now enjoys. And as it happens, many Americans seem to agree, because the number of listeners and viewers there is rising fast. So I hope our form of ownership remains indefinitely.





Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Learning from the Legacy of Telford Taylor
We all know the adage that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it. In a recent op-ed, Mark Shulman of Pace Law School shows how if only the Bush Administration had remembered history, they may have repeated it.

Shulman, who besides being a lawyer also has a doctorate in history and a particular expertise in military history, explains how the legacy of Telford Taylor, one of the Nuremberg prosecutors, could have been a guide to avoid the pitfalls of the current administration’s detention and interrogation policies.

The op-ed was published on May 23rd, the tenth anniversary of Taylor’s death. Shulman reminds us that Taylor used humane methods when interrogating Nazis prior to the trial. But, more than that, Shulman also highlights how Taylor's experiences at Nuremberg informed his ongoing legal career and his devotion to the rule of law:
Having spent the 1940s witnessing the effects of a government that held itself above the law, Taylor dedicated the remainder of his long life to ensuring a robust rule of law, evenly applied.

During the McCarthy era, he defended the First Amendment rights of Communists. In the 1960s he appeared before hostile Southern courts to defend the Freedom Riders from persecution. In 1970 he decried both North Vietnam's heinous treatment of POWs and the indiscriminate U.S. bombing campaigns.

He wrote, "The laws of war do not apply only to the suspected criminals of vanquished nations. There is no moral or legal basis for immunizing victorious nations from scrutiny. The laws of war are not a one-way street."

Throughout his career, Taylor promoted a strong America guided by wise policies and robust institutions. His final report from Nuremberg concluded: "By prudent military preparedness, by unflagging efforts to lay the groundwork for international society and the rule of law among nations, and by constant improvement in the economic and social foundations of our own democracy, we may hope at one and the same time to undermine these destructive and tyrannical forces and obviate the necessity for a victory by force of arms."
Contrast Taylor's words and actions with those of so many senior adminsitration lawyers. And then imagine if history had, in one small way, repeated itself: if the War on Terror had actually inspired in the the current administration an increased commitment to the rule of law, both domestic and international. But unfortunately that is an alternate history to our own.

Shulman’s whole essay is well worth the read. Especially by those who do (or hope to) wield power.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

The Collapse of the "Bioterror" Case Against Dr. Steven Kurtz
With so many failed terrorism prosecutions to cover — see, for example, here, here, and here — the media can be forgiven for overlooking one here or there. Still, it's a shame that the Bush administration's most recent failure, the baseless prosecution of Dr. Steven Kurtz on bioterror charges, has not received more attention.

It's an ugly story. Kurtz, a professor of visual arts at the University of Buffalo, fell asleep next to his wife of 20 years one night in May, 2004. When he woke up, she was dead. He immediately called 911, the police came to his house — and thus began what can only be described as a Kafkaesque nightmare:
When police responded to his 911 call, they noticed a small food-testing lab and petri dishes containing bacteria cultures.

The lab was part of the scheduled installation, which would have allowed museum visitors to see if their store bought food contained genetically modified (GM) organisms. The cultures were part of a multi-media project commissioned by the British-based art-science initiative, The Arts Catalyst, and produced in consultation with scientists from the Harvard-Sussex Programme.

The project used the harmless bacteria Bacillus subtilis and Serratia marcescens in an installation, performance, and film dedicated to demystifying issues surrounding germ warfare programmes and their cost to global public health. Some of CAE's work is designed to protest the potential risks of genetically modified (GM) food.

Local police called the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While politicians and federal prosecutors rushed to trumpet the thwarting of a major threat, Kurtz was detained under the Patriot Act on suspicion of bioterrorism. The street where Kurtz's home was located was cordoned off, his house searched, and his property seized.

Federal agents confiscated Kurtz's art projects, computers, and all copies of a book manuscript Kurtz was working on, as well as his reference books and notes. The book, "Marching Plague: Germ Warfare and Global Public Health" (New York: Autonomedia), had to be entirely reconstructed and was finally published in 2006.

The then governor of New York, George Pataki, lauded the work of the FBI for disrupting a major bioterrorism threat. And the then U.S. attorney in Buffalo, Michael A. Battle — the lawyer who was later to become the Department of Justice employee who notified eight U.S. attorneys that they were being fired — praised the work of the Buffalo Joint Terrorism Task Force.
The initial investigation went nowhere — FBI tests revealed that the bacteria were harmless — and a grand jury ultimately refused to indict Kurtz on bioterrorism charges. The end of the case? Of course not. This is, after all, the Bush administration, for whom "justice" is a four-letter word:
Forced to drop its charges of weapons manufacture, the government instead accused Kurtz and Ferrell of mail and wire fraud. The government claimed that when Dr. Ferrell gave the cultures to Dr. Kurtz, this violated a contract between the University of Pittsburgh and the supplier, American Type Culture Collection (ATCC).

Neither the university nor ATCC had brought any complaint, and observers pointed out that scientists routinely share non-hazardous cultures. The Department of Justice further claimed that this alleged contract discrepancy constituted federal mail and wire fraud.

Because the charges against the two academics were brought under the Patriot Act, the maximum penalty was increased from five years to 20.

Earlier, Dr. Ferrell pled guilty to a lesser misdemeanor charge rather than facing a prolonged trial for the mail and wire fraud felonies. During the legal wrangling, he had two minor strokes and a major stroke that required months of rehabilitation. He was indicted as he was preparing to undergo a stem cell transplant, his second in seven years.

But Kurtz rejected any plea deal, instead demanding a public trial. Most of the art world has rallied behind him. His colleagues in the Critical Art Ensemble set up a website and a legal defence fund, and Kurtz continued to teach at the University of Buffalo.

When the case finally arrived in a courtroom this month, Federal Judge Richard J. Arcara ruled to dismiss the indictment. It is unclear whether the government will appeal the dismissal.
If Kurtz's four-year ordeal is any indication, the Bush administration most certainly will appeal. Why stop now? The absence of evidence that Kurtz did anything wrong never stopped them before.

Full disclosure: I was involved in the early stages of Kurtz's defense, providing the defense team with legal advice and giving the keynote lecture at a conference at the University of Buffalo on the PATRIOT Act and artistic freedom.