Sometimes dubbed “the most hated man in America,” Martin Shkreli has officially been found guilty of fraud. Specifically he was found guilty of two counts of securities fraud, and one count of conspiring to commit securities fraud. But he was also acquitted on a number of other charges. He now faces up to 20 years in prison, although his lawyers plan to appeal.

He doesn’t appear particularly bothered by the “guilty” verdict though. In a press conference he held right after the announcement, he claimed:

This was a witch hunt of epic proportions. Maybe they found one or two broomsticks, but at the end of the day we’ve been acquitted of the most important charges in this case, and I’m delighted to report that.

He also streamed a 10 minute, combative interview with a Boston Herald reporter on Saturday, in which he claimed he wasn’t scared of prison because he was in New York City during 9/11. He said:

I grew up on the mean streets of Brooklyn. I was across the street from 9/11; I’ve built businesses from zero to hero, many times over. A few months in jail does not scare me.

Shkreli vaulted into national infamy when his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, jacked up the price of a drug used for treating HIV and cancer. His callous attitude garnered significant amounts of criticism.

Then, he made the news again when he purchased the only copy of a Wu-Tang Clan album for $2 million, and claimed he had no plans to release it.

Shkreli’s disgusting behavior doesn’t stop there, though. He was also suspended from Twitter for harassing journalist Lauren Duca–the same writer who is a consistent focus of Tucker Carlson’s ire. Recently, when asked by a journalist about what he would do if he was acquitted, he listed “f*cking” Lauren Duca as one of his top priorities. She responded, and pointed out the human price of his consistent harassment:

Here’s my statement on Martin Shkreli: I would (still) rather eat my own organs. So much as touch me, and I’ll gladly chop off one of yours. pic.twitter.com/4jHNWGWanQ

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) July 28, 2017

On a serious note, the most suffocating part of this experience has been people acting as if I have no right to respond to this harassment.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

I’m not looking for sympathy, but all of you petty motherfuckers would do well to remember this: Hatred is empowered by silence.

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) August 4, 2017

Shkreli’s status as a permanent troll may need to take a little break, depending on how his sentence shakes out. And for many, that will be a welcome silence.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli Found Guilty of Fraud appeared first on Law Street.

On July 7, the Canadian government formally apologized to Omar Khadr, one of Guantanamo Bay’s ex-detainees. Speaking at a press conference, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland confirmed that Khadr and the Canadian government had reached a financial settlement of $10.5 million. Khadr had filed a civil suit against the government in 2014 for conspiring with the U.S. to abuse his rights.

“We hope that this expression, and the negotiated settlement reached with the government, will assist him in his efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in his life with his fellow Canadians,” Goodale and Freeland said in their statement.

Speaking to CBC, Khadr said that he hopes the formal apology will restore his reputation, but is sorry if the settlement causes pain to the family of Sgt. Christopher Speer, the medic he allegedly killed in 2002.

Khadr is just one example of a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner struggling to reintegrate into society. Read on to learn the details of what it means to be a former Guantanimo Bay detainee.

Overview: The Detention Center and Its Numbers

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay is located on 45 square miles of land on a bay of the same name in Cuba. The U.S. leased it from Cuba in 1903, but it did not officially function as a detention center until the early ’90s, when it housed HIV-positive refugees fleeing a Haitian coup. Still, the base did not gain its negative reputation until after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The first U.S. prisoners of the War on Terror–20 Afghans–arrived on January 11, 2002. Since then, according to the New York Times‘ extensive database on Guantanamo, about 780 prisoners have been detained at the base. Of that number, around 730 were eventually released without charges. Many of those transferred had been held for years. There are currently 41 detainees still at Guantanamo.

Only seven of the remaining detainees have been formally charged with any sort of crime. Five have been approved for transfer to their home countries or third-party nations, but still remain at Guantanamo Bay. Most of the detainees have had dual citizenship, but over the course of the detention center’s history, the largest group of single-nationality War on Terror prisoners comes from Afghanistan. Of the 41 detainees remaining today, 16 come from Yemen, five come from Afghanistan, six from Pakistan, and eight from Saudi Arabia. The rest come from other Middle Eastern and African countries. There have been Russian prisoners on record as well, but the last one, Ravil Mingazov, was transferred to the United Arab Emirates in January.

Throughout the detention center’s history, 15 prisoners under the age of 18 have been detained. Nine prisoners died in custody, six of them suspected of suicide.

On his second day in office, former President Barack Obama signed an executive order to close the detention center within one year, but due to widespread opposition, the facility has remained open. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, vowed on the campaign trail to “load it up with some real bad dudes.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited the base and detention center on July 7.

DNI Report on “Reengagement”

In 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a report summarizing the status of certain recidivist ex-detainees–that is, former Guantanamo Bay prisoners suspected of returning to terrorism. Prior to January 15, 2016, 676 detainees had been transferred out of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Of the transferred detainees, 118 were “confirmed” to have reengaged in terrorism. The Bush Administration had transferred 111 of the detainees while the Obama Administration transferred seven. According to the DNI report, 63 of the 118 were still at large, while the rest were either dead or in custody.

Concurrently, 86 of the transferred detainees–74 under the Bush Administration and 12 under the Obama Administration–were “suspected” of returning to terrorist activities. Sixty-five are at large, while the rest have been killed or captured. About 30 percent of the total number of ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees have reengaged in terrorism activities.

Case Study #1: Omar Khadr

Born in Canada in 1986, Khadr went with his family to Afghanistan and Pakistan when he was eight years old. In 2002, during a firefight with U.S. troops at a suspected Al-Qaeda compound, Khadr supposedly threw a grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer. He was captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he was treated as an adult prisoner despite being only 16. As a part of his torture, he was beaten, denied medical treatment, held in solitary confinement, and bound in “stress positions.” He also claims to have been used as a “human mop” when he urinated on himself.

Khadr was charged under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and is the only Guantanamo captive so far charged with killing a U.S. soldier. He confessed to killing Speer in 2010 as part of a plea deal to get him transferred to a Canadian prison, but has since recanted, claiming that he has no memory of the firefight. He was released in 2015, two years after filing a lawsuit against the Canadian government. As per the conditions of his release, he was required to live with his lawyer, abide by nightly curfews, and wear a tracking bracelet.

In the wake of the government’s formal apology and settlement, Speer’s widow petitioned to have Khadr’s assets frozen so that he could be forced to pay a $134.1 million wrongful death judgment from a Utah court. A judge rejected the petition on July 13.

Case Study #2: Jamal al-Harith

Born Ronald Fiddler in Manchester, England in 1966, al-Harith converted to Islam while in college. In 2001, while on a backpacking trip in Pakistan, he paid a truck driver to take him to Iran. Taliban soldiers stopped the truck near the Afghan border and, seeing his British passport, jailed him as a spy. He was later rescued by American troops, but then sent off to Guantanamo Bay because of his “knowledge of prisoners and interrogation tactics.” He was held there without charges for two years, during which time he was beaten, starved, and deprived of sleep and adequate water.

Shortly after his release in 2004, al-Harith and 15 other ex-detainees sued the British government, claiming that it was aware of their treatment while in U.S. custody. In total, the ex-detainees received a $12.4 million out-of-court settlement. Al-Harith reportedly received around $1.2 million, but his wife later claimed that the payout was “substantially less.”

In 2014, al-Harith crossed into Syria and joined ISIS. His wife and children followed and unsuccessfully attempted to persuade him to return to the U.K. On February 19, 2017, he carried out a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.

