Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07BRUSSELS810
2007-03-12 06:17:00
CONFIDENTIAL
USEU Brussels
Cable title:
DISCUSISONS WITH THE EU AND NATO ON LEGAL ISSUES
how-toVZCZCXRO2278 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHBS #0810/01 0710617 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 120617Z MAR 07 ZDK CTG #597 FM USEU BRUSSELS TO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC IMMEDIATE RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUEKJCS/DOD WASHDC IMMEDIATE RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 BRUSSELS 000810
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DOD FOR JIM HAYNES
NSC FOR RICHARD KLINGLER
DOJ FOR STEVE BRADBURY AND KEN WAINSTEIN
CIA FOR JOHN RIZZO
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/08/2017
TAGS: PTER PREL EUN
SUBJECT: DISCUSISONS WITH THE EU AND NATO ON LEGAL ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAR ON TERRORISM
BRUSSELS 00000810 001.2 OF 004
Classified By: Classied by EMIN John Sammis for reason 1.4 (b) and (d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 BRUSSELS 000810
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DOD FOR JIM HAYNES
NSC FOR RICHARD KLINGLER
DOJ FOR STEVE BRADBURY AND KEN WAINSTEIN
CIA FOR JOHN RIZZO
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/08/2017
TAGS: PTER PREL EUN
SUBJECT: DISCUSISONS WITH THE EU AND NATO ON LEGAL ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAR ON TERRORISM
BRUSSELS 00000810 001.2 OF 004
Classified By: Classied by EMIN John Sammis for reason 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (C) Summary. John Bellinger, Legal Adviser at the State
Department, and Joshua Dorosin, Assistant Legal Adviser for
Political and Military Affairs, met February 27 with their
counterparts from the 27 EU Member States and representatives
from the Council and Commission Secretariat. The majority of
the three hour meeting was devoted to discussion of the U.S.
response to the EU non-paper on principles of international
law relevant to counter-terrorism and concluded with a short
update on developments in the United States. There was
considerable discussion of whether it is possible as a legal
matter for a state to be in an armed conflict with a
non-state actor, like Al Qaeda, outside that state,s
territory and what specific rules would govern the treatment
of individuals detained in such a conflict. In this
connection, Bellinger explained that the U.S. Supreme Court
had decided that only a narrow part of the Geneva Convention
- Common Article 3 - applies to Al Qaeda detainees and that
the limited nature of Common Article 3 does not provide a
comprehensive framework for this kind of conflict. Bellinger
stressed that the dialogue with the EU has been beneficial in
highlighting the complexity and nuances of these issues. He
also noted that it is important to remember that the United
States and EU member states have different legal obligations.
Bellinger said that over the next few years the US and
others will need to work together and assess the sufficiency
of the existing legal framework. Discussions with the EU on
the non-paper will continue in March in Strasbourg. End
summary.
Discussions with the EU
2. (C) Bellinger started by noting that this dialogue has
been going on for a year and that the United States has
benefited from the exchange. He said that the U.S. position
has been informed by the comments from the European side and
has served to clarify the existing legal framework. Turning
to the EU non-paper on principles of international law
relevant to counter-terrorism, he said that the United States
agrees with many of the elements of the paper. The points of
disagreement, he said, are well known and include
extra-territorial application of the ICCPR and the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Bellinger indicated that some of the
elements of the EU non-paper are overly broad and do not take
into account specific scenarios that could arise. Bellinger
appreciated that the non-paper accepts that the applicability
of international humanitarian law (IHL) has to be looked at
on a case by case basis. The UK and France agreed that the
United States and the EU have different legal obligations but
said that there should be a common interpretation where the
obligations are the same. Sweden said that the problem was
not when a country applied a higher standard but when the
standard was &watered down.8
Application of international humanitarian law
3. (C) Bellinger argued that the &global war against
terror8 is a political rather than a legal statement. He
stressed that the important aspect is that there is an armed
conflict with a non-state actor that is attacking the United
States in different places around the world. Bellinger noted
that the United States and the EU have come closer on this
question. Initially, the EU position was that there was no
conflict anywhere and the EU perception was that the United
States was saying that the conflict was everywhere; the two
sides now agree that there is armed conflict in some places.
Denmark and the UK agreed that a state can be in armed
conflict with a non-state actor, but stressed the need for
territorial and other factors that define the conflict. The
UK asked how al Qaeda is defined. Bellinger responded that
defining when and where IHL applies to the conflict with al
Qaeda is not easy, but that it is important to recognize that
IHL does apply in some cases. In other cases a criminal law
framework would be appropriate. Bellinger noted that the UN
report on Guantanamo had not looked at IHL and therefore
misstated the appropriate legal framework for the analysis.
