Dean Hutson popped down to New York yesterday for an Oxford-style, three-on-three debate on the motion, "Tough interrogation of terror suspects is necessary." His team, arguing against the motion, persuaded the audience flip its initial opinion and vote the motion down.

The debate was one of a series sponsored by Intelligence Squared, an initiative of the  The Rosenkranz Foundation. The organizers announced:

A sold out audience at Asia Society and Museum, New York City voted 40% for the motion and 53% against at the conclusion of the debate. 7% were undecided.

Intelligence Squared U.S. polls its audience on each motion before and after the debate. At the start of Tuesday's debate, the audience voted 46% for the motion that "Tough interrogation of terror suspects is necessary," with 35 % against and 19% undecided.

Speaking for the motion were David Rivkin, partner in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler LLP, a visiting fellow at the Nixon Center, and a contributing editor of the National Review and National Interest, Rick Francona, Retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel who has served with the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency, and Heather Mac Donald, John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal. Speaking against the motion were Jack Cloonan, a 25-year veteran of the FBI and an internationally respected security expert, John D. Hutson, a retired Rear Admiral, having served as the Navy's Judge Advocate General from 1997 to 2000 and current president and dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, and Darius Rejali, professor of political science and chair of the political science department at Reed College, in Portland, Oregon and 2003 Carnegie Scholar and the author of "Torture and Democracy."

"It's the challenge of any debate to affect the opinions of the audience and our debate did just that," said Robert Rosenkranz, chairman of The Rosenkranz Foundation. "With the president vetoing a bill on tough interrogation techniques just last weekend, this could not have been more timely a topic."

The complete audio of the debate can be heard on the NPR/Intelligence Squared web site. 

Dean John D. Hutson joins a distinguished group of leaders calling for "No Torture. No Exceptions" in a new special issue of the Washington Monthly. The contributors

"include a former president, the speaker of the House, two former White House chiefs of staff, current and former senators, generals, admirals, intelligence officials, interrogators, and religious leaders. Some are Republicans, others are Democrats, and still others are neither. What they all agree on, however, is this: It was a profound moral and strategic mistake for the United States to abandon long-standing policies of humane treatment of enemy captives. We should return to the rule of law and cease all forms of torture, with no exceptions for any agency. And we should expect our presidential nominees to commit to this idea."

Dean Hutson writes:

"Support for the rule of law and human rights is our most effective weapon. Our greatest strength isn't our military might, it is our ideas and our ideals. That's how we won the cold war. We don't have enough bombs or bullets to ensure a military victory over the enemy we now face. Nor can terrorists defeat us militarily.

"However, we could commit national suicide by relinquishing our greatest weapon—our ideas and ideals. In an asymmetric war, the winning strategy is to match your strength against the enemy's weakness. This enemy's weakness is that he is bereft of ideas; all he has is terror. If we discard 225 years of American history—and the core of our identity—by engaging in enhanced interrogations, we essentially disarm ourselves.

"The world knows that the rule of law does not exist if it is only applied when convenient. Human rights don't exist if they are applied to some humans and not others. This is not the time to waiver. Plato said, 'Only the dead have seen the end of war.' Indeed, this is not the worst war we have ever fought; it is just the present war. We don't need to torture prisoners in order to win it. In fact, torturing prisoners is precisely how we can lose it. We must remain true to ourselves and to the heritage earned by the blood, sweat, and dedication of Washington, Lincoln, and Eisenhower."

Dean Hutson was interviewed for a segment on ABC's 20/20, which will air on Friday December 14 at 10:00pm.

The segment involves the gang rape case of a women, Jamie Leigh Jones, at a KBR camp in the Green Zone in Iraq.  It has been two years and charges have still not been filed.  

Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

"It's very troubling," said Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. "The way the law presently stands, I would say that they don't have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice."

The Dean is in Washington, D.C. today, testifying in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees.

He told the committee:

"The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been a black eye on the face of the United States for far too long. Closing it should be at the top of the detention and interrogation policy 'to-do' list....

"The real problem is not where to hold the detainees, it is what to do with them. Presently, we have two legal processes to deal with them, the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRTs) and military commissions. Both are irredeemably flawed." 

