John Yoo explains the torture memos

Balkinization offers this commentary on John Yoo's recent discussion of the torture memos:

"That is, the torture memos were written not to define "torture" with respect to new situations where the statute was unclear; rather they were written to allow the CIA to get around the legal ban on torture, even to the point of arguing that the torture statute would be unconstitutional if applied to persons acting under the direction of the President as commander-in-chief. The torture memos were not a hypothetical lawyer's exercise to guide future conduct. They were written in order to ensure that members of the CIA would never be prosecuted for torture."

DOJ presents recommendations for Guantánamo detainees

From the New York Times:

"The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday. However, the administration has decided that nearly 40 other detainees should be prosecuted for terrorism or related war crimes. And the remaining prisoners, about 110 men, should be repatriated or transferred to other countries for possible release, the official said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the numbers."

Without knowing all the facts, I think this is the wrong decision. If the 50 detainees the administration proposes to imprison without trial pose a legitimate threat to the United States, the government should be able to (and required to) present some evidence to that effect, at least in the context of a military commission (which has its own problems, but is better than indefinite detention). Contentious arguments about humanitarian law aside, one of Obama's promises in taking office was to end the "law-free zone" that GTMO had become under the Bush administration. In that context, this feels like a step in the wrong direction.

Karzai seeks reconciliation with moderate Taliban

From the New York Times:

"Mr. Omer’s remarks suggested the government had a softer line than the Americans on talking to Taliban leaders. "We are ready to negotiate with anyone," he said. "Whoever comes over is welcome."

A spokesman for the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, ruled out any possibility of negotiations with Mr. Karzai's government. "We are united and we will remain united against them," Mr. Ahmadi said in a telephone interview. "There is no differentiation between Taliban moderates and extremists. We are fighting under one name, Taliban, under one leadership.""

Media self-censorship in Mexico

From the Committee to Protect Journalists:

"Often, it starts this way; the journalist is told how to handle a particular story. Usually it’s a phone call. They’re told that maybe they should ignore the story. Or, maybe they should pump it up to make a person or an opposing criminal or political group look bad, or make another group look especially good. If the journalist doesn’t follow the order they are threatened with death. They know that’s an easy threat to carry out because in Mexico almost no one is ever prosecuted for killing a journalist. Then the self-censorship starts. Soon, the journalist doesn’t even need to be told how to handle the stories. He or she knows already. It becomes automatic. It has to be automatic because that’s the way to stay alive."

Honduras institutes ICJ proceedings against Brazil

This article originally appeared in the online digest of the Harvard International Law Journal.

The interim government of Honduras has filed a complaint against Brazil in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Court announced on October 29. The complaint arises from events surrounding the surprise return to Honduras of Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, who entered the country on September 21 and took refuge in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa. Specifically, Honduras charges that Mr. Zelaya and an unknown number of other Honduran citizens have been using the Embassy as a “platform for political propaganda” with the complicity of Embassy staff and thereby “threatening the peace and internal public order of Honduras.” Honduras has requested declaratory and injunctive relief from the ICJ.

The legal bases of Honduras’s complaint are Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter, which reserves to member states matters which are “essentially within [their] domestic jurisdiction,” and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. As a practical matter, Honduras’s complaint is only one element of a broader political and diplomatic offensive aimed at preventing Mr. Zelaya from returning to power before the upcoming presidential elections scheduled for November 29. It is unclear whether the ICJ will agree to hear the complaint, which was filed by an interim administration that many international observers consider illegitimate. Current efforts toward national reconciliation may also determine whether the case goes forward.

For more information, please click here.

Demise of American grand strategy

I'd like to point out that I haven't been linking to NYT as much now that I started using Google Reader (don't worry NYT, I still love you). This is from James Goldgeier, writing in CFR about American "strategic drift" since the fall of the Berlin Wall:

"What became clear by the time Bill Clinton became president was that formulating a simple and relevant new strategic purpose for the United States was no easy task. Clinton often harangued his aides for failing to come up with a Kennanesque vision, believing that he needed a replacement for containment to explain his foreign policy to the American people. His top State Department advisers even arranged a dinner in 1994 with Kennan, who was still going strong at age 90. The old master's response to their quest? Forget the bumper sticker, he said, the world was now too complex. Try, instead, he suggested, "for a thoughtful paragraph or two."

Kennan had hit upon a central truth of the post-Cold War world: with no single enemy and a range of diverse challenges--including proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, pandemics, terrorism, the rise of new great powers, and globalization--there would be no bumper sticker."

Climate change and human rights law

From Opinio Juris:

"I argue that the solution is to look to the duty of international cooperation, which requires states to try to act as a single global polity to address the global threat of climate change. By providing a basis for the application of the environmental human rights jurisprudence, this approach would allow states some flexibility as to the substance of their joint decisions, but only if they follow procedures designed to ensure full, well-informed participation by those most affected. Moreover, the substance of decisions that result from such processes would not be entitled to complete deference: under no conditions could states allow climate change to destroy the human rights of the most vulnerable."