Counterterrorism Law

2018-2019 National Security Law/Counterterrorism Law Supplement Published

National Security Law/Counterterrorism LawEdited by Professor Emeritus William C. Banks—along with Stephen Dycus, Peter Raven-Hansen, and Steve Vladeck—the 2018-2019 National Security Law/Counterterrorism Law Supplement (Woulters Kluwer/Aspen Casebook Series, 2018) addresses topics covered in the sixth edition of National Security Law and the third edition of Counterterrorism Law, both leading casebooks in their respective fields.

Among the new materials presented in the Supplement are those concerning national security incidents and actions taken during the first year of the President Donald J. Trump Administration. Teachers and students will find documents and legal notes addressing Washington v. Trump, Zaidan v. Trump, Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA, Carpenter v. United States, and Hernandez v. Mesa. There are also policy notes on topics such as targeted killings, military action in Syria, military activities in cyberspace, transparency in the intelligence community, access to FISC records, and national security letters. Many chapters investigate “ripped from the headlines” topics that have dominated the news from 2016 to 2018: the Trump Administration “travel bans,” the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran Nuclear Deal), Russian hacks of the US power grid, the Hawaii Missile Alert, the McCain-Feinstein Amendment, and undocumented immigrants.

As the authors write in their preface, “In a field of law as dynamic as ours, we expect many important developments each year. But even we were surprised by the torrent of notable changes during the first year and a half of the Trump Administration.

“Federal courts caught up with the Trump travel bans in fast-progressing litigation that came to a head when a divided Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii. Almost 40 years after the supreme court expounded the third-party doctrine to give the government access to dialed phone numbers without a warrant or even probable cause, the court refused to apply that doctrine to allow access to historical cell tower locational data in Carpenter v. United States.

“Earlier this year Congress approved a five-year extension of programmatic national security surveillance without significantly changing the scheme approved in the 2008 FISA Amendments Act. In the meantime, the continuing chaos of the Guantánamo military commissions continued to generate new case law and new issues, even as the Administration persisted in relying on them to prosecute some accused terrorists. In addition, evidence of Russian efforts to interfere in US elections, and to intrude on critical US infrastructure, presented new challenges in the evolving field of cyber security law.

“Other developments arose from continuity between administrations. Arguably building on the Obama Administration’s precedent of using armed force in Libya for the protection of local civilians, the Trump Administration used armed force in Syria for the same purpose. In rejecting the nuclear deal with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—the Trump Administration ironically invoked the same authority that its predecessor used to approve the plan: the putative authority of the president unilaterally to decide on non-binding political commitments to and with foreign states.

“Unabated screening and profiling at the borders continued to generate litigation and a broad range of new case law on immigration. Administration efforts to control leaks and prevent disclosure of national security information also continued. We have tried to keep up with these and many other developments without overly complicating the use of the core casebooks …”

 

“Machine-Driven Mistakes”: William C. Banks Speaks to Fifth Domain About the IG Report on NSA Surveillance

NSA criticized for ‘increased risk’ of jeopardizing civil liberties

(Fifth Domain | July 25, 2018) The National Security Agency is at an “increased risk” of jeopardizing civil liberties and the privacy of American citizens, according to an inspector general report that comes just months after a controversial program that collects emails and phone calls was extended.

“A fair amount of it was apparently mechanical or machine-driven mistakes.”

The NSA watchdog said that agency analysts performed “noncompliant” searches using the organization’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Authority, which were caused by “human error, incomplete understanding of the rules, and gaps in guidance.”

According to the report, which covered the period from October 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018 the unauthorized searches were related to the FISA’s counterterrorism authority.

“This has been going on for some time,” said William Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University. He said that noncompliance was a heated topic when the section 702 of the FISA act was reauthorized earlier this year. “A fair amount of it was apparently mechanical or machine-driven mistakes … you would expect it might take the better part of a year for improvement in implementation to show results.”

Previously, privacy groups have raised issue with the noncompliance searches of digital and electronic records …

Read the whole article.