Bellinger encouraged EU member states to raise this problem
with UN officials.
Protection for detainees
4. (C) Bellinger explained that the U.S. Supreme Court had
BRUSSELS 00000810 002.2 OF 004
decided that only a narrow part of the Geneva Convention -
Common Article 3 - applies to Al Qaeda detainees and that the
limited nature of Common Article 3 does not provide a
comprehensive framework for this kind of conflict. France
and Germany argued that Article 575 of Additional Protocol I
should also apply. Bellinger responded that the U.S.
reflects these stand legal
@dh`uman Qights law in
situatioping area
of the law. He pointed out that human rights law was designed
to cover a state,s treatment of its own nationals, and
cannot simply be imported wholesale into situations of armed
conflict.
Procedural rights of detainees and extraterritorial
application of ICCPR
7. (C) The discussion on this element focused on whether the
detainees have procedural rights (as the EU paper states) or
whether states have obligations to provide detainees with
particular forms of process, depending on the status of the
detainee. Bellinger agreed that detainees have rights but
that these flow from the obligation on states to provide
procedural protections, rather than as individual
protections. France, Sweden, and Belgium argued that there
are individual rights as well, because human rights law,
which provides individual rights, also applies. Bellinger
noted that creating individual rights of action could result
in a mass of litigation. On this point, Bellinger stated
that the United States disagrees that the ICCPR creates a
legal requirement to extend human rights protections outside
the territory of a state party. The EU non-paper states that
the ICCPR applies to acts done by a state in the exercise of
its jurisdiction outside its own territory. The U.S.
position is that the ICCPR applies to individuals who are
both within a state,s territory and subject to that state,s
jurisdiction. The European Commission, supported by Sweden,
noted that the U.S. position is creating the impression that
there is a deliberate gap in the law that applies to
detainees. Bellinger accepted this difficulty but stressed
that this is a result of the current legal framework. He
said that over the next few years the United States and
others will need to work together and assess what rules
should apply in these circumstances.
Expulsion, return, and extradition
8. (C) Bellinger stated that the United States believes
that Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture does not
apply to individuals who are outside the territory of the
State Party. The EU,s non-paper seems to imply that
renditions should be prohibited. Bellinger noted that
renditions are not per se illegal and, in certain rare
circumstances, have an important role to play in the fight
BRUSSELS 00000810 003 OF 004
against terrorism; he advocated that the EU take a more
nuanced view on this issue. Bellinger stated that the U.S.
policy is not to hand over an individual to another state
where it is more likely than not that the individual will be
tortured. Bellinger said the problem with the non-paper and
the report of the European Parliament,s Venice Commission is
that they are overly broad.
Detention without notice
9. (C) Bellinger stated that detention without notice does
not violate international law. France and Belgium argued
that secret detention is not legal and noted the recent
signing of the Enforced Disappearance Convention.
Recent developments in U.S. law
10. (C) At the end of the meeting, Bellinger provided an
update on the recent decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals
and the military commission rules. Bellinger explained that
the court had interpreted the Military Commissions Act and
found that the statute constitutionally removed habeas
jurisdiction over the claims of Guantanamo detainees.
Bellinger stressed that what the press had missed is that
detainees do have a different right to appeal directly to the
U.S. courts under the Military Commissions Act and Detainee
Treatment Act. Bellinger said that in January DOD finalized
the rules of procedure that will apply to the military
commissions. Dorosin explained that the procedures are
similar conceptually to court martial proceedings and cover
three elements: general rules of procedure, rules of
evidence, and crimes triable by military commission. Dorosin
explained that the procedures provide safeguards to ensure a
full and fair trial that are fully consistent with Common
Article 3, the standard that the Supreme Court found
applicable to the U.S. conflict with Al Qaeda. Dorosin
indicated that there has been some concern with respect to
the use of coerce the rules reher hand. t`@Q`hh es. To them, t Mr. Bellinger
noted the United States adheres to the Geneva Conventions but
stressed that Article 3, which our Supreme Court determined
was the only part of the Geneva Conventions applicable to our
conflict with al Qaeda, does not comprehensively address all
aspects of detention in conflicts with non-state actors.
