Jennifer Van Bergen

The Wiretap Dance

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2006-08-19T00:26:18Z

The court's decision to strike down Bush's illegal wiretapping program is the right ruling for the wrong reasons.

Yesterday, a federal district judge struck down the domestic spying program conducted by the National Security Agency that President George W. Bush admitted authorizing at least 30 times. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the district court in the Eastern District of Michigan ruled the spying program unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt. While the president's critics are cheering the rebuke and civil libertarians are likely to applaud the decision, it is not as clear-cut a victory as it appears.

The case was brought against the NSA by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace, and several individuals, including lawyers representing foreign clients and Harper's Magazine journalist Christopher Hitchens. (...)

- / TomPaine.com

White House Behind Bars

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2006-08-05T00:43:00Z

The Supreme Court has ruled that Geneva applies-now it's time to talk about prosecutions for violating it.

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Guantánamo military tribunals violate the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the laws of war. It was a landmark decision, but the court did not address whether anyone may be held criminally liable for these violations. Not only should those responsible for violating these laws be criminally charged, charges should be filed against those in the highest levels of government.

Even before the Supreme Court decision, legal grounds existed for bringing war crimes charges against members of the Bush administration and the military. The court's ruling merely strengthened the case. It is clear from recent news detailing efforts by the Bush administration to enact a “shield” against war crimes prosecutions for “officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters,” that administration officials know this.

The basis for any criminal case against the architects of the Guantánamo tribunals and other illegal acts related to the “war on terror” rests on the Geneva Conventions and laws of war-which were incorporated into domestic federal law by the 1996 and 1997 War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441). These laws provide that any member of the U.S. armed forces or any U.S. national who commits a war crime may be fined or imprisoned for a term as long as life and may even be subject to the death penalty if death resulted from the violation. War crimes are broadly defined as “grave breaches” of Geneva or violations of Geneva Common Article 3, as well as violations of various parts of the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. (...)

- / TomPaine.com

How Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws are Shutting Down Legitimate U.S.-Based Muslim Charities

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2006-04-19T19:25:00Z

FindLaw guest columnist Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, explains the legal basis for the shutdown of major U.S.-based Muslim charities. Van Bergen tracks the evolution of the civil asset forfeiture laws, before 9/11 and afterward, when the laws were expanded by the PATRIOT Act — and covers the various constitutional challenges that have been raised against the laws' use. She argues that these laws — and the longstanding International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — serve worthy goals, but use unduly broad, sweeping means, and set proof requirements too low.

- / FindLaw

The New CIA Gulag of Secret Foreign Prisons: Why it Violates Both Domestic and International Law

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2005-11-09T02:23:36Z

FindLaw guest columnist, law school grad, and journalist Jennifer Van Bergen discusses the legal status of the CIA gulag of secret foreign prisons, whose existence was recently reported by The Washington Post. Van Bergen argues that having such a secret network violates not only U.S. laws such as the War Crimes Act of 1996, but also the Geneva Conventions and other sources of international law.

[November 7, 2005]

- / FindLaw

America's Parallel Legal Systems

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2005-06-25T23:15:00Z

“Danger, Will Robinson!”

For those who don't remember the Robot in the 1960's television series, “Lost in Space,” he was friends with the youngest member of the outer space Swiss Family Robinson and he regularly warned the young man whenever there was any incipient danger.

Too bad we don't have a robot friend who can tell us what the dangers to democracy are today.

One of those dangers in America is the emergence of parallel legal systems. (...)

- / CounterPunch

Lynne Stewart's Conviction Hurts Us All

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2005-02-12T05:25:00Z

In a shocking jury verdict yesterday, a tireless watchdog for liberty was convicted of violating special administrative prison rules and of providing material support to terrorists.

Only a few weeks ago, Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Barkow told the jury in his closing statement that Lynne Stewart "thought she could blow off the rules that apply to everyone else because she's a lawyer, and she's above the law. She said, 'I think my client is more important than the law. My cause is more important that the risk to lives of innocent people.' " (...)

- / CounterPunch

Abu Ghraib a Forseeable Result of Decision to Ignore Geneva Conventions

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2005-01-19T00:08:00Z

A preliminary draft of a soon-to-be published scholarly legal article written by a former military officer who currently presides in a U.S. federal court concludes that the Abu Ghraib prison abuses were the reasonably foreseeable results of a decision by President Bush to ignore the mandates of the Geneva Conventions relating to prisoners of war.