 

The Future of the US Military Commissions: Legal and Policy Issues

By the Hon. James E. Baker & Professor Laura A. Dickinson

The ongoing operation of the US military commissions at Guantanamo Bay has posed significant challenges for multiple US administrations. Originally established by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 to try noncitizen terrorism suspects, the commissions have been plagued with a variety of problems. Cases have languished, and no contested commission trials have become final, including the 9/11 case itself—for which a trial has not yet begun. (Military commission proceedings have resulted in 8 convictions pursuant to pleas, however). Much of the law related to commissions remains unsettled and in dispute. For example, it is unsettled precisely which crimes can be tried before the commissions.

“The Workshop Report offers a detailed, non-partisan, legal and policy analysis and recommendations with respect to the wide range of issues that currently face the Military Commissions.”

Meanwhile, the commissions are operating against a backdrop of changing policies regarding the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. President Trump recently reversed the Obama Administration’s stated policy of closing the facility, where participants in the military commissions system are housed along with other terrorism detainees. As of May 3, there are 40 detainees held at Guantanamo, 4 of whom have been deemed eligible for transfer to other countries. (They cannot be moved to the United States, due a legislative ban). Of the remainder, 10 have been charged within the commissions and are in proceedings at various stages, and 26 have neither been charged nor have been deemed eligible for transfer. Although President Obama did not bring new detainees to Guantanamo, and President Trump has not done so to date, President Trump has stated in a recent Executive Order that “the United States may transport additional detainees to US Naval Station Guantanamo Bay when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.”

To grapple with some of the tough legal and policy issues facing the military commissions moving forward, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security and the George Washington University Law School convened a diverse group of 24 national security law experts at a Workshop on Dec. 7, 2017. The Workshop was not-for-attribution, but a Report summarizing the discussion at the event has now been made public. As one would expect (and hope) from such a meeting, participants expressed a wide range of views, but there were also some key areas of consensus. Here is a brief overview of the Report’s conclusions.

Overall Approach to Commissions Moving Forward: Reform or Repeal?

Workshop participants were divided on the wisdom of establishing the commissions in the first place–with some supportive of the goals underlying the military commissions and others critical of the entire endeavor as an unnecessary diversion from time-tested Article III courts and the regular military justice system. Yet all agreed that

  • The commissions are not working as intended; and
  • The commissions should either be reformed or terminated.

Options for improving US military commissions

The Workshop considered a variety of reforms to the commissions. Although many participants did not think that the commissions should continue, participants identified a series of reforms that merit consideration and review, in particular

  • Expand and/or clarify the role of the commissions’ Convening Authority using the authority and role of convening authorities within the US military justice system as a model.
  • Change and expand the eligibility rules for trial judges and change the current judicial pay and tenure structure to allow both civilian and military judges to hear commission cases (as opposed to the current rules, which permit only military judges to serve).
  • Mitigate or minimize procedural and appellate delay by removing the death penalty as a sentencing option.
  • Enhance or eliminate the role of the Court of Military Commissions Review. This is a part-time court, with judges paid by the hour, that hears cases of first impression, interlocutory appeals, and emergency writs without settled law. A standing court could more expeditiously process these appeals. Alternatively, disbanding the Court of Military Commissions Review in favor of direct appeal to the D.C. Circuit would more rapidly result in settled law and precedent.
  • Review the classification and declassification procedures (which are necessary, but slow) for efficacy.
  • Provide improved “clean” facilities for secure attorney-client communications.
  • Establish a central and timely website and clearinghouse for commission filings and information to enhance transparency, public knowledge, and confidence in the commission’s proceedings.

Alternatives to Commissions

Participants also considered alternatives to commissions, including prosecution

  • In-theater before commissions or courts-martial;
  • By host-government courts;
  • By third-country courts;
  • Before hybrid domestic-international courts;
  • Within the US military justice system; and
  • Before Article III federal courts. 

In addition, there was a notable degree of support for the following conclusions:

  • Most participants expressed the view that US national security and justice would be better served by trying terrorism cases in Article III courts, instead of before commissions as they are currently constituted.
  • Many participants recommended that remote plea-bargaining before Article III judges via videoconference is an option that should be considered for Guantanamo detainees.
  • There was consensus that the prohibition on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States should be repealed to afford the Executive Branch flexibility in addressing terrorism cases.

