Helpful tidbits.
|
|
DOWNLOAD
|
PUBLISHED
|
CATEGORY
|
|
Memorandum for William J. Haynes II,
General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States
|
pdf
|
|
|
Two fundamental constitutional issues arise in regard to the conduct of interrogations of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. First, we discuss the constitutional foundations of the President's power, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive, to conduct military operations during the current armed· conflict. We explain that detaining and interrogating enemy combatants is an important element of the President's authority to successfully prosecute war. Second, we address whether restraints imposed by the Bill of Rights govern the interrogation of alien enemy combatants during armed conflict. Two constitutional provisions that might be thought to extend to interrogations-the Fifth and Eighth Amendments-do not apply here. The Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that "[n]o person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const., amend V. The Eighth Amendment bars the "inflict[ion]" of "cruel and unusual punishments." U.S. Const., amend. VIII. These
provisions, however, do not regulate the interrogation of alien enemy combatailts outside the United States during an international armed conflict. This is clear as a matter of the text and purpose of the Amendments, as they havebeen interpreted by the federal courts.
|
|
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS
AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
|
pdf
|
June, 2008 |
|
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response
to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad
constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both
the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the
"WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat.
224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person,
organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against
foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy
military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or
not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
|
|
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
|
pdf
|
April, 2008 |
|
Second, the Constitution makes clear that the process used for conducting military hostilities is different
from other government decisionmaking. In the area of domestic legislation, the Constitution creates a detailed,
finely wrought procedure in which Congress plays the central role. In foreign affairs, however, the Constitution
does not establish a mandatory, detailed, Congress-driven procedure for taking action. Rather, the Constitution
vests the two branches with different powers - the President as Commander in Chief, Congress with control
over funding and declaring war - without requiring that they follow a specific process in making war. By
establishing this framework, the Framers expected that the process for warmaking would be far more flexible,
and capable of quicker, more decisive action, than the legislative process. Thus, the President may use his
Commander-in-Chief and executive powers to use military force to protect the Nation, subject to congressional
appropriations and control over domestic legislation.
|
|
Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees
|
pdf
|
April, 2008 |
|
Dated February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush declared that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to either al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.
|
|
Declaration of Theresa Payton - Chief Information Officer in the Office of Administration, Executive Office of the President (1:07-CV-1707) USDC, District of Columbia; National Security Archive v. The Executive Office of the President; USDC, D.C. (HHK/JMF)
|
pdf
|
January, 2008 |
ESI |
The White House is forced to admit that emails are missing.
|
|
Memorandum Order
|
pdf
|
January, 2008 |
ESI |
Magistrate Judge John M. Focciola's Memorandum Order directing the White House to answer the below questions in five business days. National Security Archive v. The Executive Office of the President; USDC, D.C. Case No. 07-1577 (HHK/JMF)
1. Are the back-ups catalogued, labeled or otherwise identified to indicate the period of time they cover?
2. Are the back-ups catalogued, labeled or otherwise identified to indicate the data contained therein?
3. Do the back-ups contain emails written and received between 2003-2005?
4. Do the back-ups contain the emails said to be missing that are the subject of this lawsuit?
|
|
Memorandum Opinion - Tammy Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District (4:04-cv-02688), USDC, Middle District of Pennsylvania
|
pdf
|
December, 2007 |
|
The second paragraph of the disclaimer reads as follows:
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be
tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no
evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested
explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. This paragraph singles out evolution from the rest of the science
curriculum and informs students that evolution, unlike anything else that they are
learning, is “just a theory,” which plays on the “colloquial or popular
understanding of the term [‘theory’] and suggest[ing] to the informed, reasonable
observer that evolution is only a highly questionable ‘opinion’ or a ‘hunch.’”
Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1310; 14:110-12 (Alters); 1:92 (Miller). Immediately
after students are told that “Darwin’s Theory” is a theory and that it continues to be
tested, they are told that “gaps” exist within evolutionary theory without any
indication that other scientific theories might suffer the same supposed weakness.
As Dr. Alters explained this paragraph is both misleading and creates
misconceptions in students about evolutionary theory by misrepresenting the
scientific status of evolution and by telling students that they should regard it as
singularly unreliable, or on shaky ground. (14:117 (Alters)). Additionally and as
pointed out by Plaintiffs, it is indeed telling that even defense expert Professor
Fuller agreed with this conclusion by stating that in his own expert opinion the
disclaimer is misleading. (Fuller Dep. 110-11, June 21, 2005). Dr. Padian bluntly
and effectively stated that in confusing students about science generally and
evolution in particular, the disclaimer makes students “stupid.” (Trial Tr. vol. 17,
Padian Test., 48-52, Oct. 14, 2005).
In summary, the second paragraph of the disclaimer undermines students’
education in evolutionary theory and sets the groundwork for presenting students
with the District’s favored religious alternative.
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 41 of 139
|
|
H. RES. 847 - Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian
faith.
|
pdf
|
December, 2007 |
|
Whereas there are approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States, making Christianity the religion of over three-fourths of the American population;
|
|
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
|
pdf
|
November, 2007 |
|
Magistrate Judge's Recomendation and Report on CREW's Motion for TRO against the White House. USDC, D.C. Case No. 07-1707 (HHK/JMF)
|
|
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND
TO COMPEL RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE
|
pdf
|
October, 2007 |
ESI |
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civ. No. 07-1577 (HHK)
|
|
Higazy v. Millenium Hotel
|
pdf
|
October, 2007 |
|
Unredacted opinion of Higazy v. Millenium Hotel, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
|
|
OPINION DECISION AND ORDER
|
pdf
|
September, 2007 |
ESI |
John Doe, et al. v. Alberto Gonzales, United States District Court, Southern District of New York; Case No. 04-CIV-2614 (VM), September 6, 2007. District Judge Victor Marrero.
|
|
Military Commissions Act of 2006
|
pdf
|
September, 2006 |
|
AN ACT, To authorize trial by military commission for violations of
the law of war, and for other purposes. S. 3930 became Public Law No: 109-366.
|
|
Statement for the Record: Office of General Counsel Involvement In Interrogation Issues
|
pdf
|
July, 2004 |
|
Memorandum of the General Counsel of the Navy, Alberto J. Mora, dated July 7, 2004.
|
|
Scalia Dissent in Hamdi
|
pdf
|
June, 2004 |
|
Justice Scalia's Dissent in Hamdi.
|
|
Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales Counsel to the President
|
pdf
|
August, 2002 |
|
The Bybee Memo.
|
|
Authorization for
Use of Military
Force.
50 USC 1541
|
pdf
|
September, 2001 |
|
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible
for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
|
|
ABA Canons of Professional Ethics (Adopted August 27, 1908)
|
pdf
|
August, %G |
|
In America, where the stability of Courts and of all departments of government rests upon the approval of the people, it is peculiarly essential that the system for establishing and dispensing Justice be developed to a high point of efficiency and so maintained that the public shall have absolute confidence in the integrity and impartiality of its administration. The future of the Republic, to a great extent, depends upon our maintenance of Justice pure and unsullied. It cannot be so maintained unless the conduct and the motives of the members of our profession are such as to merit the approval of all just men.
No code or set of rules can be framed, which will particularize all the duties of the lawyer in the varying phases of litigation or in all the relations of professional life. The following canons of ethics are adopted by the American Bar Association as a general guide, yet the enumeration of particular duties should not construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative, though not specifically mentioned.
|
|