Case Study #3: Mustafa Ait Idir

Mustafa Ait Idir is one of the Algerian Six, a group of Algerian-born Bosnian citizens who were arrested in October 2001 for allegedly planning to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and remained there for the next seven years. While incarcerated, according to the Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, he was subjected to a beating that partially paralyzed his face. On another occasion, the Initial Reaction Force (IRF) broke Ait Idir’s finger after he refused to give them his pants (as Muslim men must be clothed while praying). The soldiers did not allow him to receive medical treatment.

Shortly after the Algerian Six’s internment, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a habeas corpus petition on their behalf. The U.S. government rationalized that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were not protected under the Constitution because they were neither U.S. citizens nor located on U.S. territory (as Cuba still technically owns the land on which the naval base was built). The Algerian Six challenged that as co-plaintiffs in Boumediene v. Bush. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the right of habeas corpus review applies to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay as well as U.S. citizens. Following a review of the Algerian Six’s cases files, District Judge Richard Leon ordered five of the detainees, including Ait Idir, to be released. Ait Idir returned to Bosnia.

On July 13, Ait Idir wrote an opinion piece for USA Today on his time spent on Guantanamo Bay in response to Sessions’ recent visit. His bio reveals that he is still in Bosnia, teaching computer science and living with his family. In his piece, he urges young Muslims not to turn to violence. “It is one thing to be upset, even enraged,” he writes, “it is another to be heartless. Neither Allah nor any god of any religion could ever support such cruelty to our fellow man.”

Conclusion

The three case studies listed above make up only a fraction of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay. Many have returned to terrorist groups, while others are serving out the remainder of their sentences in other prisons. Some have been fully released, but are struggling to return to society.

Obama’s executive order to close the base is still on record, but the current administration has no plans to carry it out. If anything, Attorney General Sessions’ visit could be in preparation to send more “bad dudes” to the detention center. For now, though, Guantanamo Bay has taken a back seat to the health care vote and other priorities. The 41 prisoners still detained will remain where they are.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guantanamo Bay’s Ex-Detainees: Where Are They Now? appeared first on Law Street.

Could a glitch in T-Mobile service be responsible for the death of an infant? A new lawsuit places blame on the mobile company after a babysitter was unable to reach 911 due to a glitch in T-Mobile technology in Dallas.

The lawsuit, obtained by CNN, alleges that Brandon Alex, a 6-month-old infant, passed away in March after he rolled off the bed. It also claims that his babysitter, Michelle Cohen, was placed on hold multiple times after calling 911. The location of the apartment also allegedly did not appear in Dallas’ 911 call center, leaving Cohen without EMT support and no ability to transport the child to a hospital.

The glitch that caused the call center to be unreachable related to an ongoing problem with “ghost calls“: illegitimate calls that can clog up 911 call centers and force actual callers to remain on hold. In Dallas, this occurred when T-Mobile users placed a 911 call and their phone sent multiple calls to the center, clogging the line while they were unable to reach an operator.

The issue, which is still somewhat of a mystery to officials, has also been blamed for another death in the Dallas area. “Ghost calls” are not a problem unique to Dallas or to T-Mobile, but the company has been under FCC investigation in the past for 911 service outages that plagued its customers. In that case, the company reached a $17.5 million settlement provided that it worked to “strengthen its 911 service procedures” and ensure that it was complying with federal regulations.

After the death of Alex, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings demanded that action be taken by the cell phone company to ensure that the problem was fixed in a swift manner. The company immediately sent executives and engineers to the city to begin investigating the issue.

Public safety of our citizens is my most important priority. I will not be satisfied until this T-Mobile 911 challenge is completely fixed. pic.twitter.com/7LDKYdmRQ1

— Mayor Mike Rawlings (@Mike_Rawlings) March 15, 2017

The lawsuit alleges gross negligence on the part of T-Mobile for ignoring warnings and continuing to use technology apparently incompatible with Dallas’ 911 system.

While the source of the problem continues to remain a mystery, the company has reportedly taken a number of actions to resolve the issue since the March incident.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post T-Mobile is Facing a Lawsuit for the Death of a Child appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

100+ Arrested and Three Killed in Chechen Crackdown on Gay Men

Over the past week, more than a hundred gay men went missing in Chechnya, the semi-autonomous Russian republic located in the southernmost part of Eastern Europe. The republic is predominantly Muslim and extremely conservative. On Saturday, a Russian opposition newspaper reported that the men had been arrested by Chechen police and confirmed that at least three had been killed.

After 100+ gays seized in Chechnya, human rights official says homosexuality=”evil every Chechen will fight against” https://t.co/dT6zu1NeGv

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 1, 2017

Allegedly, the crackdown started after a gay rights group in Moscow applied to hold Pride parades in areas close to Chechnya. But the leader of the republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, said through a spokesman that the reports are false and impossible. In fact, he seemingly flat-out denied that gay people exist in the area. “You cannot arrest or repress people who just don’t exist in the republic,” spokesman Alvi Karimov said. He added, “If such people existed in Chechnya, law enforcement would not have to worry about them, as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return.” These horrendous comments caused international outrage and gay men have started fleeing the republic.

LGBT activist handcuffs himself to Petersburg’s Akhmat Kadyrov bridge to protest news that 100+ gays detained in Chechnya, at least 3 dead https://t.co/V49WGZos45

— Alec Luhn (@ASLuhn) April 2, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Hundreds of families of 9/11 victims are suing the government of Saudi Arabia for its alleged involvement in the terror attacks that claimed thousands of lives. The lawsuit, filed in New York City last Friday, claims that leading officials in the Saudi government provided terrorists with material support and resources to enable the attacks. Saudi Arabia has never admitted its involvement, but 15 of the 19 plane hijackers that crashed the airplanes into World Trade Center were identified as Saudi Arabian.

The lawsuit, which is 194 pages long, was made possible after Congress passed a bill called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act last September. President Obama vetoed the bill only days before, as he feared it could backfire and allow other countries to file lawsuits against the U.S. for alleged support of terrorists in other countries. But, his veto was overridden, allowing the bill to become law.

Sept. 11 families sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 attacks https://t.co/RaPc9RjUYY pic.twitter.com/MQzQmu1vOy

— Bloomberg (@business) March 21, 2017

The personal injury and wrongful death suit states that Saudi Arabian officials funded al-Qaeda through governmental nonprofits that posed as charities. But instead of going to a charitable cause, money was sent through complicated webs of middlemen to the terror organization to fund attacks on the U.S. The lawsuit claims that the government even ordered Saudi Arabian officials and diplomats to assist the hijackers after they arrived in the U.S., by giving them fake travel documents, weapons, cash, and other equipment.

The families of the victims say this lawsuit is long overdue. “We’re going to find out what actually happened on 9/11,” said retired FDNY fire chief James Riches, one of the plaintiffs, to Newsday. “If [Saudi Arabia] helped the terrorists commit terrorist acts on American soil, they’ll be held accountable. If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.”

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Michael Barasch, said that it’s obvious the terrorists couldn’t have carried out such a complicated attack by themselves and he wants to find out who helped them. “If it was Saudi Arabia they need to pay. They need to pay dearly and think twice the next time some Saudi Arabian prince or government wants to do such a heinous and cowardly act,” he said.

But the Saudi government is not happy, and the energy minister, Khalid al-Falih, warned vaguely that there could be “consequences.” He also said that the Saudi government is hoping that the Trump Administration will overturn the new law that makes lawsuits like this possible. He said that he hopes that after “due consideration by the new Congress and the new administration, that corrective measures will be taken.”

