Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Lindsay Graham Asks a Tough Question

Later today I'll have a FindLaw column on the key developments thus far in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. For now, I want to take a crack at the homework assignment that Senator Lindsay Graham gave Judge Sotomayor.

I'll preface this by saying that, with one exception that I address in the column (regarding legal realism) so far I've found Sen. Graham to be the best of the questioners (R or D) by a fairly wide margin. From his opening statement ("Unless you have a complete meltdown, you are going to get confirmed") to his tough but fair questioning about the concerns about Judge Sotomayor's alleged bullying from the bench (not allowing her to attribute the complaints to her tough questioning, given that her 2d Circuit colleagues also ask tough questions but do not elicit the same reaction), Graham has struck me as honest, fair-minded, and astute. That's not to say, of course, that I agree with everything he has said or implied in his questions.

Now to the homework assignment. Near the end of a wide-ranging round of questioning, Sen. Graham asked a question about the legality of indefinite (or in the Obama argot, "prolonged") detention of enemy combatants. Here it is:
Under the law of armed conflict, do you agree with the following statement, that if a person is detained who is properly identified to accepted legal procedures under the law of armed conflict as a part of the enemy force, there is not requirement based on a length of time that they be returned to the battle or released? In other words, if you capture a member of the enemy force, is it your understanding of the law that you have to, at some period of time, let them go back to the fight?
Judge Sotomayor pleaded that she was not a specialist in the law of war (fair enough), and so Sen. Graham asked her if she would think about the question a bit and have an answer for him in round 2. My guess is that she won't answer the question directly, because this really is the sort of thing that could come before the Court. But Sen. Graham does deserve an answer, so I'll take a crack at it.

I haven't fully researched the law of armed conflict on this point, but I'll accept for purposes of argument the claim (which Sen. Graham made a bit later) that in fact the Geneva Conventions do not set any time limits on detention of POWs or other combatant detainees. Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons why we might think that even if Nation X fighting Nation Y can hold Y's soldiers for as many years as the conflict ensues, the answer could be different for a conflict between Nation X and a non-state actor.

For one thing, in a case of armed conflict between sovereign nations, there is some reciprocity. POW exchanges can be negotiated, as can terms for parole of released captives. To some degree, this is also true even with non-state actors. For example, Israel has negotiated prisoner exchanges with non-state actors. It might even be possible for the U.S. to negotiate terms of release with some of the non-state entities with which we are fighting, such as the resurgent Taliban. However, for jihadists only loosely affiliated with groups that themselves have no clear territorial or other quasi-sovereign base, diplomacy seems likely to be unavailable to reduce (on humanitarian or other grounds) the duration of detention. In such circumstances, the law of armed conflict might depart from the POW model.

Likewise, there is an expectation that armed conflicts between sovereign states end. To be sure, we can speak of the Hundred Years War, but that was really a series of wars, each admittedly quite long but none longer than a quarter century. And most inter-sovereign wars are much shorter. Perhaps more importantly, inter-sovereign wars have discernible end points, even when, as with the Korean conflict, there is no formal peace treaty. Thus, while indefinite detention of POWs is a theoretical but unlikely possibility for inter-sovereign conflicts, for sovereign/non-state conflicts, the norm is flipped. We do not have an expectation that the conflict will end rather than peter out, and so just about everybody initially detained based on a combatant status determination will be detainable indefinitely.

These problems are exacerbated by the difficulty of identifying combatants for non-state enemies. Somebody can be, in Sen. Graham's words, "properly identified to accepted legal procedures under the law of armed conflict as a part of the enemy force," such that there are sufficient legal grounds to hold him initially, but over time the stakes will rise, perhaps at some point making the substantial risk of initial mistakes in the fog of war too great to justify further detention. To put it slightly differently, something like a preponderance of the evidence that Joe Blow is a battlefield terrorist may be enough to hold him for a day, a month, or even a few years, but we might require more to hold Blow (who claims that he was simply an errant tourist, aid worker, or journalist) for life.

