The following is a transcript from David Rivkin's appearance as one of the panelist, "Obama's Nuclear Strategy: Less than Meets the Eye?" at The Nixon Center on Wednesday, May 5, 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9LM7mbB2l0

"Nevertheless, the fact that the Russians are making such a big deal about the preeminent language and their dissipating loyal statement is important, I think, in informing us how they will behave in the future, relative to the treaty itself and the broader strategic relationship. For example, we can expect Moscow to continue to protest vociferously every U.S. missile defense effort--strategic, tactical--in fear, arguing that it is inconsistent with the treaty. And in fact, judging by my own practice in this area, we are going to scrub every effort we make at the government level--and even the contractor level--to be in compliance."

May 25, 2010. From: Michael Yon [http://www.michaelyon-online.com/court-decisions-on-bagram-detainees.htm]

We all are aware that war leads to difficult situations. In regard to detainees, we've seen terrorists released only to strike again. Yet in the interest of justice we are concerned about detaining potentially innocent people. Difficult times, difficult answers. In summary, some detainees at Bagram are trying to use American courts to chisel their way out.

Last year, a group of people were asked to join in offering an opinion to the court. Those were: Special Forces Association, U.S. Army Ranger Association, Senator Lindsey Graham, Col. (ret) Abraham German, Wade Ishimoto, Prof. Andrew Nichols Pratt, Dr. Dennis Walters, Rear Admiral (ret) George Worthington, Michael Yon and Senator Ryan Zinke.

The good attorneys who are trying to keep us from getting blown up by repeat offenders emailed today. The above parties received the following message from Attorneys David Rivkin and Carlos Ramos Mrosovsky:

Dear Gentlemen,

We are very happy to report a tremendous success in the Maqaleh litigation before the D.C. Circuit. Last Friday, the panel of three judges handed down their decision, as well as an opinion by Chief Judge Sentelle, which reversed the district court and ordered that the Bagram detainees' habeas petitions be dismissed. We have attached Judge Sentelle's opinion for your review.

It appears that our amicus brief was right on target. While both the government and counsel for the detainees made "bright line" arguments -- that is, they argued that habeas rights should always or should never apply on U.S. military bases overseas -- the court refused to accept either extreme position. Instead, it focused on the "practical factors" which were emphasized in our brief. In this regard, the most important language appears on page 22 of the decision: " . . . we hold that the third factor, that is 'the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement to the writ . . . weighs overwhelmingly in favor of the position of the United States." The court then concluded that the fact that Bagram is located within an active theater of war weighed strongly against extending habeas rights to detainees held there. Given the court's emphasis on the "practical difficulties" side of the analysis, we feel confident that the involvement of amici who could speak with ultimate credibility as to those difficulties cannot but have made an immense impact.

At this stage, it is too early to know whether counsel for the detainees will seek a final appeal to the Supreme Court. Even if she does so, however, we believe that, given the unanimous nature of the D.C. Circuit panel's decision and its well-reasoned character, the Supreme Court is most unlikely to grant this request. Overall, the D.C. Circuit's Maqaleh decision represents a significant victory.

Thank you again for your participation in this amicus briefing project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.

Best regards,
David & Carlos

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that three men who had been detained by the United States military for years without trial in Afghanistan had no recourse to American courts. The decision was a broad victory for the Obama administration in its efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for indefinite periods without judicial oversight.

The detainees, two Yemenis and a Tunisian who say they were captured outside Afghanistan, contend that they are not terrorists and are being mistakenly imprisoned at the American military prison at Bagram Air Base.

But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that the three had no right to habeas corpus hearings, in which judges would review evidence against them and could order their release. The court reasoned that Bagram was on the sovereign territory of another government and emphasized the “pragmatic obstacles” of giving hearings to detainees “in an active theater of war.”

The ruling dealt a severe blow to wider efforts by lawyers to extend a landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling granting habeas corpus rights to prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. A lower court judge had previously ruled that the three Bagram detainees were entitled to the same rights, although he had found that others captured in Afghanistan and held there were not.

A lawyer for the detainees, Tina Foster, said that if the precedent stood, Mr. Obama and future presidents would have a free hand to “kidnap people from other parts of the world and lock them away for the rest of their lives” without having to prove in court that their suspicions about such prisoners were accurate.

“The thing that is most disappointing for those of us who have been in the fight for this long is all of the people who used to be opposed to the idea of unlimited executive power during the Bush administration but now seem to have embraced it during this administration,” she said. “We have to remember that Obama is not the last president of the United States.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and an influential lawmaker in the long-running debate over detentions, called the ruling a “big win” and praised the administration for appealing the lower court’s ruling.

“Allowing a noncitizen enemy combatant detained in a combat zone access to American courts would have been a change of historic proportions,” he said. “It also would have dealt a severe blow to our war effort.