Trump wins Saudi praise for a historical “turning point” after meeting Prince Salman https://t.co/T0yylnBved pic.twitter.com/PcEqVaJqHp

— Bloomberg (@business) March 15, 2017

But, Saudi Arabia does have quite a few other reasons to like President Donald Trump. He has been tough on Iran, one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest opponents, and some believe he is less likely to criticize the country’s record on human rights than the Obama Administration was. One week ago, Trump met with Mohammed bin Salman, the Deputy Crown Prince and Minister of Defense, at the White House. Both sides said it was a historical shift and very good meeting. But it remains to be seen if this lawsuit will affect that relationship.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Families of 9/11 Victims Sue Saudi Arabia Over Alleged Support of al-Qaeda appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Women For Trump?

After Trump’s horrible comments about sexual assault, women supporting Trump are in the limelight and it’s confusing a lot of people.

Take a look:

A lot of us are like: why, just why? Hillary becoming president is one of the best things that can happen for the majority of American women, historically speaking, and they just want to vote for Trump?

It’s their vote, I guess, but WTF.

WE ALL STAND BY TRUMP. WOMEN FOR TRUMP. HE’S OUR ONLY SAVIOR. #maga #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #Trump2016 #Trump @Cher pic.twitter.com/vOcgXMr0FB

— Ingrid Mueller1 (@_Women4Trump) October 9, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks will officially be able to take legal action against a long-rumored enabler in the attacks: Saudi Arabia. Both the House and Senate voted to override President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) on Wednesday, by votes of 348-77-1, and 97-1 respectively.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is broad in its language, with a stated purpose to allow litigants to sue actors “that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.” It is understood by lawmakers and families of 9/11 victims, however, that this bill will, at least in the immediate future, be directed at Saudi Arabia, which some suspect aided the hijackers that took nearly 3,000 American lives in New York City, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Fifteen of the hijackers were Saudi nationals.

Obama explained his decision to veto the bill, which initially passed the Senate and House unanimously, in a memo on the White House website: “This legislation would permit litigation against countries that have neither been designated by the executive branch as state sponsors of terrorism nor taken direct actions in the United States to carry out an attack here.”

The President is not the only opponent of the bill. Last week, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said, “were another country to behave reciprocally, this could be a problem for our service members, and this is something that, at the Department of Defense, we are concerned about.” He added that he is “not an expert” on the bill.

But as lawmakers in both chambers will be hitting the campaign trail in the coming weeks, overriding Obama’s veto was a top priority, as the bill is broadly popular with the public. Now that the bill has passed through both chambers for the second time, it will be signed into law. This is the first override of an Obama veto in his nearly eight years in office. He has issued 12 vetoes.

In his veto message for JASTA, Obama notes his “deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001” but added this act would “neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”

Both sides of the aisle lauded the bipartisan override vote on Wednesday. “We cannot in good conscience close the courthouse door to those families who have suffered unimaginable losses,” said Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD). His Republican colleague, John Cornyn (R-TX) echoed that sentiment: “In our polarized politics of today, this is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress Votes to Override Veto of ‘Sponsors of Terrorism’ Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

This Fake Doctor/Con Man Must Be Stopped…Stat

Nope, it’s not Martin Shkreli! Malachi Love-Johnson is back in the news. Love-Johnson gained national attention in February after he was charged with practicing medicine without a license.

This past weekend Malachi was arrested at a luxury car dealership for attempting to buy a Jaguar for $35,000 using his godmother’s credit. Thing is, Love-Johnson’s godmother did not know that the teenager was using her name to co-sign a Jaguar and had done so TWICE before in the same week.

Love-Johnson had also conned his way into buying two iPads and a cellphone using his godmother’s credit card. Man, this poor, oblivious woman.

Fla. teen ‘Dr. Love’ arrested at Va. car dealership; ‘He fooled me at first,’ employee says https://t.co/jpy9wlZPy8 pic.twitter.com/GRQESodWm7

— WTVR CBS 6 Richmond (@CBS6) September 11, 2016

Love-Robinson is being held on charges of Identity Fraud, False Statements to Obtain Credit, and Obtaining Money by False Pretenses.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 13, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Is Hillary Okay?!?

It was an eerie sight to see Hillary Clinton, whose historical nomination inspired the world, nearly collapse to the ground Sunday morning during a 9/11 memorial service.

No matter how people feel about Clinton as a candidate, many were worried about her health and well-being. Others continued the rumors that Clinton was seriously ill with a more serious disease and questioned her overall fitness for the White House. But her doctors have diagnosed her with ‘walking pneumonia’ and suspect she will recover soon.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 12, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Nearly 15 years ago, after hijacked airplanes took down the World Trade Center buildings, punctured a hole in the Pentagon, and crash-landed on an airstrip in Pennsylvania, lawmakers stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building and sang “God Bless America.” On Friday, lawmakers gathered once more to sing Irving Berlin’s 1918 tune, and to commemorate the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with a moment of silence. Soon after, the House passed a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, which some believe played a role in the trio of attacks that took nearly 3,000 American lives.

Sponsored and supported by a bi-partisan collection of lawmakers, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act has now passed both the Senate–which it did in May–and the House. It cleared both chambers by a unanimous voice vote. The bill’s text reads:

The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.

Though it successfully passed through the House and the Senate, an accomplishment given the polarized climate of American politics, the bill is not guaranteed to be signed into law. Since its inception, President Obama has said he would veto the legislation.

“This legislation would change long-standing, international law regarding sovereign immunity,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in May, after the bill cleared the Senate. “And the president of the United States continues to harbor serious concerns that this legislation would make the United States vulnerable in other court systems around the world.” If he chooses to veto the bill, it would be the first override of a bill during his presidency.

Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of playing some sort of role in the 9/11 attacks–15 of the 19 perpetrators were Saudi citizens. With the release of 28 previously disclosed pages on its involvement in July, efforts to hold them accountable have heightened.

White House official’s concern, they say, is that passing the bill could set a dangerous precedent which foreign governments could use to sue U.S. citizens or government. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday, Terry Strada, whose husband was killed in the New York attack, said that she and other victims’ families simply are looking for accountability.

“We’re just going to hold people accountable for terrorism acts, for funding and financing terrorist acts on United States soil that kills American citizens.” she said. “As long as we’re not funding terrorist groups, and we’re not causing terrorist attacks in other countries, we don’t have anything to worry about.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As 15th Anniversary of 9/11 Looms, House Passes ‘Sponsors of Terrorism Act’ appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Brown University Provides Free Tampons for all!

Brown University, located in Providence, Rhode Island, has started providing free tampons and pads to its students. The university put pads and tampons in the women’s, men’s, and gender neutral bathrooms on campus, indicating that they’re a necessity, not a luxury item.

But the fact that the sanitary products were placed in men’s bathrooms has, of course, led some people to get their panties in a wad over trans bathroom access…again. For example, Daily Caller writer Blake Neff stated:

The decision reflects the view, embraced by Brown’s student government, that not all who menstruate are women. After all, a biological woman could declare herself to be man and start using the men’s restroom, while continuing to menstruate like usual.

But let’s just ignore the haters and embrace the good news here–this is a really cool thing for Brown University to do.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 9, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Rudy Giuliani set Twitter aflame on Monday when, speaking at a Donald Trump event in Ohio, he said: “Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States.” Attempting to contrast terrorism in America under Obama and Bush, Giuliani instead left people confused and angry–obviously, the famed 9/11 attacks happened before Obama’s presidency, during Bush’s time in office.

