Global Perspectives on Counterterrorism
Professor Guiora has been invited to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing on June 4, 2008, entitled "Improving Detainee Policy: Handling Terrorism Detainees within the American Justice System." Professor Guiora will testify regarding his proposal advocating the establishment of a domestic terror court in the US.
Read the testimony and the executive summary
March 15, 2008: Professor Guiora along with Daniel C. Barr authored an op-ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune entitled "Veto of Bill Banning Torture Places Interrogators in a Bind."
March 4, 2008: Professor Guiora was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune in an article discussing a ricin vaccine and how it relates to U.S. terror policy.
A debate was recently held by PENNumbra entitled "Light at the End of the Pipeline?: Choosing a Forum for Suspected Terrorists." Professor Guiora delivered the opening statement entitled "Suspected Terrorists: Domestic Terror Courts Are Waiting!"
February 21, 2008: Professor Guiora co-authored an op-ed piece with Asaf Romirowsky for the Philadelphia Daily News entitled "A Pathetic 'Peace Process.' "
February 14, 2008: Professor Guiora was quoted in a Los Angeles Times article concerning the assassination of Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyah.
View Professor Guiora's article co-authored with Matthew V. Ezzo, "A Critical Decision Point on the Battlefield-Friend, Foe, or Innocent Bystander"
Abstract:
Unlike traditional war in which soldiers fought soldiers and tanks attacked tanks, the “unseen enemy in the dark shadows of the back alleys” characterizes the post 9/11 world. Commanders are facing many challenges targeting battlefield combatants. What increasingly complicates the battlefield commanders’ dilemma in determining the status of the individual standing before him is what we describe and define in the article as “voluntary human shields”. Commanders are faced with many decision points once terrorist organizations or enemy forces introduce human shields into the equation. Battlefield commanders must determine whether the human shield is friend, foe, or innocent bystander. After making this determination, the commander then must consider the impact of potential civilian casualties or the perception that civilian casualties occurred. These decisions often have to be made by the commander on the ground with little to no time to contemplate the pros and cons of the decision.
We have chosen to address this issue for multiple reasons: commanders demand clear criteria regarding the status of those in the “zone of combat”; the innocent civilian must be protected; international law demands the soldier be trained in distinguishing between the innocent and non-innocent and the community supporting terrorist organizations must know that the truly innocent will be protected (to the greatest extent possible). The security of those individuals on the battlefield depends on the analysis of the commander. The commander must assess the security rights of the individuals on the field of battle (guided by international humanitarian law) versus the security of the soldiers he commands and the security of the state he represents. The commander needs tools to toss into his proverbial pack to take with him on the battlefield. In the article, we assert the “tools” must consist, at a minimum, of the following factors: 1) intelligence information; 2) analysis of the conduct of the specific individual; 3) battlefield circumstances at the relevant time; 4) the commanders’ prior experience; 5) the conduct of additional individuals in the surrounding area. Senior military commanders, policy and decision makers, academics, the general public and those supporting terrorists must address this issue. Otherwise, the killing of innocent civilians is as inevitable as the tragic death of a soldier unequipped to determine “who is the enemy”.
Read Professor Guiora's paper, "Accountability and Effectiveness in Homeland Security"
Abstract:
In response to the continued terror threat facing the United States, counterterrorism measures must be developed that are both effective and meet accountability standards. This paper approaches the issue by: (1) proposing a matrix facilitating the measurement of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a particular counterterrorism measure; and (2) proposing an accountability matrix for measuring the effectiveness of particular measures. The paper’s central focus is developing criteria for measuring effective counterterrorism - premised on the rule of law, policy considerations, and the limits of power. If utilized, these criteria will provide empirical evidence that particular counterterrorism measures in actuality contribute to effective and legal counterterrorism.
On Tuesday, January 29, Professor Guiora was interviewed by National Public Radio’s Tom Bowman on the Cleveland, Ohio NPR station 90.3 WCPN. He discussed the presidential primaries and provided analysis on each candidate’s position on issues of national and international security.
“In addition to discussing the candidates and the race thus far, I hope we can give listeners some sense of how the candidates have tried to distinguish themselves on the war in Iraq, and other issues including Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, terrorism and North Korea’s nuclear proliferation,” Guiora said.
Amos Guiora will be testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security in March (exact date to be announced). Professor Guiora will be part of a panel of experts on budget and accountability on homeland security and terrorism.
In November 2007 Professor Guiora's "Global Perspectives on Counter-Terrorism" class at the S.J. Quinney College of Law conducted a simulation exercise depicting a real-life terror threat and the government reaction to it.
Watch the video of this simulation
Read Professor Guiora's Article "Framing Homeland Security"