New Entrants

As indicated by the recent Executive Order, the possibility of bringing new detainees to Guantanamo, and potentially charging them in the military commissions system, is now an option. Yet most participants agreed that bringing new entrants into the current military commissions system would be problematic. Specifically,

  • Most participants—indeed, all but one—agreed that bringing new entrants not currently detained at Guantanamo, such as ISIS members, into the existing commissions system at Guantanamo Bay would compound existing challenges, such as those involving prosecutorial and appellate delay, cost, and both public and international credibility.
  • Most participants also agreed that new entrants would also bring potential additional challenges, such as litigation addressed to detention authority under the existing 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the scope of the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), the co-mingling of detainees, and/or the exact crimes with which the detainees are charged.

The “End of Conflict” and a New AUMF

Finally, participants identified a series of issues related to defining the “end of conflict” with respect to some or all of the conflicts during which detainees have been transferred and held at Guantanamo, as well as issues that could arise if there is a new authorization to use military force to provide clearer and more specific authority for the use of force against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Specifically,

  • Many participants expressed the view that the US should better define what counts as the end of conflict and how the operations of jus post bellum should be carried out. Such definition could also encourage and facilitate the plea process, enhance the commissions’ credibility, and minimize the risk of inconsistent or adverse judicial or congressional definitions.
  • There was consensus that, until and unless there is a declared “end of conflict,” the current Periodic Review Board process for detainees should continue. This process assesses whether continued law-of-war detention is necessary to protect against a significant threat to the security of the United States.
  • Most participants agreed that a new AUMF would reduce the legal grounds for litigation challenging the President’s authority to detain new persons. However, participants could not agree on whether a new AUMF should include express detention authority and/or a sunset clause.

In sum, the Workshop Report offers a detailed, non-partisan, legal and policy analysis and recommendations with respect to the wide range of issues that currently face the Military Commissions and that will remain salient if the Trump Administration ultimately decides to expand the Commissions’ use.

The Hon. James E. Baker is INSCT Director and Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security. Laura A. Dickinson is Oswald Symister Colclough Research Professor of Law at George Washington Law.

The Stain of Torture

By David M. Crane

(Re-published from The Jurist | June 26, 2018) June 26th is the United Nations’ International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. Its purpose — to denounce the crime of torture and proclaim solidarity with its survivors — is in stark opposition to the policy of my government.

As a former Chief Prosecutor of an international war crimes tribunal in West Africa, I walked the countryside, interviewing hundreds of victims — often people who had been tortured by their own government. The atrocities scarred them physically, emotionally, and psychologically for life.

But they shared their stories enthusiastically with our team, willing to relay the horror in order to receive human empathy, long after giving up hope of finding anything resembling justice.

Having prosecuted the officials of other governments for torture, I now find myself in a United States increasingly identified with torture and cruelty. Intensifying torture was presidential campaign rhetoric. A person who oversaw waterboarding in black site prisons is promoted to lead the CIA. Children are removed from their families as they flee gang violence. The U.S. reportedly now plans to leave the UN Human Rights Council, although a member has never before departed that body voluntarily.

How Did We Get Here?

A leader in building the post-World War II consensus against torture and for the rule of law, the United States chose a path of lawless brutality after the horrendous crime of 9/11. Lashing out broadly at Muslims, it threw aside its own rules and embarked on the rendition, detention and interrogation program (RDI).

Our government embraced torture, long known by interrogation professionals to be counter-productive. It did so as an attempt at payback, out of anger. Weak justifications defied logic, morality, and international legal norms that had stood for decades.

Two Libyan victims of the RDI program, Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and his wife Fatima Boudchar, exemplify how far the U.S. moved to the dark side. They were on their way to the U.K. to seek asylum as opponents of the Gaddafi regime. With intelligence from the U.K., the CIA detained them in Thailand and tortured them: painful stress positions, drugs, and vicious beatings. Boudchar was several months pregnant.

From Thailand they were rendered to Libya, to the hands of their enemies, where they suffered further torture. Ms. Boudchar was released from prison just three weeks before she gave birth.

Fourteen years later, the British Prime Minister finally issued an apology for the U.K.’s role in the couple’s rendition and torture, a crime led by the United States. Stating that her country had contributed to the couple’s capture, Teresa May admitted “neither of you should have been treated this way,” and apologized unreservedly.

