Geoffrey S. Corn is an Assistant Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, TX, where he teaches courses in the fields of National Security Law and Criminal Law. Prior to joining the faculty at South Texas, Professor Corn served 22 years in the U.S. Army, retiring as a lieutenant colonel.
He began his career as a tactical intelligence officer, and later became a Judge Advocate officer. During his military legal career, he served in a variety of positions, including chief prosecutor for the 101st Airborne Division; supervisory defense counsel for the Western United States; Chief of International Law for United States Army Europe; and Professor at the Army JAG School. He completed his service to the Army as the Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate General for Law of War Matters.
Professor Corn earned his J.D. from George Washington University, his LL.M. from the Army JAG School, and he is also a graduate of the Army Command and Staff College.
A stalemate has set in between President Barack Obama and the U.S.
Congress over the president's authority to initiate and continue combat
operations against Libya. This should surprise no one. The limits on the
president's constitutional authority to wage war are as uncertain today
as they were when the Constitution was ratified. Complicating this
uncertainty is the War Powers Resolution. more
The term "lawfare" is increasingly used to characterize the
pervasive role of law in the conduct of war, but there is nothing new
about the concept. The real question raised today is whether "lawfare" will come to
define a fundamental distortion of the historic balance between the necessities of war and the
need to protect the innocent. more
The criminal prosecution of senior Bush administration officials for recently released legal opinions on "harsh" interrogation techniques would face a problematic irony: Any conviction would require
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that these lawyers acted with the
specific intent to torture, as defined by the statute. And as the memos illustrate, this is not an easy burden
to satisfy. more
When President Barack Obama took office, a chorus of
commentators began to demand the closure of the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, in the hopes of ushering in a fundamental change in
U.S. policy: ending the so called "war on terror" and the
preventive-detention regime, exemplified by the facility, that it had
spawned. Recent legal filings make it clear that no such about face is in the offing.more
In the wake of Boumediene v. Bush, a more robust judicial role in the process of establishing a
legally acceptable definition of the critical term "enemy combatant" is
now a certainty. After a six
year saga of legal opinions, policy decisions, and ongoing detentions,
the government might finally be forced by this opinion and continuing
judicial oversight to clearly articulate and defend the rationale for
the expansive application of the term "enemy combatant" that is at the
heart of the concept of a Global War on Terror.more
Something radical has begun in Iraq, but it has flown under the
radar of the media and the public. For the first time since 1970, the
U.S. Army is court-martialing a civilian; and not an American civilian,
but a Canadian civilian. Charged with aggravated assault, this civilian
contractor now faces trial by a military jury, in a courtroom presided over by a military judge, and without the benefit of indictment by a Grand Jury. Accountability for the misconduct he engaged in is important, but at what cost? more
The war on terror has produced a historically
unprecedented degree of judicial oversight of wartime decisions. To
date, these cases have produced a mixed bag of outcomes, sometimes
favoring assertions of executive power but also rejecting the
exploitation of the asserted "gap" in legal coverage. But it seems clear that much of the perceived necessity
for judicial oversight of this war is a direct consequence of U.S.
efforts to exclude most detainees from the protections that the law of war
provides.more
This week, the military judge presiding over the trial of Salim Hamdan granted a defense request to afford
Hamdan a status review in accordance with Article 5 of the Geneva
Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. In
light of the determined efforts of the Bush Administration to exclude
from the jurisdiction of the convention all detainees captured in the "Global War on Terror," this was a real bombshell, and is a gift to all future detainees that will by tried by the military commission. more
The intense political and media scrutiny directed towards
Blackwater Inc. this week evokes the old Irish saying that "calm waters
run deep, but the Devil lurks in the depths." During congressional
hearings, the rock was lifted to reveal one of the most profound
developments in the American way of war since perhaps the use of
conscription during the Civil War: civilianization of the battlefield. This trend has produced two dilemmas, both of which are at the heart of what has been labeled "Blackwatergate."more
This past week, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) once again dropped
the "D" word into the midst of the political debate surrounding the war
in Iraq. Although Rangel's proposal for a draft triggered a few days of political
punditry on the subject, no one seriously expects a resurrection of
military conscription. But why is the idea of a draft so pernicious?
Perhaps the time has come for Americans to confront this question head
on. Is it consistent with the notion of genuine democracy to wage a
sustained war without exposing the people to even the risk of
involuntary military service? more
So, what is all the fuss about these Geneva Conventions?
Considering that the subject of compliance with these treaties not only
led every Sunday morning weekly news program, but is also the cause of
the so-called "rebellion" by a group of highly influential Republican
Senators, many are no doubt asking this question. The answer is central to how the
United States will frame the nature of the conflict we are struggling
not only to win, but to understand.more
This week, an officer responsible for investigating the killing of several Iraqi civilians by four U.S. soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq recommended that they be charged with premeditated murder and face the death penalty. If these cases reach a military court room, they will no doubt trigger debate on the "justice" of trying American soldiers for their conduct in battle. Why should such cases be pursued? And why should the American people have confidence in the legitimacy of military justice? more
As the proverbial dust settles over the battlefields of southern
Lebanon, a major change in the landscape of legal regulation of warfare
is taking hold. This change, first exposed by the military operations
launched by the United States against Al Qaeda, has led to the
widespread expectation that conflicts between states and transnational
non-state entities must be governed by the laws of war, a body of
international law historically applied to conflicts between states.more
