Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Command Responsibility

Human Rights First today issued Command’s Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in US Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. The report examines how many detainees have died in U.S. custody, including the circumstances of their deaths, and the consequences (or lack thereof) for those involved. The report identifies systemic problems surrounding these deaths, notably inadequate training and guidance, command interference, an egregious failures in investigation and prosecute.

Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global ‘war on terror’. According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.

Among our key findings:

• Commanders have failed to report deaths of detainees in the custody of their command, reported the deaths only after a period of days and sometimes weeks, or actively interfered in efforts to pursue investigations;

• Investigators have failed to interview key witnesses, collect useable evidence, or maintain evidence that could be used for any subsequent prosecution;

• Record keeping has been inadequate, further undermining chances for effective investigation or appropriate prosecution;

• Overlapping criminal and administrative investigations have compromised chances for accountability;

• Overbroad classification of information and other investigation restrictions have left CIA and Special Forces essentially immune from accountability;

• Agencies have failed to disclose critical information, including the cause or circumstance of death, in close to half the cases examined;

• Effective punishment has been too little and too late.

Command Responsibility is the military doctrine that a “military commander has complete and overall responsibility for all activities within his unit. He alone is responsible for everything his unit does or does not do.” This command responsibility does not, however, extend to criminal responsibility unless the commander knowingly participates in the criminal acts of his men or knowingly fails to intervene and prevent the criminal acts of his men when he had the ability to do so.

In the case of the mistreatment of prisoners, the evidence is mounting of direction from the top, followed by coverup. Meanwhile, the greatest punishment meted out to date to any of soldiers who have been prosecuted is….five months in prison.

(If I’m right that this report does not cover either Guantanamo or secret CIA prisons outside Iraq and Afghanistan, then there are likely more deaths waiting to be entered on the ledger.)

Posted in Torture | 3 Comments

Not A Word of Truth

Given that this administration lies to its own politically appointed lawyers, it should hardly be a surprise that it lies to the rest of us too. Still, you might think that when they get caught doing something bad, announce that they are shocked to learn about it, and promise that they’ve put a stop to it, they might actually stop.

But no.

Via TalkLeft,

When Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon had stopped paying to plant favorable news stories in the Iraqi press, he meant to say that the Pentagon was thinking about stopping. His earlier statement was a lie mistaken and has been withdrawn.

Last week Rumsfeld gave an interview in which he said,

“When we heard about it we said, ‘Gee, that’s not what we ought to be doing,’ and told the people down there,”

But apparently none of that ever took the trouble to actually happen.

Reminds me of the joke we used to tell about Nixon:

Q: How do you tell if Nixon is lying?
A: See if his lips are moving.

Posted in Politics: The Party of Sleaze | 5 Comments

I’m Impressed

Usually I experience a movie trailer as a good reason not to see the movie: either the trailer is awful, or it has all the best parts, or it has all the plot, so why bother. (Or it has icky voice-overs by that deep-voiced guy who does all the voice overs, or the same intensifying chorus that they use for effect in so many action movies and expect me to react to in a Pavlovian fashion.)

But the trailer for ‘A Scanner Darkly’ not only has none of these, but it makes me want to see the movie.

Posted in Kultcha | 1 Comment

Remove Gmail Chat Annoyance

Tim Bishop channels Kevin Burton, and explains how to remove a new pesky annoyance for gmail users:

there is a setting hidden at the bottom of the gmail page, down next to the lack of privacy policy, that allows you to do turn chat off, standard without chat. How like Google to try and hide the preference, kinda like refusing to put a delete button in for a year in spite of user demand and utility. It seems like every day Google is getting farther away from its roots in usability.

Thank you guys!

(Incidentally, it sounds like they’re having a lot of fun over there on the west coast. Should I be hoping for a Supernova invite?)

Posted in Internet | 7 Comments

Hamdan Hearing to Go Forward

The Supreme Court put off deciding the jurisdictional challenge to the Hamdan case today. (This case is the challenge to Guantanamo’s so-called military tribunals, bodies that threaten to give kangaroo courts a bad name.) But rather than reject the government’s claim that Congress removed federal jurisdiction in the recent “Detainee Treatment Act” (AKA the Graham Amendment AKA a Really Bad Move), the Court punted the jurisdictional issue to the hearing on the merits.

This is cautiously good.

Posted in Guantanamo | Comments Off on Hamdan Hearing to Go Forward

Needy and Inappropriate Email from Students?

The professor blogs are abuzz about To: Professor@University.edu Subject: Why It’s All About Me, a New York Times front-page story about inappropriately needy, rude, or revelatory email from students to professors.

I have only two comments: First, this was an article that was mostly about undergraduates. In my experience this sort of thing is almost never a problem for me with UM law students. On the other hand, I see it all the time in requests I get from undergrads who want to go to law school (or to some other part of UM) and think I will be their research assistant or white pages service. Not to mention the occasional foreign law student or US high school student, who wants me to do their homework for them. Including the the unforgettable one who wrote me during final exam season that my essay on the three top problems in cyberlaw was urgently needed by 2pm that day…

Second, one striking thing about the NYT article (which may explain the above?), is that it it mostly quoted female professors. Could it be that undergraduate students find women more approachable, or look at them and see mommy? Are the students in some sexist manner more willing to bother the women than the men because they see the men as more ‘professional’? Or are the women faculty more willing to speak out about the problem? Or just more likely to feel lingering guilt about not responding–something that the men perhaps tend to dismiss?

Posted in Law School | 1 Comment