Less than a month later, the European Court of Human Rights also repudiated torture. It delivered judgments against Romania and Lithuania, which both hosted secret CIA torture prisons, finding this supporting role a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In stark contrast, at the same time such moral progress was occurring across the Atlantic, the U.S. confirmed a key figure in the RDI program to lead the CIA. Gina Haspel oversaw detention and torture at a black site occupied by Abd al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, the detainee whom the European Court said was subject to “an extremely harsh interrogation regime.”

What Are Citizens to Do When Their Government Doubles Down on its Torture Record?

I am part of one attempt to answer that question and give the survivors a safe space to tell their stories. I am a Commissioner of the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture (NCCIT). As part of the RDI program, the CIA used contractors and public facilities in North Carolina to move victims around the world to be tortured. Now local citizens are demanding to know how and why this was allowed to occur …

Read the whole article.

Banks, Baker Serve on ABA Military Commissions Workshop, Report Published

On Dec. 7, 2017, INSCT Founding Director William C. Banks and incoming Director the Hon. James E. Baker joined colleagues on the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security (ABA SCOLANS) for a one-day workshop investigating law and policy related to the military commissions at the US Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Workshop Report—The US Military Commissions: Looking Forward—has been published and is available from ABA SCOLANS.

Co-convened by George Washington University Law School, the purpose of the workshop was to provide a forum for expert discussion of issues that face the US military commissions. The commissions were first authorized by President George W. Bush in a Military Order in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and subsequently by the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009. Forty-one detainees are currently held at Guantanamo Bay. On Jan. 30, 2018, President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order “Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists” allows the US to transport additional detainees to Guantanamo Bay “when lawful and necessary to protect the Nation.”

The workshop’s four sessions addressed:

  1. An overview of the military commissions at Guantanamo.
  2. Legal questions related to existing detainees not charged before the commissions.
  3. Legal issues that could arise if new detainees were brought to Guantanamo.
  4. The implications for the commissions posed by a new authorization to use military force.

Workshop rapporteurs were Judge Baker, who will succeed Banks as INSCT Director in July 2018, and Professor Laura Dickinson of George Washington University Law School. The workshop’s non-partisan report is intended to inform policymakers, commentators, and the public on possible paths forward in the interest of US national security, law, and justice.”The group assembled by ABA SCOLANS brought together scholars and practitioners in the US who are most knowledgeable about the Commissions and who are in the best position to think clearly and positively about reforms that could set the Commissions on a path toward achieving their goal of justice in individual cases,” says Banks.

Among the prominent national security scholars joining Banks and Baker at the workshop were Geoffrey Corn of South Texas College of Law, Jennifer Daskal of American University Washington College of Law, Ryan Goodman of NYU Law School, Andrea Harrison of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Robert Litt of Morrison & Foerster, and Steve Vladeck of University of Texas Law School.

Hon. James E. Baker Joins Syracuse University College of Law as Professor, Director of INSCT

James E. BakerJurist, scholar, and law and policy practitioner the Hon. James E. Baker will join the faculty of Syracuse University College of Law, as well as the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, as a Professor in Fall 2018. Judge Baker will lead the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism as Director, succeeding Professor William C. Banks, who founded the Institute in 2003.

One of the most highly regarded national security lawyers and policy advisors in the nation, Judge Baker’s career has evolved from an Infantry Officer in the US Marine Corps; to the staff of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan; to the US Department of State, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and National Security Council. Mostly notably, Judge Baker served on the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for 15 years—the last four as Chief Judge.

“He is a gifted teacher and an accomplished scholar, whose penetrating analyses of national security law problems are routinely cited as exemplars in the field.”—William C. Banks

Since 2015, Judge Baker has served as a Member of the Public Interest Declassification Board; as a Consultant for the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity; and as Chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security. Judge Baker has taught at several universities, including his alma mater Yale Law School and the Georgetown University Law Center. From 2017-2018, he was a Robert E. Wilhelm Fellow at MIT’s Center for International Studies. Previous recipients of this prestigious fellowship include former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Adm. William Fallon, former Commander of US Central Command.