On January 18, 2002, according to the author, Evan J. Wallach, Judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade, President Bush apparently "made a presidential decision that captured members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban were unprotected by the Geneva POW Convention." This decision has never been released by the White House but was referenced in a January 25, 2002 memo by Alberto Gonzales which is currently the subject of much controversy. Gonzales, presently White House counsel, was nominated by Bush to the position of Attorney General after John Ashcroft submitted his resignation. The Gonzales Memo called the Geneva Conventions outdated and quaint and suggested the means by which the White House could avoid applying them. (...)

- / CounterPunch

What's Wrong with Torture?

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2004-09-15T04:06:55Z

This article is an excerpt from The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America by Common Courage Press.

Is torture wrong? What does the Bush administration think? One way to analyze this is to trace ideas wrought by post-9/11 conservative analysts whose views mirror and expand upon those in the administration. An interesting and valuable collection of such analyses is found in a special Spring 2002 issue of "Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs," titled "The New Protracted Conflict." (...)

- / CounterPunch

How to Beat Bush

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2004-09-13T00:06:00Z

This article is an excerpt from The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America.

Is Bush like Caesar? In one way, yes—Bush, like Casear, has decided to make the world his empire —, but in other ways it is not an apt comparison: Caesar had courage; Bush does not. Nor do Rumsfeld, Cheney, or the rest of the cabinet. Caesar went out and fought with is own hand. You will never see Bush or his ranks doing that. Bush sends others to die for him and hides, as he always has done, behind others as cowardly as he, others whose best defense is smoke and mirrors, and when those don't serve, outright lies. Caesar's laws provided important civil protections; Bush's do not. Bush's laws are some of the worst this country has ever known. (...)

- / CounterPunch

Election 9/11

Jennifer Van Bergen, Tom Stephens — 2004-08-01T04:50:05Z

In July 2004, only about a month after millions of the American People began flocking to movie theaters to see Michael Moore's incendiary exposé of the Bush administration, "Fahrenheit 9/11," officials appointed by this administration floated a bizarre and unprecedented proposal. Because of the possibility of anticipated, unspecified "terrorist attacks" somewhere in America, they said it could become "necessary" to postpone (or even cancel?) the scheduled November 2004 presidential election. (...)

What activists don't know can hurt them

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2004-07-22T01:05:00Z

The following article was contributed to the WSWS by Jennifer Van Bergen, the author of the upcoming book, The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America. She has been an adjunct faculty member of the New School for Social Research in NYC since 1993 and lectures on the antiterrorism laws and the Constitution.

Several days ago, three persons stood on a street corner in a suburban area of the United States, exercising their rights to assemble and express themselves in their opposition to the American invasion, occupation, and corporatization of Iraq. The group has been holding protests since early last year and has often demonstrated in public areas, including the one they were in this time, in front of the County Courthouse.

But this time was not the same as the other times. This time was a little different. A police officer came over and asked them what they were doing. Three people standing there with signs and clearly marked t-shirts showing their anti-war views. One of the three pointed to her t-shirt, which said the name of the peace group to which she belonged. (...)

The Death of the Great Writ of Liberty

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2004-07-20T04:13:54Z

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the unlawful enemy combatant case, is of greater importance to the future of this country than many realize. But the Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions and deceptions. On the one hand, the Court upheld the right to due process. On the other, the Court determined that an "appropriately authorized and properly constituted military tribunal" with truncated procedures might suffice.[1]

The Court cited the Geneva Conventions but only as the basis for its assertion that "detention may last no longer than active hostilities" and as support for its suggestion that a military tribunal will suffice.[2] It made no reference to the fact that for two years the United States has been violating Geneva and that such violation is a war crime. (...)

The Detainees and the Bush Tyranny

Jennifer Van Bergen — 2004-06-30T05:00:00Z

Both the Guantanamo detainees and the so-called "unlawful enemy combatants" scored a major victory yesterday when the Supreme Court ruled that the prisoners may be heard in U.S. courts. In the Guanatanamo detainee case, Rasul v. Bush (which was consolidated with Al Odah v. U.S.), the Department of Justice had argued that the detainees, all foreign nationals held on Cuban territory, had no rights in U.S. courts. In the "unlawful enemy combatant" case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the DOJ argued that the executive may indefinitely detain anyone it decides is a threat to national security. (...)