But let’s assume Giuliani did not mean exactly what he said. Not only was he the mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11, but he also spent a good portion of his speech on Monday discussing 9/11. It’s fairly obvious he didn’t simply forget about that gruesome day. So then, in light of Giuliani’s remarks, we decided to take a look at how terrorism has changed from the Bush years to the Obama years. Have there been more or fewer attacks? More fatalities? Injuries? Apart from omitting 9/11, was Giuliani really that far off the mark?

Rudy Giuliani is under fire for his terror comments https://t.co/bhPwVFWWTl https://t.co/FVi8coPezm

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 16, 2016

Number of Attacks

First of all, let’s define terrorism. The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) compiles statistical information regarding global terrorist attacks since 1970. GTD defines a terrorist attack as “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non‐state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.”

According to the database, from 2001 to 2008, when Bush held the White House, there were 168 total terrorist attacks in the United States. From 2009 to 2015 (the database does not include data for 2016), under Obama, there were 137 total terrorist attacks. Of course, that figure does not include 2016 attacks, so it’s unclear if by the end of 2016 the number of attacks under Obama will be higher than those that took place under Bush.

Severity of Attacks

Four attacks happened on September 11, 2001 that resulted in more fatalities and injuries than all other terrorist attacks in U.S. history combined: the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City were taken down by hijacked airplanes, killing 2,764 people and injuring scores more; another hijacked airplane hit the Pentagon, killing 189 and injuring 106; a fourth airplane was taken down in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing all 44 passengers onboard. All of this happened under President Bush, a point Giuliani did not mention when he said “we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States” before Obama.

Due to the 9/11 attacks, the total number of casualties and injuries under Bush are much, much higher than those under Obama and every other U.S. president combined. According to GTD, 37 of the 137 terrorist attacks during Obama’s presidency resulted in at least one death, with 114 fatalities overall. Thirty-three of the 137 attacks resulted in at least one injury, with 546 people injured overall. Under Bush, 13 of the 168 attacks resulted in at least one death (including the four 9/11 attacks), and 17 of 168 attacks resulted in at least one injury.

So to recap: fatal terrorist attacks have been more frequent under Obama than Bush, but the 9/11 attacks resulted in heavy casualties, by far the most in U.S. history, under Bush’s or anyone else’s administration.

Motivation Behind Attacks

With the spread of the Islamic State and its ideology, attacks inspired by “radical Islam” dominate our definition of what a terrorist attack means. Giuliani–and Trump, who gave a speech on foreign policy following Giuliani’s remarks–mentioned “radical Islamic terrorism” time and time again. But even considering Islamic-inspired attacks other than 9/11–which was masterminded and executed by al-Qaeda operatives–Giuliani’s statement is not exactly accurate, though it is close.

The most striking example of “radical Islamic terrorism” under Bush, other than 9/11, came in March 2006, when a man drove his SUV through the University of North Carolina’s Chapel Hill campus. There were no casualties, but nine people were injured. In a letter written by attacker Mohammed Taheri-Azar, he stated his motive as avenging the deaths of Muslims around the world. He listed a 9/11 hijacker as one of his heroes. Another prominent attack motivated by radical Islam came in December 2001, when Richard Reid, or the “shoe bomber” boarded a plane in Miami with explosives in his shoe. The bomb failed to detonate, so nobody was hurt.

this fire truck in nyc must have melted itself, according to rudy giuliani pic.twitter.com/2BZrG84k9Z

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) August 15, 2016

By contrast, when Obama took office in 2009, the United States was entrenched in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. His withdrawal from those wars, coupled with the Arab Spring protests that deposed strongmen in Egypt and Tunisia, led to power vacuums in many corners of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen are currently in turmoil, overrun with extremist groups: ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabaab, and others. Since 2014, ISIS has been the  number one exporter of worldwide terror. Its soldiers have directly attacked cities in Europe–including Nice and Paris in France; Brussels, Belgium; and four cities in Germany a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens inspired by ISIS’s radical ideology have hit cities across America–Orlando, Florida; San Bernardino, California; the Fort Hood military post in Killeen, Texas.

All told, the context with which Obama’s administration has operated in is vastly different than the period between 2001 and 2008 when Bush was in the White House. The threats Bush faced and those Obama currently faces are vastly different. When Giuliani said “under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States,” on Monday, he was wrong. Not just because he neglected to include 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history by far. But also because there were other terrorist attacks under Bush’s watch, even a few that were carried out under a “radical Islamic” ideology. However, terrorist acts committed under the auspices of Islamic radicalism are on the rise and are certainly more prevalent in the Obama years.

2015 and 2016 were outliers in the last three to four decades in terrorism-caused deaths in America and elsewhere in the West. According to a New York Times analysis of GTD data since 1970, terrorism in the West was worse in the 1970s and 80s than it is today, though it is on the rise. Terrorism remains a greater source of deaths in the Middle East and Africa, however, though that number has been decreasing in recent years.

Rudy Giuliani, mayor of NYC during 9/11, said there were no successful terror attacks before Obama got in office.

Son, he is out his mind.

— brandon jenkins (@Jersey_Jinx) August 16, 2016

And in an interview with the New York Daily News on Tuesday, Giuliani blamed his omission of 9/11 on “abbreviated language.” He vowed to continue his shorthand way, saying, “will I again say things in the future that can be taken out of context or misinterpreted? Of course I will.” He added, “I didn’t forget 9/11. I hardly would. I almost died in it.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fact-checking Rudy Giuliani: U.S. Terrorism Under Obama and Bush appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a piece of legislation that would open up the possibility for victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudi government for its alleged involvement in the attacks.

The bill must still be voted on by the House before it is enacted, but the development spells disappointment for the Obama administration. The President expressed his disapproval with the bill last month, saying that allowing lawsuits against other countries was against U.S. policy and could open up the U.S. government to similar claims. The debate has also raised questions about how such lawsuits could impact U.S.-Saudi relations, as the country has already threatened to sell billions of dollars in U.S. assets if the bill goes through.

This isn’t the first time that JASTA has made it to this point; the bill was passed last year by the Senate but was not voted on by the House. It was reintroduced this past September and came to the forefront of the public’s attention last month, after a “60 Minutes” episode looked into potential ties between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. This scrutiny could potentially offer a better chance for the bill to move forward this year.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who sponsored the bill along with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), expressed satisfaction with the Senate’s vote. Schumer issued a series of tweets commending the vote for helping bring justice to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families.

Today, @JohnCornyn & I are proud to announce we’re one step closer to justice for the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

In their pursuit of justice, 9/11 families were told American law prevented them from pursuing justice against those who funded the attacks.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

These court rulings were backward, illogical, and wrong & now our JASTA bill has passed with unanimous consent from the Senate.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

JASTA will help the 9/11 families seek justice & also serve as a deterrent to other nations who’d assist in terror attacks against Americans

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

Today is a big step forward, but there is work to be done. I urge the House leadership to put JASTA on the floor for a vote immediately.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

Schumer denied criticisms that the bill could force the U.S. to face similar lawsuits, telling the Associated Press, “We’re not busy training people to blow up buildings and kill innocent civilians in other countries.”