“I am extremely pleased to welcome Judge Baker into our College of Law family and, given the interdisciplinary approach to national security at Syracuse, I look forward to introducing him to the University as a whole,” says College of Law Dean Craig M. Boise. “Not only will he strengthen the College’s reputation and reinforce INSCT’s leadership position in national security law and policy, he is positioned to transform how the topic is studied and taught and to respond with intellectual agility as new security challenges emerge. Under his guidance, I fully expect INSCT to continue its exceptional track record of graduate placement in this practice area.”

“I am very delighted that Judge Baker will be joining Syracuse University and leading INSCT,” says Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Dean David M. Van Slyke. “His commitment to interdisciplinary research with policy implications and to working across the sectors and levels of government makes him an ideal leader and one that we in the Maxwell School are very excited to work with.”

“Judge Baker’s path to excellence spans appointments in the US military, in public service and on the bench, and in academia,” says Professor William C. Banks, Founding Director, INSCT. “He is a gifted teacher and an accomplished scholar, whose penetrating analyses of national security law problems are routinely cited as exemplars in the field. That he has compiled an impressive record of publications while engaged as a judge and legal adviser in government is a testament to his energy and drive to educate about national security.”

“I am excited and honored to be joining Syracuse University and the faculty of the College of Law and Maxwell School. It is also a privilege to take INSCT’s helm from Bill Banks. Bill is a friend, an educator, and a scholar whose vision created the Institute and whose leadership enriched it for more than 15 years,” says the Hon. James E. Baker. “INSCT’s excellent reputation for interdisciplinary scholarship and hands-on national security academics attracted me to this position. So did the University’s deep and sincere commitment to public service and to veterans. I look forward to continuing the Institute’s research, teaching, service, and legal and policy analysis initiatives; to expanding its portfolio of sponsored programs; and to working on critical, emerging challenges in national security law and policy with colleagues in the College of Law, Maxwell School, and across the University. I especially look forward to mentoring the next generation of national security practitioners and thought leaders.”

Judge Baker is the author of two books, In the Common Defense: National Security Law for Perilous Times (Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Regulating Covert Action (Yale University Press, 1992, with Michael Reisman) as well as numerous chapters and articles. Among his several awards, Judge Baker has been honored by the National Security Council, Central Intelligence Agency, and the US Army Command and General Staff College (Honorary Master of Military Arts and Science, 2009). He holds a B.A. from Yale University (1982) and a J.D. from Yale Law School (1990).

William C. Banks Speaks on Complexity and the Law of Armed Conflict at Duke LENS Conference

Bill Banks and Erin Wirtanen
William C. Banks and Erin Wirtanen (JD/MPA ’98).

INSCT Director William C. Banks was a co-discussant on the panel “Complexity and the Law of Armed Conflict” at the 2018 Duke University Center on Law, Ethics and National Security (LENS) Conference on Feb. 22-23, 2018. Banks was joined on the panel by Rita Siemion, International Legal Counsel, Human Rights First; Brig. Gen. Ken Watkin, former Judge Advocate General, Canadian Forces; and Professor Jeremy Rabkin of George Mason Law.

INSCT alumna Erin Wirtanen (JD/MPA ’98), Chief Counsel for the Center for Cyber Intelligence, CIA, was moderator of the “Complexity and Cybersecurity” panel. Amb. Nathan A. Sales, Ambassador-at-Large and Coordinator for Counterterrorism, US Department of State, and a former INSCT Faculty Member, spoke at the conference dinner at the end of the first day.

The conference—entitled Complexity and Accountability: The Future of the ICC—was sponsored by LENS, the Center for International and Comparative Law, and the International Human Rights Clinic. Other speakers included Maj. Gen. Charlie Dunlap, USAF (Ret.), LENS Executive Director; Dean Cheng of the Heritage Foundation; John Cronan, US Acting Assistant Attorney General and former Chief of the Southern District of New York’s Terrorism Unit, US Department of Justice; Monika Bickert, Head of Global Policy, Facebook; and Professor Laurie Blank of Emory Law School.