Despite the perception that the United States is bending or
breaking the rules, Mr. Bellinger noted there are in fact no
clear rules. While no decisions had been made on how to
address this situation, if the Geneva Conventions are to be
changed or enhanced, it will take years of serious
consultations. However, Mr. Bellinger reassured the NATO
PermReps that, in the interim, the rights of detainees are
being protected to the extent of existing international law
wherever U.S. troops operate around the world. He encouraged
his interlocutors to speak publicly about the limitations of
international law on these issues.
BRUSSELS 00000810 004 OF 004
13. This cable has been cleared by Mr. Dorosin.
Gray
.
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DOD FOR JIM HAYNES
NSC FOR RICHARD KLINGLER
DOJ FOR STEVE BRADBURY AND KEN WAINSTEIN
CIA FOR JOHN RIZZO
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/08/2017
TAGS: PTER PREL EUN
SUBJECT: DISCUSISONS WITH THE EU AND NATO ON LEGAL ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE WAR ON TERRORISM
BRUSSELS 00000810 001.2 OF 004
Classified By: Classied by EMIN John Sammis for reason 1.4 (b) and (d)
1. (C) Summary. John Bellinger, Legal Adviser at the State
Department, and Joshua Dorosin, Assistant Legal Adviser for
Political and Military Affairs, met February 27 with their
counterparts from the 27 EU Member States and representatives
from the Council and Commission Secretariat. The majority of
the three hour meeting was devoted to discussion of the U.S.
response to the EU non-paper on principles of international
law relevant to counter-terrorism and concluded with a short
update on developments in the United States. There was
considerable discussion of whether it is possible as a legal
matter for a state to be in an armed conflict with a
non-state actor, like Al Qaeda, outside that state,s
territory and what specific rules would govern the treatment
of individuals detained in such a conflict. In this
connection, Bellinger explained that the U.S. Supreme Court
had decided that only a narrow part of the Geneva Convention
- Common Article 3 - applies to Al Qaeda detainees and that
the limited nature of Common Article 3 does not provide a
comprehensive framework for this kind of conflict. Bellinger
stressed that the dialogue with the EU has been beneficial in
highlighting the complexity and nuances of these issues. He
also noted that it is important to remember that the United
States and EU member states have different legal obligations.
Bellinger said that over the next few years the US and
others will need to work together and assess the sufficiency
of the existing legal framework. Discussions with the EU on
the non-paper will continue in March in Strasbourg. End
summary.
Discussions with the EU
2. (C) Bellinger started by noting that this dialogue has
been going on for a year and that the United States has
benefited from the exchange. He said that the U.S. position
has been informed by the comments from the European side and
has served to clarify the existing legal framework. Turning
to the EU non-paper on principles of international law
relevant to counter-terrorism, he said that the United States
agrees with many of the elements of the paper. The points of
disagreement, he said, are well known and include
extra-territorial application of the ICCPR and the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Bellinger indicated that some of the
elements of the EU non-paper are overly broad and do not take
into account specific scenarios that could arise. Bellinger
appreciated that the non-paper accepts that the applicability
of international humanitarian law (IHL) has to be looked at
on a case by case basis. The UK and France agreed that the
United States and the EU have different legal obligations but
said that there should be a common interpretation where the
obligations are the same. Sweden said that the problem was
not when a country applied a higher standard but when the
standard was &watered down.8
Application of international humanitarian law
3. (C) Bellinger argued that the &global war against
terror8 is a political rather than a legal statement. He
stressed that the important aspect is that there is an armed
conflict with a non-state actor that is attacking the United
States in different places around the world. Bellinger noted
that the United States and the EU have come closer on this
question. Initially, the EU position was that there was no
conflict anywhere and the EU perception was that the United
States was saying that the conflict was everywhere; the two
sides now agree that there is armed conflict in some places.
Denmark and the UK agreed that a state can be in armed
conflict with a non-state actor, but stressed the need for
territorial and other factors that define the conflict. The
UK asked how al Qaeda is defined. Bellinger responded that
defining when and where IHL applies to the conflict with al
Qaeda is not easy, but that it is important to recognize that
IHL does apply in some cases. In other cases a criminal law
framework would be appropriate. Bellinger noted that the UN
report on Guantanamo had not looked at IHL and therefore
misstated the appropriate legal framework for the analysis.
Bellinger encouraged EU member states to raise this problem
with UN officials.