Despite Schumer’s reassurances, it’s hard to imagine that there won’t ultimately be some blowback from one of our closest allies if the bill does end up becoming a law. It’s just another test for the already-rocky relationship that is the U.S.-Saudi alliance.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Approves Bill To Allow People to Sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

A piece of legislation introduced in Congress could allow families of the victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for its potential involvement in the 2011 attacks.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), was passed unanimously by the Senate last year but was not voted on by the House; it was reintroduced into Congress this past September. Suing foreign governments is currently against the law, but this bill would allow for certain provisions to be weakened so that countries could be held responsible for their involvement in terrorist activities. This month, the bill came back into the spotlight after a “60 Minutes” investigation into the classified “28 pages” from the 9/11 Commission Report, which reportedly shed light on official Saudi support for the hijackers responsible for the attacks. The segment featured interviews of Former Senator Bob Graham and various other officials who reiterated support that these documents be declassified.

In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired this week, President Obama stated his opposition to the 9/11 bill, saying that it was against U.S. policy to allow such lawsuits against countries:

This is not just a bi-lateral U.S.-Saudi issue. This is a matter of how generally the United States approaches our interactions with other countries. If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries, and that would be a bad precedent…

The bill also has national security and defense officials concerned that it would open up a can of worms for the prosecution of U.S. officials and diplomats, as well as place blame on the wrong parties for the 9/11 attacks.

Support or opposition for the bill has not fallen along partisan lines: contrary to Obama’s criticism of the bill, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voiced their support of the bill while campaigning in New York earlier this week. GOP leaders such as Senator Lindsey Graham and Speaker Paul Ryan have been in actual agreement with the President for once, working with the White House to kill the bill.

.@HillaryClinton defends her support of @SenSchumer 9/11 bill “I stand with Senator Schumer on this” pic.twitter.com/NA6AX5nFlj

— Tamara Gitt (@tamaragitt) April 18, 2016

.@SenSchumer bill to let 9/11 families sue Saudi if tied to attacks becoming political football-@BernieSanders take: pic.twitter.com/Zgab4dABlW

— Molly O’Toole (@mollymotoole) April 17, 2016

Meanwhile, the timing of these developments has made for a pretty awkward presidential visit to Saudi Arabia for Obama this week. The Guardian reports that the trip was “noticeably low-key” and hinted at a “mutual distrust” between the two allies. It also appears that the bill remained an elephant in the room during his visit: the White House told the press on Thursday that it never even came up in Obama’s meetings with the Saudi king.

The relationship between the two countries has already been on the tense side lately, but Saudi Arabia hasn’t exactly responded well to the latest round of threats against it. The country’s foreign minister allegedly threatened to sell up to $750 billion in American assets, which would have strong economic repercussions for both states. These current developments will prove to be yet another test for a tumultuous and controversial alliance.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Obama Doesn’t Want Families To Sue Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

The attacks in New York City on 9/11 brought together a nation that every year since has unified on social media and internet outlets under “#9/11” and “#NeverForget.” When a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut claimed the lives of 20 children, as well as six adults on December 14, 2012, we prayed and posted: “#PrayForSandyHook” and “SandyHook.” The terrorism in Paris on November 13, 2015 bonded the world through posts and photographs captioning “#PrayForParis.”

“Pray for Paris” courtesy of [Bensun Ho via Flickr]

Following the police shootings and misconduct of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and so many more, a movement ensued highlighting “#BlackLivesMatter,” which morphed into the debated “#AllLivesMatter” movement. We picketed. We rioted. We protested and stood divided across the nation. We demanded societal change. When a mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopalian Church, we worked to mend the broken community and sent virtual support with “#PrayforCharleston” demanding more stringent gun control laws and mental health screening.

We have been victims and survivors. We have been divided, yet banded together. We have fought and we have been loud. So where is our unifying and our fighting fervor now? Where is our voice recognizing the 380,000 Nigerian brothers and sisters living within the United States whose families and friends in Nigeria are experiencing sheer terror at the hands of Boko Haram?

Boko Haram, an Islamic militant group whose name loosely translates into “Western education is a sin,” has been waging a murderous war in the poorest part of Nigeria in an effort to overthrow the Nigerian government. While the group has been slowly establishing itself between 2005-2009, it gained worldwide recognition in 2014 when it kidnapped 276 schoolgirls, most of whom have not returned to their families to date.

Mohammed Yusuf, has, over the years, rallied a following to the group through the widespread distribution of his speeches on tapes. So far, his followers have treated human beings like animals–slitting throats without reprieve. In 2009, Yusuf was killed in a security bust, which left the elusive and merciless Abubakar Shekau in charge of Boko Haram. His unforgiving and relentless tactics to make Northern Nigeria an Islamic state have left almost 20,000 people dead–slaughtered. There have been approximately 2.5 million people displaced from their homes and villages, children parentless, mothers widowed, and mass graves full of innocent bodies.

Image courtesy of [EU/ECHO/Isabel Coello via Flickr]

The scariest part? Boko Haram has made good on essentially every threat and every hellish promise made. Most recently, Boko Haram took to bombing the village of Dalori, in the northeastern part of Nigeria, where 86 people were shot, burned, or killed by suicide bombs. A man hiding in a tree heard the shrieks and screams of the children trapped in burning huts as Boko Haram soldiers and supporters destroyed the city. Government troops were unsuccessful in overpowering the militant group.

Boko Haram has pledged its allegiance to ISIS/ISIL and its members have set out to spread terror upon all those who are not willing to join them in their absolutely extremist path to form an Islamic state.

So where is the coverage? Why has the U.S. mainstream media failed to highlight this horrific situation in any detailed capacity? Where are the Twitter feeds and Facebook posts flooding with “#PrayforNigeria” statuses? And where is the action? There has been no lack of military action against ISIS and its ideologies, so where is the same level of response to a terrorist organization that has pledged allegiance to ISIS and has killed thousands? Forget the basic human need and the widespread teachings of terror–are we just willing to help if we have some personal or political interest in mind?

As media dictates the important issues that today’s society will focus on, particularly during election year, has our censorship failed the people of Nigeria?

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram and Widespread Terror in Nigeria: Where is the Outrage? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is know for touting the most controversial comments while on the campaign trail, but his November declaration that “thousands” of New Jersey Muslims celebrated on 9/11 continues to gain traction with fellow Republicans–despite evidence disputing it.

Trump claims that he saw “with his own eyes” on television thousands of people cheering as the buildings came down. Yet experts have combed through news clips from that time period and found nothing. There were, however, several news clips from that time of people celebrating the attack overseas in Muslim countries. Some people have chalked Trump’s comments up to a misrepresentation of those videos, while others think he just pulled the memory out of thin air.

Needless to say, controversy over the comment has caused a division within the Republican party. Some GOP members agree with Trump, and others condemn the political ploy, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush who said it just “didn’t happen” and “I don’t believe it,” respectively. So if you’re looking to keep tabs, here is a list of  the people who have so far chosen to hop on Trump’s Muslim-partying-bandwagon.

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson was one of the first people to support Trump’s claims by saying that he also saw a video of thousands of Muslims partying on 9/11–in New Jersey. But when reporters began to hound him he opted to clarify his statement saying, “I did see the film. I don’t know where they were, but I did see the film.”

Rudy Giuliani

The former mayor of New York City who was in office during the 9/11 attacks should be a reputable source–right? Well, when questioned by CNN Giuliani said “we did have some celebrating, that is true.” However, he rebuked claims that it was “thousands,” but more like “10, 20, 30, 40” people. Giuliani then recounted a story of a Muslim-owned candy shop he’d heard about where some Muslims celebrating in the streets that day were beaten up by local school children.

On the other hand George Pataki, the governor of New York at the time of the attack, disagreed.