Syracuse University Mourns Passing of Longtime Benefactor and Life Trustee Gerald B. Cramer ’52, H’10

Gerry CramerGerald B. Cramer ’52, H’10, devoted friend, advocate, and generous benefactor of Syracuse University, died Feb. 13, 2018. Cramer, whose extraordinary philanthropy seeded opportunity for countless students and advanced faculty excellence, had served on the Board of Trustees since 1995 and was a Life Trustee at the time of his passing.

“He funded faculty positions in global affairs, economics and aging studies; provided leadership support for the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism; and supported numerous scholarships and programs in international relations.”

Born in 1930, Cramer was a 1952 graduate of Syracuse University’s Whitman School of Management and remained deeply involved with his alma mater throughout his life. His dedication and impact were recognized with numerous University distinctions during that time, including a George Arents Pioneer Medal—the University’s highest alumni distinction—and an honorary doctor of laws degree.

After earning a degree in accounting from the Syracuse University Whitman School of Management and attending the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, Cramer launched a successful career as an investment manager that would span 50 years. He was a managing director of GOM Capital and a co-founder and chair emeritus of the investment advisory firm Cramer, Rosenthal & McGlynn, where he held overall responsibility for the firm’s investment policy. He also was associated with the investment brokerage houses of Oppenheimer & Co., where he was a senior partner, and Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith. He also served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War.

“Gerry exemplified the power of one person to make a positive difference in the lives of others,” says Chancellor Kent Syverud. “He funded dozens of scholarships and provided leadership support for innovative programs that were important to him. He had a big heart and an even bigger vision that will continue to shape Syracuse University’s legacy and impact for generations to come.”

Cramer’s love for Syracuse University touched every segment of the campus community. But his philanthropy had an especially transformative impact on students and faculty of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He served on the school’s Advisory Board for more than 15 years and vigorously supported initiatives designed to foster global scholarship and engagement. He funded faculty positions in global affairs, economics and aging studies; provided leadership support for the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism; and supported numerous scholarships and programs in international relations, including a student exchange program between Maxwell and the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, Israel …

Read the whole story here.

William C. Banks Named Senior Fellow at Georgetown Law’s Center on National Security and the Law

The Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law has announce that William C. Banks has joined the Center as a Senior Fellow.

“I am delighted to welcome Bill Banks to the Center,” says Center Director and Professor of Law Laura K. Donohue. “Bill’s scholarship has played a key role in defining the field of national security law. He has tremendous expertise, and we are privileged to have him join us at Georgetown.”

A highly regarded and internationally recognized scholar and teacher, topics of Banks’ wide-ranging research include national security and counterterrorism law; laws of war and asymmetric warfare; drones and targeted killing; transnational crime and corruption; cybersecurity, cyberespionage, and cyber conflict; human security; emergency and war powers; emergency preparedness and response; prosecuting terrorists; civilian-military relations; and government surveillance and privacy. Banks is most recently the co-author (with Stephen Dycus) of Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2016).

A graduate of the University of Nebraska (B.A. 1971) and the University of Denver (J.D. 1974; M.S. 1982), Banks joined the faculty of the SU College of Law in 1978. Among his public service appointments, Banks has served as a Special Counsel to the US Senate Judiciary Committee (for the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Stephen G. Breyer);on the ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security; as a member of the InfraGard National Members Alliance Board of Advisors; on the Advisory Council for the Perpetual Peace Project; on the Executive Board of the International Counter-Terrorism Academic Community (ICTAC); as an Editorial Board member at The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism in The Hague, The Netherlands; and as a Distinguished Fellow of the Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University. Banks also is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of National Security Law & Policy.

In 2003, Banks founded the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law, which became a recognized leader in research and education on national and international security and terrorism. He is a Syracuse University College of Law Board of Advisors Distinguished Professor and Syracuse University Maxwell School Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs. During 2015-2016, Banks was Interim Dean of Syracuse University Law.

“Bill Banks is one of the country’s foremost experts on national security law,” says Professor David Koplow, co-director of the Center on National Security and the Law. “His leadership and collaboration on the Journal of National Security Law & Policy is just one way that he has already strengthened the opportunities for students in national security law at Georgetown.”