“There is a reason we have never allowed enemy prisoners detained overseas in an active war zone to sue in federal court for their release. It simply makes no sense and would be the ultimate act of turning the war into a crime.”

It was not entirely clear how the ruling might affect detention policies for terrorism suspects caught outside Afghanistan or Iraq. While the Obama administration has stepped up the use of Predator drone strikes to kill terrorism suspects and has relied on other countries, like Pakistan, to hold and interrogate suspects who are captured alive, it is not known whether the United States has directly captured anyone outside Afghanistan or Iraq recently — and, if so, where it has taken them.

A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, would not comment on the decision.

David Rivkin, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Special Forces Association urging the court to side with the government, said the ruling would have broad significance by removing doubts over whether the United States could capture and interrogate terrorism suspects without worrying about having to collect, in dangerous situations, evidence that would later stand up in court.

“This is an excellent decision,” said Mr. Rivkin, who was a White House lawyer in the administration of the first President Bush. “It has restored a considerable degree of sanity to what threatened to be a crazy legal regime that would have deprived the United States, for the first time in history, of the opportunity to capture and detain — outside of the United States, in theaters of war — high-value combatants. That has been solved, and it will apply to many other situations in the future.”

The case was brought on behalf of a Tunisian man who says he was captured in Pakistan in 2002, a Yemeni man who says he was captured in Thailand in 2002, and another Yemeni man who says he was captured in 2003 at another location outside Afghanistan that has not been disclosed. (The government has disputed the second Yemeni’s claim.)

The men’s case was originally heard by Judge John D. Bates of the Federal District Court, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. The Bush and Obama administrations had both urged Judge Bates not to extend habeas corpus rights beyond Guantánamo, arguing that courts should not interfere with military operations inside active combat zones.

But in April 2009, Judge Bates ruled that there was no difference between the three men who had filed suit and Guantánamo prisoners. His decision was limited to non-Afghans captured outside Afghanistan — a category that fits only about a dozen of the roughly 800 detainees at Bagram, officials have said.

In urging the appeals court to let Judge Bates’s decision stand, lawyers for the detainees argued that reversing it would mean that the government would be able “to evade judicial review of executive detention decisions by transferring detainees into active combat zones, thereby granting the executive the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.”

But in the appeal panel’s decision reversing Judge Bates, Chief Judge David B. Sentelle said there had been no such gamesmanship in the decision to bring the three detainees to Bagram because it happened years before the Supreme Court’s Guantánamo rulings.

Still, he left the door open to approving habeas corpus rights for prisoners taken to prisons other than Guantánamo in the future, writing, “We need make no determination on the importance of this possibility, given that it remains only a possibility; its resolution can await a case in which the claim is a reality rather than speculation.”

Ms. Foster vowed to keep fighting. But Mr. Rivkin said that the detainees’ chances for overturning the decision were dim because the three appeals judges spanned the ideological spectrum: Chief Judge Sentelle, appointed by President Ronald Reagan; Judge Harry T. Edwards, appointed by President Jimmy Carter; and Judge David S. Tatel, appointed by President Bill Clinton.

It could also be difficult to win a reversal by the Supreme Court, where five of the nine justices supported giving habeas rights to detainees in the Guantánamo case. Among the narrow majority in that case was Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring.

The nominee to replace him, Elena Kagan, who as solicitor general signed the government’s briefs in the case, would most likely recuse herself from hearing an appeal of the decision, and a four-four split would allow it to stand.

David Rivkin responds with call for serious evaluation of FBI interrogation policy

Published on February 09, 2010 by Brent Baldwin (OfficialWire) WASHINGTON, D.C.

On the hot seat of MSNBC’s The Ed Show, former Justice Department official David Rivkin called Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan “factually wrong” when insisting that senior members of Congress were aware that Miranda rights would be given so soon to terrorist suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

“It’s interesting that Mr. Brennan says that being in FBI custody is synonymous with being Mirandized,” said Rivkin, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for The Defense of Democracies and co-chair for the Center for Law & Counterterrorism.  Rivkin pointed to an organization within the FBI known as HIG (high-level interrogation group), formed early in the administration, that had previously announced it did not require Mirandizing a suspect.

“The notion [Republicans] could conceive the administration would be so foolish as to Mirandize him in 50 minutes is quite simply ludicrous. Of course they didn’t conceive of it. It would’ve been crazy!” Rivkin said.

The show segment from Feb. 8th began with a Meet The Press clip of Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan explaining that he had briefed several senior members of Congress on the night of the Christmas attack who never expressed reservations about standard FBI procedure. Among those was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, now one of the loudest critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the brief interrogation.