Not sure what luxury spider-hole @realDonaldTrump was hiding in on Sept11 but I saw Americans come together that day @GStephanopoulos

— George E. Pataki (@GovernorPataki) November 22, 2015

Debbie Schussel

Schussel, a controversial anti-Muslim right-winged columnist, wrote a column swearing that “thousands of Palestinian Muslims outside Paterson’s town hall” celebrated that day, and even referred to an MTV news report in Paterson, NJ from that time as proof. MTV has since debunked these claims  by digging up the clip in question, which can be watched below. They edited it to add in new footage where they reinterviewed the main witness from that day, then-high school senior Emily Acevedo, who claimed to see kids rioting. Fourteen years later Acevedo says what she saw that night “would have happened any other summer night.”  

Ann Coulter

The controversial commentator claimed to have proof that Muslims did celebrate on 9/11 when she tweeted out a video featuring a Howard Stern taping, where callers claimed to have seen Muslims celebrating in Paterson. Again these claims have not been substantiated.

WOW – THIS MAKES IT 10 PIECES OF PROOF OF MUSLIMS CELEBRATING 9/11 ATTACK IN NJ! @realDonaldTrump https://t.co/3v21LUJyWI — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) December 2, 2015

So are all of these people flat out liars, or could they just be exaggerating or remembering what happened that day wrong? Well according to Elizabeth Loftus, a psychologist and expert on the ways the mind concocts memories at the University of California, that very well could be the case. She claims Trump may be just misremembering rather than lying saying,” just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence, detail and emotion, it doesn’t mean it really happened.” Whether it’s misremembering or lying, it unfortunately appears to be spreading around.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s The Growing List of People Who Swear NJ Muslims Celebrated on 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

For Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, this 2016 primary has been marked by a lot of animosity. But they appeared to take that feud to a whole new level today, as they sparred back and forth on Twitter over George W. Bush’s 9/11 record.

This particular period of the Trump-Bush feud began when Trump was asked by Bloomberg about how he would deal with being President in the face of a crisis, such as a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack like 9/11. Trump criticized the leaders who have presided during past American crises, by saying:

I think I have a bigger heart than all of them. I think I’m much more competent then all of them. I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time.

He then continued to condemn Bush by saying: “He was president, O.K.? The World Trade Center came down during his reign.”

The fact that Trump essentially blamed the events of 9/11 on George W. Bush sat very poorly with Jeb Bush–and the younger Bush and current presidential hopeful took to Twitter to confront Trump about it. He tweeted:

How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 16, 2015

Trump, who’s pretty consistently willing to get into Twitter spats, responded in turn:

.@JebBush, At the debate you said your brother kept us safe- I wanted to be nice & did not mention the WTC came down during his watch, 9/11.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2015

No @JebBush, you’re pathetic for saying nothing happened during your brother’s term when the World Trade Center was attacked and came down.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2015

.@JebBush, like it or not, our country needs more energy and spirit than you can provide! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2015

That’s where the fight appeared to end–for now at least. Given the clear personal animosity between the two candidates, these issues will probably come up again. Trump has been a consistent critic of George W. Bush, and during the second GOP debate, brought up George W. Bush. He stated: “Your brother and your brother’s administration gave us Barack Obama because it was such a disaster those last three months.” Bush responded: “You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe.” Seemingly that is the line Trump was referring to in the first tweet.

The fight itself was just one of many political spats in the long and drawn-out primary. But the fact that it unfolded the way they did–on Twitter–provides an example of a new kind of political discourse that is increasingly defining the 2016 elections. It’s across party lines, as well–this summer, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush got into a Twitter/Photoshop war over student debt. Debate is no longer just confined to the stage.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Feud of the Week: Donald Trump and Jeb Bush Argue over 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

ISIL and the Iran Nuclear Deal have dominated the news in the Middle East as of late. But this week brings another headline contender, the actions of the Afghan Taliban. On Monday, the Taliban gained serious headway by capturing the major Afghan provincial capital of Kunduz. This is a real setback for the U.S.-trained Afghan security forces. The attack also raises the question of whether the U.S. will pursue the same exit plan from Afghanistan as it had intended.

The Attack on Kunduz

By the end of this summer, the Taliban and Afghan government were at an essential stalemate after months of back and forth. There weren’t any real victories nor losses; however, that quickly changed on Monday. Taliban forces took the city of Kunduz within hours of attacking. Kunduz was last under the Taliban’s control in 2001, before the U.S. entered Afghanistan and the Taliban fell from power. The city was considered one of the regional “centers of the American troop surge” five years ago. It is also the first major city to fall to the Taliban in fourteen years.

Kunduz, Afghanistan’s fifth largest city, was estimated to contain 300,000 residents in 2013. However, with the recent exodus of refugees in the Middle East, the number is probably lower. The city sits in the far north of the country, and is considered a main trading center as it contains essential supply lines and smuggling routes. The city is located approximately forty miles from the Tajikistan border.

During the siege, the Taliban freed hundreds of prisoners held in Kunduz. Crowds following the lead of a Taliban fighter with a megaphone chanted “Death to America! Death to the slaves of America!” Of the 600 freed inmates, 144 are reportedly members of the Taliban.

As for casualties, a spokesman for the Public Health Ministry, Wahidullah Mayar, tweeted that 30 people had been killed and more than 200 injured. He also stated that 90 percent of them were civilians. The main trauma center, run by Doctors Without Borders, reported receiving 171 wounded people, including 46 children. A representative from the center also expressed extreme concern over limited supplies and a growing number of wounded civilians.

After the attack, the newly elected emir of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, issued a statement to the residents of Kunduz. The statement hit five focal points: the Taliban would safeguard the city and the people inside, it would refrain from “extrajudicial killings, looting or breaching,” residents should feel safe in returning to work as normal, the Taliban would not retaliate against security forces or the government, and lastly, the Afghan government should discontinue blaming “outside intelligence agencies” for its defeats. However, according to the New York Times, alleged reports and videos from inside the city counter these promises. According to one official, electricity and phone services are out in most of the city. Roads to enter and leave the city have also been blocked.

A Lack of Preventative Measures?

The fall of Kunduz has left some questioning the strength and pragmatism of the Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani.

First off, the success of the attack itself may have been able to be prevented. Over the course of the past year, local officials in Kunduz reported Taliban movement surrounding the city. Meanwhile, some members of the Afghan government, along with Western officials, didn’t appear to take these concerns seriously. They believed the Taliban’s gain to be minimal and isolated to rural areas. Mohammad Yousuf Ayoubi, the head of the Kunduz provincial council, stated that although 70 percent of the province surrounding the city remained under Taliban control, zero efforts were made by security forces to make an offensive move or reinforce the city. This lack of preparation is being partly blamed for the fall of Kunduz.

The Counter-Response

As of Wednesday, the counter-attack had yet to see much success. On Tuesday, Afghan security forces fought back, including at least two U.S. air strikes. But by Wednesday morning, the situation seemed worse. Afghan reinforcements were held in the Baghlan Province, completely stopped or delayed by Taliban ambushes. One report cited 1000 Afghan soldiers and police officers held in the northern part of Baghlan.

The Taliban further advanced Tuesday night, surrounding the local airport, where hundreds of Afghan forces and civilians retreated. During the course of the night, “at least 17 members of the Afghan National Civil Order Police were wounded and one was killed defending the area around the airport.” The situation mildly improved after the U.S. air strikes, but U.S. attempts to airdrop food and ammunition reportedly failed. By noon on Wednesday, 60 soldiers had surrendered or had been taken by the Taliban.

