Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

H. R. 5515 was passed Congress by Congress on Aug 4, 2018. It specifies that within 120 days, (See section 1274) The Secretary of Defense must provide a review of our policy in Yemen.This must be complete by November 4 (more or less) govtrack.us/congress/bills…

https://twitter.com/ClaireBerlinski/status/1034840700502925314

The review is to determine whether the Armed Forces or coalition partners of the United States violated Federal law or Department of Defense policy while conducting operations there. Matters to be included:

1) Whether the Armed Forces interrogated Yemeni citizens in prisons within Yemen or provided questions to any United States coalition partner for use in such interrogations, and whether such interrogations or actions were consistent with United States law and policy.

2 ) Whether the Armed Forces violated the prohibitions or 10 U.S. Code § 362 - which prohibits the use of funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces that have committed a gross violation of human rights.

(10 U.S. Code § 362 here: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10…: --and clear. "Of the amounts made available to the Dod, NONE (my emphasis) may be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force if the SecDef has credible information --

that the unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.)

"3) Whether any United States coalition partner committed gross violations of internationally recognized human rights while conducting operations in Yemen --that would make such coalition partner ineligible--"

--for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a unit of a foreign security force under section 362 of title 10, United States Code." That sounds quite firm, until you look at the fine print of 10 U.S. Code § 362.

"(c) Waiver.—The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State, may waive the prohibition in subsection (a)(1) if the Secretary determines that the waiver is required by extraordinary circumstance."

So this is, basically, toothless.

Back to H. R. 5515 "(4) Whether a waiver or exception has been granted to any United States coalition partner under section 362 of title 10, United States Code, while conducting operations in Yemen.

Not later than 120 days after June 4, recall, the Secretary of Defense must submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report that contains:

(A ) the findings from the review required under subsection (a);
(B) an analysis of—

(i) the detention and interrogation policies and guidance of the Department of Defense; and

(ii) the application of such policies and guidance to the detention and interrogation operations of allies and partners that are supported by the United States;

(C) assessment of United States responsibilities and obligations under Federal law, the laws of armed conflict, relevant treaties and agreements, and any other applicable law relating to the treatment of detainees held by allies or partners with United States support;

(D) assessment of United States responsibilities and obligations under Federal law, the laws of armed conflict, relevant treaties and agreements, and any other applicable law relating to the treatment of detainees held by allies or partners with United States support;

(E) an assessment of the compliance standards and enforcement mechanisms associated with such responsibilities, obligations, policy requirements, or considerations;

(F) a description of any assurances required to be obtained from allies and partners with respect to the treatment of detainees in custody when the United States is involved in the capture or interrogation of such detainees;

including the manner in which and level at which such assurances are provided;

(G)a description of the means by which the Department of Defense determines whether allies and partners comply with such assurances;

(H)an explanation of the extent to which United States support for the detention and interrogation operations of allies and partners is conditioned on their compliance with such assurances; and

(I)a description of the procedures used to report violations of detainee treatment standards, including procedures relating to violations occurring at facilities operated by allied or partner countries.

(2) The term gross violations of internationally recognized human rights has the meaning given such term in subsection (d)(1) of section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304).

On 22 U.S. Code § 2304 - Human rights and security assistance -- I leave deciding whether what we've read, if true, would qualify: law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22… A few highlights:

"no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Security assistance may not be provided to the police, domestic intelligence--

--or similar law enforcement forces of a country, and licenses may not be issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979." But of course, it's toothless too, because there an exception: "unless the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,

and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate (when licenses are to be issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979).] that extraordinary circumstances--

--exist warranting provision of such assistance and issuance of such licenses." In other words: The President is the King; we're just here to talk. But it will be interesting to hear what he says. I suspect it will be classified.

Nonetheless, NB: (4) In determining whether the government of a country engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, the President shall give particular consideration to whether the government--

(A) has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of this title; or
(B) has failed to undertake serious and sustained efforts to combat particularly severe violations of religious freedom when such efforts--

--could have been reasonably undertaken. So, frankly, unless the President comes back and tells Congress a pack of lies, which it pretends to believe--and in fact, even if it doesn't, all of surely sounds illegal as hell, and certainly illegal in spirit if not letter.

@threadreaderapp unroll