Read the Dean's entire testimony. 

Following up on his comments on waterboarding before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States, Dean Hutson spoke to ABC's World News Tonight on the subject of waterboarding.

In its story on Friday about a Department of Justice lawyer who experienced waterboarding firsthand, ABC News turned to Dean Hutson on whether or not waterboarding is torture. Dean Hutson was unequivical:

"There is no question this is torture -- this is a technique by which an individual is strapped to a board, elevated by his feet and either dunked into water or water poured over his face over a towel or a blanket."

We hear that Dean Hutson will talk about the issue on Countdown with Keith Olberman tonight at 8 p.m. Eastern.

One of the few sharp exchanges in today's hearings on the Mukasey nomination came when Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Mukasey if waterboarding is constitutional. The AP report on the hearing explains:

During terse questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done.

"If it's torture?" Whitehouse responded incredulously. "That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't."

"If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional," Mukasey answered.

"I'm very disappointed in that answer," Whitehouse said. "I think it is purely semantic."

Mukasey looked down at his hands and took a deep breath.

In the panel that followed Mukasey's testimony, the AP article notes, Dean Hutson addressed the waterboarding issue head-on:

"Other than perhaps the rack and thumbscrews, waterboarding is the most iconic example of torture in history," said retired Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, a former Navy lawyer and dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H. "It has been repudiated for centuries. It's a little bit disconcerting to hear now that we're not quite sure where waterboarding fits in the scheme of things."

Dean Hutson is in Washington, D.C. today as an invited panelist at the hearings on the nomination of Judge Michael B. Mukasey to be the next Attorney General of the United States. The dean is in rare company as one of just six invited panelists, including former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White. 

He provided us with a copy of his written testimony, in which he says,

Law isn’t practiced in a vacuum, it is practiced in real life and while good lawyers know the law, great lawyers know about life. That’s a quality we need in our next Attorney General. The job description should call for a wise counselor, not just a clever lawyer.

...

The next Attorney General must be capable of recognizing a legal problem, step back from it and analyze it in the context of real life and understand the non-legal consequences of his advice. One might think, “What a clever lawyer. He defined “torture” so narrowly and the defenses to torture so broadly that we can never be found guilty. He has done a great service to the Nation.” One would be dead wrong. We have seen the consequences of that sort of twisted legal analysis and we must never repeat it.

You can read Dean Hutson's complete prepared testimony on our web site, and tune in to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing through the live web cast available on its web site. We expect Dean Hutson's testimony will occur this afternoon.

With over 50 students and faculty in attendance, Dean John D. Hutson gave his State of the School Address in the Rich Room on Tuesday. 

Dean Hutson began by explaining the details of the American Bar Assocation visit, which will take place from October 22-24.  Every seven years, the ABA visits accredited law schools to ensure they are complying with accreditation standards.  "We want to be honest with the ABA, but we also want to put our best foot forward," Hutson said, noting that the school has addressed many of the issues that the ABA brought up from their last visit in in 2000, including increasing library space, strengthening attendance policies, and ensuring JD students are not bumped out of classes by graduate students. 

The biggest issue that Hutson expects the ABA to bring up next week is weaknesses in the strategic plan, which he admits does "not reach far enough" to implement new ideas.  Hutson also said that an ABA staff member will be in classes on Monday and Tuesday, and students are encouraged to interact with them.

Hutson also gave a facility update, specifically addressing the construction on the third floor.  Hutson admitted that the $2.5 million project has been an inconvenience to the campus, but he is excited for the finished product.  "I appreciate your patience," Hutson said, "The school will be a lot better as a result."  Hutson expects the project to be completed by Thanksgiving. 

Hutson is also excited for admissions season.  After a significant drop in applications last year, he is optimistic that this year's applicant pool will be strong.  "There was a drop in applications across the country," Hutson said, "But we kept our standards high and this year's 1L class is great."  Hutson believes a revamped web site, which will be launched by the spring, is critical to improve the school's marketability to applicants.