So, how does this recent development fit into the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan?

The U.S. and Afghanistan

The End of the War

On December 28, 2014, the U.S.-led coalition ended its combat mission in Afghanistan. The war began October 7, 2001, when the Taliban harbored and refused to give up Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. U.S and NATO allies have remained ever since in order to train Afghan military forces and police officers to be self-sufficient, even after the fall of the Taliban.

“Over the course of a decade,” stated Army General John Campbell, chief of the International Security Assistance Force, “our Afghan partners and we have built a highly capable Afghan army and police force of over 350,000 personnel.” December 2014 marked the end of the longest war in American history and the transition to the NATO Resolute Support mission. The mission called to gradually reduce troops on the ground and “train, advise and assist” Afghan Security Institutions. Twenty-eight NATO Allies and 14 partner nations contributed to the mission.

The Removal of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

Before the formal end of the war, President Obama laid out a removal plan of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2014. He planned to remove all but 9,800 American troops by the end of 2014, cut that number in half by 2015, and eventually pull the remaining troops by 2016. By the end of his presidency, President Obama planned the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to be that of a normal embassy with a security assistance office in Kabul.

This past May the plan was modified. During a meeting at the White House, President Ghani asked for the withdrawal plan to be slowed down. The meeting clearly reflects a serious concern on behalf of Ghani that a Taliban resurgence could manifest once U.S. forces have departed. Obama agreed to keep the number of U.S. forces at 9,800 until the end of the year, but still vowed to uphold his decision to remove all forces by 2016. Obama’s approval of the additional 5,000 troops shows confidence in Ghani’s leadership. Relations between the Obama administration and Ghani’s predecessor, Hamid Karzai, had rapidly crumbled before Karzai’s term ended. Unlike Ghani, Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement in exchange for a continued U.S. military presence. Obama called Ghani’s leadership “critical to the pursuit of peace.”

Criticism

The current removal plan from Afghanistan is very reminiscent of the removal of U.S forces from Iraq in 2011, which did lead to severe consequences. Although the Obama administration exudes confidence in the status of the Afghan security forces, some Republicans and other critics fear history will repeat itself. Violence erupted in Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Critics claim the void of leadership allowed the growth of ISIL.

The fall of Kunduz promptly led to statements equating it to Iraq.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, stated “The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL…it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In a similar tone, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), stated “It is time that President Obama abandon this dangerous and arbitrary course and adopt a plan for U.S. troop presence based on conditions on the ground.”

If anything, the current state of Kunduz doesn’t promote confidence in Afghanistan’s forces maintaining control.

Conclusion

The Taliban’s control of Kunduz may very well be short-lived. But it could also be a warning sign. The strength and leadership of the Afghan government’s security forces needs to be able to stand on its own. We may be looking at a conflict that draws the United States back in. As of this moment, peace talks between the Ghani government and Taliban have been all but abandoned, and the situation seems to be worsening–what happens next will depend on the many players wrapped up in the growing conflict.

Resources

Primary

NATO: Transition Ceremony Kicks off Resolute Support Mission

Additional

The Long War Journal: Taliban Emir Seeks to Reassure Residents of Kunduz

New York Times: Taliban Fighters apture Kunduz City as Afghan Forces Retreat

New York Times: Taliban and Afghan Government Dispute Status of Kunduz

New York Times: U.S. Strikes Taliban-Held Land Near Kunduz Airport as Afghan Crisis Deepens

Time: U.S. Ends Its War in Afghanistan

Reuters: Afghan Forces Fight to Retake Northern City from Taliban

Reuters: Obama Plans to End U.S. Troop Presence in Afghanistan by 2016

Reuters: Troops from U.S.-led mission fight Taliban near Afghan city

The Washington Post: Obama agrees to slow U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

 I

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taliban Captures Kunduz: Should the U.S. Still Leave Afghanistan as Planned? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Sunday, which means it’s time for another round-up of the weird arrests last week. Read on to check out the oddest things that led to a trip downtown last week.

Food Coma

Image courtesy of John Keogh via Flickr

A family in Lake Worth, Florida came home to find a burglary gone wrong. The intruder, 22-year-old Jacob Miller, broke in, enjoyed some beer and chicken, and then passed out on the family’s couch. He was still asleep when the police arrived.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

Okay. I can’t believe I am about to say this. I don’t care if someone takes your $5 but does not give you your weed, you just cannot call the cops to complain about being stiffed. If you do, you will get in trouble. And if my admittedly limited knowledge of pot prices is accurate, you will get in trouble over some very poor quality marijuana.

(Before I continue with this story, I have a confession to make. Whenever I do not have a good story lined up for the week, I just Google ‘weird legal stories Florida.’ It never disappoints. Now back to this week’s weird Florida story … )

Courtesy of Giphy.

I’ve Been Robbed!

Daneshia Heller, a 19-year-old Florida resident, had an emergency. She had just been robbed. When she went over to a man’s house to buy some pot, she had expected to receive said pot in exchange for the $5 she had given him.

Unfortunately, the man allegedly took the money but didn’t give anything back. Heller did what any irrational person would do. She called 911.

“He got my money, and I want my drugs. Can you send an officer?” she asked the operator.

A Wish Come True

You know how if you find a genie and you make a wish it is going to come true in a way you never expected? Like how in the Geico commercial a million bucks gets granted as a million male deer (aka bucks)?

Courtesy of Giphy.

Well think of this 911 operator as Heller’s genie in a bottle. Heller was granted her wish: a cop did come to the scene of the alleged crime. Only, the cop didn’t arrive for precisely the reason Heller had wanted him.

You see, drugs are illegal in Florida, both in buying and selling. Which means if you call up and admit you are trying to buy some, especially if you dial 911 to do it, you will probably get in a little trouble yourself.

Taking Some Flakka

If this had been the only thing to happen, though, then maybe this story would not have been so bad. However, when the cops arrived, they saw an angry Heller talking to herself. This aroused their suspicion.

When they checked her person, they found a white substance in one of her pockets. As it turned out, it was Flakka, a psychosis-inducing drug.

The Legal Consequences

After the substance was found, Heller was taken into custody and charged with the following:

• Drug possession
• Misusing the 911 system
• Violating parole from an earlier, unrelated charge

Moral of the Story

As with any good story, there are a few key takeaways:

1. Don’t be a tattletale (especially don’t tattle on your potential drug dealer);
2. Don’t call 911 unless it is actually an emergency;
3. If you call the cops about a theft, make sure you hide your drugs before they get there; and,
4. Just don’t do drugs in general.

This may all seem like a lot to ask, but I promise you they are all good ideas if you do not want to get arrested and be talked about here.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Calls 911 When She Doesn’t Get Her Drugs, Gets Arrested appeared first on Law Street.

Starting in late April 2015, the Taliban launched its annual Spring offensive in Afghanistan. Since that time, the government has fought back and launched its own counteroffensive, which has continued throughout the month of May and into June. After more than a decade and major American military intervention, the Taliban remains active and strong within Afghanistan and neighboring regions. Read on to learn about the group’s origins, the impact of the American war, and the Taliban’s role in Afghanistan’s future.

The Origins of the Taliban

As the oft-told story goes, the Taliban emerged as one of the many competing groups among the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through 1980s. The group and many others that would make up the Mujahideen were supplied, equipped, and financed in part by large contributions from the United States and Pakistan, which shares a close tribal relation to the Taliban.