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/centers-institutes/national-security/People/Press-Release-for-William-C-Banks.cfm

Update: David M. Crane Appears at NCCIT Public Inquiry into Black Sites & Rendition

NC Involvement in US Torture Program More Extensive Than Previously Known

(Nov. 30, 2017) The North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture (NCCIT) uncovered new information concerning the depth of North Carolina’s involvement in US torture at a public hearing in Raleigh, NC, on Nov. 30, 2017.

“The United States has yet to turn the page on the dark chapter in our history when illegal detention and torture was carried out on suspects.”

The new findings, produced in partnership with The Rendition Project, reveal that nearly 30% of all acknowledged CIA black-site prisoners –34 individuals — rendered from 2001-2006 were transported on planes that originated in North Carolina. The Senate torture report has detailed the abuse detainees were subject to at these CIA sites.

Aero Contractors, founded in 1979 and headquartered at the Johnston County Airport in Smithfield, NC, operated a Gulfstream V jet nicknamed the “Guantanamo Express” to transport dozens of prisoners to black site prisons and proxy countries where many were subjected to torture, including waterboarding, painful stress positions and prolonged sleep deprivation, in their interrogations following 9/11. Aero also operated a Boeing business jet from a hangar it built at the Global TransPark, a state development project in Kinston, North Carolina.

The role of Aero Contractors and how North Carolina’s tax dollars, aviation infrastructure, and other public resources may have been used to directly or indirectly support the CIA’s rendition and torture program are the primary focus of NCCIT’s investigation. The public hearings held this week served as an opportunity for international experts, witnesses, and participants in the program to provide testimony to the Commission.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who was wrongfully accused of involvement in 9/11, appeared before the commission remotely by video and told the story of how he was transported on an Aero-operated flight which originated in North Carolina, brutally tortured, and detained at Guantanamo for more than 14 years. Slahi stated, “I am personally inspired to see citizens of North Carolina organize to demand accountability especially in an environment where the use of torture is still openly advocated.”

Although many of the details about the torture program remain classified, Dr. Sam Raphael, co-founder of The Rendition Project, has managed to uncover significant new findings regarding the role of North Carolina’s aviation infrastructure. Raphael says that “Aero Contractors, based in the state, operated two aircraft which played a central role in the CIA’s torture program, rendering at least 34 individuals to secret detention at CIA black sites, and at least 15 others to foreign custody, for interrogation and torture – including rape, genital mutilation, water torture, and electro-torture. Horrific details of the treatment of prisoners held by the CIA continue to emerge, and North Carolina’s public airports are now known to have been implicated in many more of these cases than previously understood. Now is the time for full accountability and justice.”

Catherine Read, Executive Director of the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture, stated, “No one has been held accountable for the heinous human rights violations committed in our country’s name and whose consequences continue to be felt. On the contrary, many of the key individuals involved in designing and executing the torture program continue to be given appointments within the federal government. NCCIT seeks to do the job our government has refused to do by investigating the links between the U.S. torture program and NC tax dollars and state resources that may have been used directly or indirectly to support the supply chain of torture and seek transparency and accountability.”

 David Crane, NCCIT Commissioner and international chief war crimes prosecutor, said, “The United States has yet to turn the page on the dark chapter in our history when illegal detention and torture was carried out on suspects. The work of NCCIT serves as a unique and innovative model of citizen-driven accountability. Only with transparency can the public engage in an informed discussion of how to keep abuses like these from occurring again using our soil and tax dollars.” 

The North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture is continuing to investigate following the public hearing and will issue a report in 2018 with findings and recommendations.

See Also:

“CIA rendition flights from rustic North Carolina called to account by citizens” (The Guardian | Jan. 17, 2018)  … Seven years later, Cowger sat in the front row of a makeshift hearing room in the Raleigh Convention Center as 11 volunteer commissioners of the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture “upped the ante”, as she put it, on that pledge. Over the course of two days, this “citizen-led truth seeking commission” called 20 witnesses to testify on the damage done by Aero’s rendition operations …

“Smithfield-based company accused of flying terror suspects across globe” (WNCN| Nov. 30, 2017)

“David Crane, a former intelligence officer and federal prosecutor, claims 9/11 pushed the U.S. into the dark, slippery shadows of interrogation. ‘The United States did not torture individuals until after 9/11. It was against policy, and it just wasn’t the way we did business,’ Crane said.”