Hutson also addressed the school's "vigorous" pursuit to join the American Association of Law Schools.  Pierce Law has resisted joining the organization, but Hutson believes membership will allow the school to reach out to a broader audience.  "Its easy to think that we are a quiet, little law school in Concord, New Hampshire, but it is a big world and it is important that we play in it."  Hutson also believes AALS membership will make other law professors and administrators better aware of the unique education Pierce Law offers its students, which will improve the school's reputation.

Julian Barnes writes in this morning's Los Angeles Times on the evolving issue of the use of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, turning to Dean Hutson for his expertise: 

America's Own Unlawful Combatants?

Using private guards in Iraq could expose the U.S. to accusations of treaty violations, some experts think.

by Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times 

As the Bush administration deals with the fallout from the recent killings of civilians by private security firms in Iraq, some officials are asking whether the contractors could be considered unlawful combatants under international agreements.

The question is an outgrowth of federal reviews of the shootings, in part because the U.S. officials want to determine whether the administration could be accused of treaty violations that could fuel an international outcry.

But the issue also holds practical and political implications for the administration's war effort and the image of the U.S. abroad.

If U.S. officials conclude that the use of guards is a potential violation, they may have to limit guards' tasks in war zones, which could leave more work for the already overstretched military.

... 

John Hutson, a former top Navy lawyer, said he did not consider contractors to be unlawful combatants.

But that will be a difficult argument for U.S. officials to make, he emphasized.

"We are going to be hard-pressed to draw a distinction between the guys in Blackwater carrying automatic weapons and the bad guys setting bombs along the side of the road," said Hutson, now dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire.

U.S. officials have described many of the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliates it holds at Guantanamo Bay as unlawful combatants either for taking part in hostilities against the United States or by supporting the hostilities while not part of a nation's military.

By that standard, some of the private guards in Iraq and Afghanistan also could be seen as unlawful combatants, particularly if they have taken offensive action against unarmed civilians, experts said.

The Albany Times Union's lead editorial today on the secret opinions highlights Dean Hutson's concluding observation from yesterday's New York Times article:

Denials aren't enough

So the United States doesn't torture people, does it?

Now that's a quaint thought, to use a favorite word of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who apparently approved, yes, torture.

The New York Times reported on Thursday, and in extensive detail, about how the Justice Department secretly authorized such physical and painful tactics against terrorism suspects as simulated drownings and freezing temperatures. Torture, in a word.

....

[T]he government... seemingly is ill-prepared to consider this scenario, raised by John D. Hutson, formerly the Navy's top lawyer.

"The problem is, once you've got a legal opinion that says such a technique is OK, what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him?" Mr. Hutson asks. "How do we protest then?"

You may read the editorial in its entireity. The Decatur (Ala.) Daily also has an editorial today quoting the Dean on this issue.

Dean Hutson also appeared in the Wall Street Journal today with this letter to the editor: 

Military Commissions Fail

One wonders why at this late date we don't just let terrorism cases at Guantanamo Bay go to Federal District Court ("Dispute Stymies Guantanamo Terror Trials," Politics & Economics, Sept. 26). I was an early and ardent supporter of military commissions. However, we obviously can't make them work so we should just give it up as a noble, but ultimately failed, effort. Rather than showcasing the best judicial system in the world, we are a laughing stock, or we would be if it weren't so unfunny.

John D. Hutson
Dean and President
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Concord, N.H.

(Mr. Hutson was judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy from 1997-2000.)

In today's New York Times story on the Bush Administration's secret endorsement of "severe interrogation techniques"  or in the words of its critics, "torture" -- Dean Hutson gets the final word. The Times reports: 

...soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

The article concludes with Dean Hutson's observation:

John D. Hutson, who served as the Navy’s top lawyer from 1997 to 2000, said he believed that the existence of legal opinions justifying abusive treatment is pernicious, potentially blurring the rules for Americans handling prisoners.

“I know from the military that if you tell someone they can do a little of this for the country’s good, some people will do a lot of it for the country’s better,” Mr. Hutson said. Like other military lawyers, he also fears that official American acceptance of such treatment could endanger Americans in the future.

“The problem is, once you’ve got a legal opinion that says such a technique is O.K., what happens when one of our people is captured and they do it to him? How do we protest then?” he asked.