Liberal host Ed Schultz tried to paint the entire Republican argument as “political posturing” and challenged Rivkin, saying he was pitting his credibility against the word of Brennan. But Rivkin remained adamant that officials would not have simply assumed Miranda rights were being given automatically. Rivkin also pointed out that there should be less blame cast by both sides and more attention to the underlying failures in common sense procedure.

“We’re talking about somebody who is interrogated for 50 minutes, that interrogation was interrupted and he is Mirandized. I don’t know of any serious interrogator who does not believe that we should have a go at him for several weeks,” Rivkin said.


About David Rivkin
David Rivkin is an attorney in private practice and partner at Baker & Hostetler in Washington, D.C., who has had a lengthy career distinguished by service in the White House during two presidents’ terms, in the U.S. Department of Justice and in the U.S. Department of Energy. He is a well-known writer and media commentator on matters of constitutional and international law, as well as foreign and defense policy. He is a visiting fellow at the Nixon Center, contributing editor at the National Review, and a member of the Advisory Council at National Interest magazine. He currently serves as co-chairman of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He also represents foreign governments and corporate entities on legal, political, defense, economy and public relations matters.
For more information, visit www.davidrivkin.com or contact:

Former Justice Department official cites secret legal filing that contradicts Obama approach to charging terrorists

Published on February 08, 2010 by Brent Baldwin (OfficialWire) WASHINGTON, D.C.

Attorney and former Justice Department official David Rivkin recently broke a story in his Wall Street Journal Op-Ed (“Tale of Two Terrorists”) regarding a secret filing made by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The filing, made Dec. 18, basically argued that interrogating terrorists must come before criminal prosecution.

On Feb. 6, Rivkin appeared live on Fox and Friends alongside Matthew Alexander, a former senior interrogator in Iraq and author, to discuss the use of Miranda rights for accused terrorists. They specifically discussed Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdumuttalab, who promptly stopped talking after being read his rights. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs previously stated that the FBI obtained sufficient intelligence from a 50-minute interrogation of Abdumuttalab on Christmas Day before reading him his rights. Rivkin strongly disagrees with this approach.

“This was a huge mistake,” Rivkin said. “The Justice Department senior official, U.S. attorney Preet Bharara on Dec. 18 argues in a filing that its essential to treat a person like Abdumuttalab as an intelligence asset, with protracted interrogations to illicit every bit of intelligence information back and forth—and not just for 15  [or 50] minutes.”

Alexander countered that he would rather “deligitimize” terrorists by showing that our government upholds the word of the law; and also by treating terrorists as common criminals which would make them less effective as recruitment figures.

Rivkin said the most important means of self-defense involved timing and the overall intelligence information gathered from suspects at hand. “We didn’t get this information in a timely fashion. So intelligence got stale. And just because we’re getting some intelligence stream out of this guy doesn’t mean we couldn’t have gotten more,” Rivkin said, noting that he was still for humane treatment of prisoners.

“We could’ve treated him as an enemy combatant, interrogated him humanely for several months, got everything out of him and then made a decision about whether we want to put him in a criminal justice system,” Rivkin said. “We got some information out of him, but we could’ve gotten more. There’s no doubt about that.”

About David Rivkin
David Rivkin is an attorney in private practice and partner at Baker & Hostetler in Washington, D.C., who has had a lengthy career distinguished by service in the White House during two presidents’ terms, in the U.S. Department of Justice and in the U.S. Department of Energy. He is a well-known writer and media commentator on matters of constitutional and international law, as well as foreign and defense policy. He is a visiting fellow at the Nixon Center, contributing editor at the National Review, and a member of the Advisory Council at National Interest magazine. He currently serves as co-chairman of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He also represents foreign governments and corporate entities on legal, political, defense, economy and public relations matters.  For more information, visit www.davidrivkin.com or contact:

 

From Inside the Beltway - Wash Times EDGING FORWARD

The plot to bomb a jetliner on Christmas Day has strengthened the assertion that there are scores of terrorists lying in wait for their opportunity to do harm to America. That means the argument over civil trial versus military tribunal for future perpetrators is bound to continue. Ergo, inquiring minds want to know: In which direction is the Obama administration likely to go with this?

"The disputes and acrimony over this kind of issue is not unique to this administration. Some people within it clearly 'get it.' " Others do not, and find themselves doing something for legal reasons, then for political reasons they must defend it," David Rivkin Jr. tells Inside the Beltway.

Mr. Rivkin served as a Justice Department and White House lawyer in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and is a Washington, D.C., lawyer and co-chairman of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

"There is a phrase, 'Reality bites.' Well, reality is now biting the Obama administration. I think it is inevitable that they move more and more to a military embrace, towards the laws of war paradigm, a mainstay of the Bush administration that has largely been abandoned by this one," Mr. Rivkin says.
BLUE HUE
_____

Point of View radio talk show

http://www.blubrry.com/pointofview/640960/point-of-view-radio-talk-show-for-february-4-2010/