Protection for detainees
4. (C) Bellinger explained that the U.S. Supreme Court had
BRUSSELS 00000810 002.2 OF 004
decided that only a narrow part of the Geneva Convention -
Common Article 3 - applies to Al Qaeda detainees and that the
limited nature of Common Article 3 does not provide a
comprehensive framework for this kind of conflict. France
and Germany argued that Article 575 of Additional Protocol I
should also apply. Bellinger responded that the U.S.
reflects these stand legal
@dh`uman Qights law in
situatioping area
of the law. He pointed out that human rights law was designed
to cover a state,s treatment of its own nationals, and
cannot simply be imported wholesale into situations of armed
conflict.
Procedural rights of detainees and extraterritorial
application of ICCPR
7. (C) The discussion on this element focused on whether the
detainees have procedural rights (as the EU paper states) or
whether states have obligations to provide detainees with
particular forms of process, depending on the status of the
detainee. Bellinger agreed that detainees have rights but
that these flow from the obligation on states to provide
procedural protections, rather than as individual
protections. France, Sweden, and Belgium argued that there
are individual rights as well, because human rights law,
which provides individual rights, also applies. Bellinger
noted that creating individual rights of action could result
in a mass of litigation. On this point, Bellinger stated
that the United States disagrees that the ICCPR creates a
legal requirement to extend human rights protections outside
the territory of a state party. The EU non-paper states that
the ICCPR applies to acts done by a state in the exercise of
its jurisdiction outside its own territory. The U.S.
position is that the ICCPR applies to individuals who are
both within a state,s territory and subject to that state,s
jurisdiction. The European Commission, supported by Sweden,
noted that the U.S. position is creating the impression that
there is a deliberate gap in the law that applies to
detainees. Bellinger accepted this difficulty but stressed
that this is a result of the current legal framework. He
said that over the next few years the United States and
others will need to work together and assess what rules
should apply in these circumstances.
Expulsion, return, and extradition
8. (C) Bellinger stated that the United States believes
that Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture does not
apply to individuals who are outside the territory of the
State Party. The EU,s non-paper seems to imply that
renditions should be prohibited. Bellinger noted that
renditions are not per se illegal and, in certain rare
circumstances, have an important role to play in the fight
BRUSSELS 00000810 003 OF 004
against terrorism; he advocated that the EU take a more
nuanced view on this issue. Bellinger stated that the U.S.
policy is not to hand over an individual to another state
where it is more likely than not that the individual will be
tortured. Bellinger said the problem with the non-paper and
the report of the European Parliament,s Venice Commission is
that they are overly broad.
Detention without notice
9. (C) Bellinger stated that detention without notice does
not violate international law. France and Belgium argued
that secret detention is not legal and noted the recent
signing of the Enforced Disappearance Convention.
Recent developments in U.S. law
10. (C) At the end of the meeting, Bellinger provided an
update on the recent decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals
and the military commission rules. Bellinger explained that
the court had interpreted the Military Commissions Act and
found that the statute constitutionally removed habeas
jurisdiction over the claims of Guantanamo detainees.
Bellinger stressed that what the press had missed is that
detainees do have a different right to appeal directly to the
U.S. courts under the Military Commissions Act and Detainee
Treatment Act. Bellinger said that in January DOD finalized
the rules of procedure that will apply to the military
commissions. Dorosin explained that the procedures are
similar conceptually to court martial proceedings and cover
three elements: general rules of procedure, rules of
evidence, and crimes triable by military commission. Dorosin
explained that the procedures provide safeguards to ensure a
full and fair trial that are fully consistent with Common
Article 3, the standard that the Supreme Court found
applicable to the U.S. conflict with Al Qaeda. Dorosin
indicated that there has been some concern with respect to
the use of coerce the rules reher hand. t`@Q`hh es. To them, t Mr. Bellinger
noted the United States adheres to the Geneva Conventions but
stressed that Article 3, which our Supreme Court determined
was the only part of the Geneva Conventions applicable to our
conflict with al Qaeda, does not comprehensively address all
aspects of detention in conflicts with non-state actors.
Despite the perception that the United States is bending or
breaking the rules, Mr. Bellinger noted there are in fact no
clear rules. While no decisions had been made on how to
address this situation, if the Geneva Conventions are to be
changed or enhanced, it will take years of serious
consultations. However, Mr. Bellinger reassured the NATO
PermReps that, in the interim, the rights of detainees are
being protected to the extent of existing international law
wherever U.S. troops operate around the world. He encouraged
his interlocutors to speak publicly about the limitations of
international law on these issues.
BRUSSELS 00000810 004 OF 004
13. This cable has been cleared by Mr. Dorosin.
Gray
.