Now I'll freely acknowledge that I have made no effort here to tie any of these considerations to the actual terms of the international law of armed conflict. The closest thing I can find to a suitable text would be Article 109 of the 1949 Geneva Convention on POWs, which gives contracting parties the discretion to make arrangements for transferring detainees to neutral countries if they have "undergone a long period of captivity." That--and the references to cessation of hostilities--strongly suggests that the relevant body of rules was written without any clear thought about what to do with people like some of those held at Gitmo. One might therefore think that according a right to something like eventual repatriation would be consistent with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions, even if one grants Sen. Graham that the letter of the law does not require such a right.

But to say that is only to begin the discussion. One might think that due process (to be litigated in a habeas court or an acceptable substitute) demands more for prolonged detention than for initial detention. And of course Congress could demand something of this sort by statute, regardless of whether it is required to do so by international law or the Constitution. So the ball is back in your court, Sen. Graham!

Posted by Mike Dorf

5 comments:

bobmossnj said...

The answer to Graham’s question, fleshed out to remove ambiguity, is crystal clear in our case law, despite the opinions of cowardly and hateful judges and Supreme Court Injustices since 9/11. Let us assume that Graham meant a member of an organized military force engaged in armed conflict with our military forces. Then, the described individual can be held AS A PRISONER OF WAR for the duration of the armed conflict between organized military forces.

In very few instances does our case law distinguish wars between formal states from those between our nation and other parties. This is not surprising, since we fought our war of independence as a non-state actor, and then suffered through the Civil War, in which our military engaged in combat against the organized military forces of a de facto but unrecognized government. A quote from The Prize Cases, 67 US 635 (1862) is illustrative:

Insurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government. A civil war is never solemnly declared; it becomes such by its accidents—the number, power, and organization of the persons who originate and carry it on. When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory; have declared their independence; have cast off their allegiance; have organized armies; have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war. They claim to be in arms to establish their liberty and independence, in order to become a sovereign State, while the sovereign party treats them as insurgents and rebels who owe allegiance, and who should be punished with death for their treason.

(pp. 666–667).

This, of course, is one of the many cases mis-cited by the Bush administration to justify its “enemy combatant” policy:

Whether the President in fulfilling his duties, as Commander-in-chief, in suppressing an insurrection, has met with such armed hostile resistance, and a civil war of such alarming proportions as will compel him to accord to them the character of belligerents, is a question to be decided by him

In this case, they pretended not to know the difference between a “belligerent” and an “combatant”—a difference which my then-82-year-old mother, who held a master’s degree in library science, could explicate without hesitation.

More citations upon request.

bobmossnj@verizon.net

酒店ㄚ君姐姐 said...

,,,,,,,,,姐.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

狗熊克星 said...

這其中大部份的人都有失眠的問題可能是經濟情況較差要努力工作飛梭雷射可以讓皮膚不好的小姐到很好的改善酵素是一種好玩的東西,香香口味不錯的蠻好吃的終身醫療可以保讓你我的健康得到較好的保障喔科技的進步飛梭雷射大大的解決了現在女性朋友皮膚上出現的問題黃金價格不斷的上漲,有一位林老師他在十多年前的黃金嫁裝黃金價格已漲了十倍了他笑的合不隴嘴準備把,大家不用單心這是日本的習俗親切的看護幫助照顧您的家人讓您無後顧之優的打拼工作新聞快報 台灣經濟奇蹟的幕後功臣外勞佔有相當的地位他們做著一般人不願意做的危險工作

網路小故事,有一位有愛心的看護他非常認真的照顧生病老人人力仲介表示現在台灣的經濟不斷進步讓大家都想來。溫馨網路新聞中二高公路工程由外勞日夜不停的趕工在今天完人力仲介表示現在人都希望自已的妻子是個賢妻良母,這是大家所追求的目標。

網路新聞由於今年結婚的人口下降,皮膚想要水嫩飛梭雷射是一個很好的方法,他可以讓你的毛孔縮小所以現在許多OL都趨之若務。雷射溶脂的工用在於脂肪太多的人可以讓你變瘦的方法現在他在一家小診所學習雷射溶脂的技術希望有一天能學會這項技術回餽鄉理為大家服務。飛梭雷射可以讓皮膚的膚質變好也帶著他們到診所求助於雷射溶脂醫師的幫助。

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社