Jump to other pages in the CLEs section
Sponsored by Seattle University School of Law Office of Continuing Legal Education
CLE Credits: 5.5 General CLE credits anticipated
Supreme Court decisions and rulings by military judges since 2004 have raised serious questions concerning the Bush Administration's detention policies for persons alleged to be terrorists and the status of Guantánamo detainees. Despite differences concerning prior and existing policies and practices, however, there is widespread agreement that there must be a Constitutionally valid and practical system to identify alleged terrorists (status determination) under both domestic and international law.
On June 19, 2007, the United States Supreme Court unexpectedly shifted course by deciding sua sponte to review claims of Guantánamo detainees that they had a right to challenge their detention in American courts. Boumediene v. Bush, Docket No. 05-5062. Inasmuch as the Court’s highly unusual rescission of its previous refusal to review a Fourth Circuit ruling against the detainees required votes from five of the nine Justices, there is widespread speculation that this action signals, at the least, a judicial conclusion that Guantánamo must be closed. This case was argued on December 5, 2007.
However unusual on a procedural basis, the Court’s action is but the latest in a series of rulings it has issued concerning the detainment and trial of Guantánamo detainees. Prior decisions in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) led to enactment of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, which created new rules for prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects.
This CLE will discuss the implications of the Court decisions, the issues relating to the MCA, and policy considerations, including the government’s concern to obtain information it needs and to protect national security.
What Is To Be Done With "Terrorists"? Videos: Introduction, Session 1, Session 2, Session 3, Session 4, Session 5 (Windows Media Player Format)
| 8:45 - 9 a.m. |
Welcome: Dean Kellye Testy, Seattle University School of Law |
| 9 - 10 a.m. |
Session 1: How We Got Here: What the Courts Have Told Us to Date Moderator: Robert C. Boruchowitz, Visiting Clinical Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law Speakers: Professor Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland Law School; Charles W. Swift, Emory University School of Law A summary of how and why the existing current system for detention, interrogation and processing of persons believe to be “terrorists” was established and evolved, including highlights of major legislation and court decisions. |
| 10 - 11a.m. |
Session 2: Who Are We Talking About: Soldiers, Criminals or Something
Else – And Why Does It Make A Difference? Moderator: Norman Printer, Legal Writing Professor, Seattle University School of Law, formerly Associate Deputy General Counsel, Department of Defense Speakers: Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr. (USA ret.), former head of the military commissions; David R. East, McNaul Ebel Nawrot & Helbren PLLC; Kyndra Rotunda, Major, JAG, U.S. Army Reserves A description of the possible ways of characterizing persons captured as alleged terrorists, how they affect the rights of the detainees and the impact on relations with countries of origin and allies. |
| 11 - 11:15 a.m. |
Break |
| 11:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. |
Session 3: What Are the Applicable Legal Frameworks: International
Law, U.S. Constitutional Law; Others? Moderator: Gwynne Skinner, Visiting Clinical Professor, International Human Rights Law Clinic, Seattle University School of Law Speakers: J. Wells Dixon, Center for Constitutional Rights; Sandra Hodgkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, DASD/DA; Joe McMillan, Perkins Coie Overview of the origin, evolution and application of existing frameworks and practices, summary of the system currently being used by U.S. and its rationale, and identification of the international law. |
| 12:15 - 1:30 p.m. |
Box Lunch Sullivan Hall, 2nd Floor Gallery |
| 1:30- 2:30 p.m. |
Session 4: What Do We Do With the “Bad Guys”? Moderator: (To be determined) Speakers: Major General John D. Altenburg, Jr. (USA ret.), former head of the military commissions; J. Wells Dixon, Center for Constitutional Rights; Charles W. Swift, Emory University School of Law; Jon R. Zulauf, Zulauf and Chambliss, Seattle, WA A candid discussion of the national security concerns and individual liberty interests in the prosecution and defense of persons suspected of being terrorists, focusing on the “practical” problems – known and unacknowledged (e.g., when countries of origin prefer not to take back nationals) |
| 2:30 - 4 p.m. |
Session 5: Is It Possible to Develop a Consensus Model? Moderator: John McKay, Professor from Practice, Seattle University School of Law; formerly U.S. Attorney, Western District of Washington Speakers: Hon. John C. Coughenour, Federal District Judge, Western District of Washington; J. Wells Dixon, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY; Professor Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland Law School, Baltimore, MD; Sandra Hodgkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, DASD/DA; Hon. Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge, Western District of Washington; Kyndra Rotunda, Major, JAG, U.S. Army Reserves; Harry S. Schneider, Perkins Coie Are there system characteristics that observers from across the spectrum can agree upon? If not, why not? |
For additional information about this CLE seminar, please contact Rebecca Parker at the Office of Continuing Legal Education at parkerr@seattleu.edu or by phone at (206) 398-4282.