The group came to prominence beginning in 1994, succeeding the ouster of Soviet forces. Following the scramble for control, the Taliban, a predominantly Pashtun group, began taking over large swaths of territory. The motivation behind the group centered on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and Sunni Islam. In 1995 they captured their first province, Herat, bordering Iran. By 1998 they had conquered 90 percent of the entire country and were effectively in charge.  The video below details the origins of the Taliban.

Help From Abroad

While the Taliban enjoyed a seemingly meteoric rise from obscure Mujahideen group to the rulers of an entire country, it was not without substantial help–inadvertent or overt–from outside sources. This assistance begins with the United States.

As touched on briefly, the U.S. initially started supporting the Taliban and similar groups in the 1980s in an effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. This assistance was far from benign, in fact several Mujahideen members actually visited the White House and met with then-President Ronald Reagan. The relationship continued openly until as late as 1997, when members of the Taliban came to Texas to discuss building an oil pipeline in Afghanistan with an American oil company. This even while the Taliban had been suspected of hiding Osama Bin Laden as early as 1996.

Even after the war in Afghanistan started and dragged on, the U.S. was still allegedly funding the Taliban inadvertently. Up to a billion dollars a year in funding ear-marked for the Afghan government, was believed to be funneled directly to the Taliban.

While the United States has directly and indirectly funded the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has been more direct. The Taliban themselves are widely suspected of emerging from holy seminaries paid for by the Saudis, which cultivated the ideals of strict Sunni Islam. However, their support has not stopped there.

Along with other gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of terrorist groups, including the Taliban. These funds are not usually given out directly. Instead, they are channeled through a false corporation that may request support to build more schools, for example. The Taliban and other groups can also raise money from these countries through kidnappings and extortion.

However, the Taliban’s strongest supporter is likely Pakistan, which shares the closest kinship bonds with members of the Taliban. The Pashtun is a tribe whose members live in an area that straddles the northern borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many of the early members were also educated in Pakistani schools known as Madrassas.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban did not end there. Like the U.S., Pakistan funded the Taliban in their efforts against the Soviets in the 1980s; however, the Pakistanis’ efforts continued after the Americans left, as Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) continued to train members of the Taliban throughout the 1990s up until the American invasion in 2001.

In 2007, after being driven out of Afghanistan, the Taliban set up an organization in Waziristan, Pakistan and proclaimed itself an Islamic state. From this base the Taliban, which is still being supported by aspects of Pakistan’s ISI, has launched numerous attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings into Afghanistan.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

Despite the Taliban coming to power essentially as a result of fighting one superpower, this did not prevent the other from going after them either. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to either hand over Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or be attacked. The Taliban refused and U.S. forces were in the country in less than a month. Less than two months after that, the Taliban was defeated and pushed out of Afghanistan. Despite this victory, both Bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, were able to escape to Pakistan.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the focus of the U.S. and its allies shifted to nationbuilding and keeping the remnants of the Taliban at bay. The Taliban however, would not be so quickly dismissed and began a resurgence starting in 2005. The Taliban traded in their old tactics of facing the U.S. in conventional battles for guerilla tactics–particularly suicide bombs–which had been effective in Iraq. The group also resorted to the opium trade for funding. Afghanistan would eventually reach a point where it was supplying 90 percent of the world’s opium.

The renewed and increased violence led to another major policy shift: the surge. The surge was a large additional deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Newly appointed general Stanley McChrystal requested the troop increase out of fear that at current levels the war may be lost outright. Following this in 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to publicly float the idea of meeting with Taliban leaders for the first time. While the U.S. initially condemned his actions, by the following year and in the aftermath of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama Administration announced it was open to talks.

Along with attempts at negotiating with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies also began shifting greater responsibility and power to their Afghan counterparts. The U.S. and NATO also planned to pull out all troops by the end of 2014. However, following continued violence, uncertain safety situations, and attacks on NATO troops by allied Afghan soldiers, NATO agreed to keep as many as 13,000 soldiers in the country as part of a new bilateral security agreement signed by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The war officially concluded in 2014, making it the longest war in American history.  The video below details the latest war in Afghanistan.

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

So what is the Taliban’s position today? While as of 2014 they maintained direct control of only four of the 373 districts in the country, their reach is much greater. For example, in a 2013 assessment by Afghan security forces, 40 percent of the country was considered to be at a raised or high danger level. Furthermore, while Pakistan has paid lip service, the Taliban still have a strong base in the neighboring country. The group has also benefited from record poppy harvests and other illegal financing operations such as mining.

Partners in power?

Negotiations of varying degrees have been attempted beginning as early as 2010. President Ashraf Ghani seems especially eager to bring the Taliban to the table, as his first two official visits were to Pakistan where the Taliban is strong and China, who has sponsored such talks. The two sides finally met in May and while nothing was agreed upon, just meeting was a step in a positive direction. However, for more meaningful action to be taken it may require removing all foreign fighters from Afghanistan as the Taliban has articulated.  The video below presents a desire by the Afghan president to talk with the Taliban.

The question now is how likely the Taliban is to actually come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The Taliban currently have an entrenched position and are reaping the windfall from record opium sales. It is very possible that the group will simply wait out the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops and then reignite the conflict with a government that has been repeatedly unable to answer to the task.

Conclusion

You reap what you sow. This is an old saying that essentially means your actions will have consequences, whether good or bad. For the United States, it used the Mujahideen in its fight against the Soviets in the 1980s then left them to themselves for much of the next two decades; however, 9/11 revealed what can happen as a result of benign neglect.

While the attacks were not orchestrated by Afghanistan, they were planned by the insidious leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was allowed to live in Afghanistan by the Taliban and who helped them gain more territory in the country.

Since that fateful day the U.S., its allies, and many average Afghanis have fought with the consequences of earlier decisions. This process has now seemingly come full circle, as the U.S. and its regional partners are advocating for talks with the Taliban and suggesting a role for them in the government. The Taliban, for their part, seemed hesitant to commit and more likely to wait out the complete withdrawal of foreign forces before striking again at what is viewed as a weak government.

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

Global Research: Grisly Peshawar Slaughter-Who Created the Taliban? Who Still Funds Them?

Guardian: WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. War in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

The latest development in the saga over the National Security Administration’s (NSA) bulk data collection just occurred, as an appeals court ruled that the NSA’s actions were illegal. This is big, as this ruling may pave the way for changes in the surveillance programs conducted on the American people by the NSA.

The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) led a case against the NSA’s bulk data collecting procedures that developed in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. As soon as this information was brought to light, many Americans reacted with outrage, demanding an explanation and justification from the government. Immediately, the NSA and the Obama Administration cited the Patriot Act as a defense–the broad piece of legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The intention of the Patriot Act is to combat terrorism and prevent an attack like 9/11 from ever occurring again on American soil. While the Patriot Act originally passed with incredibly strong support–only Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against it–it has since come under intense criticism for its breadth and implications.

One particularly broad section of the Patriot Act was used to justify the NSA bulk collection of phone records. There’s a provision in it that permits the collection of “business records deemed relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.” However, the Appeals Court ruled that this provision simply does not allow a bulk collection of any and all phone records, which is pretty much what the NSA was doing.

Interestingly enough, the appeals court did not rule on the actual constitutionality of the NSA’s data collection. Rather the court stated that the provision of the Patriot Act being used to defend it simply did not apply. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

The court declined to address the issue of whether the program violates Americans’ rights, because, they found, it was never properly authorized by existing law.

The case was also sent back to a lower court for review in light of this decision; however, this ruling, no matter how specific and limited, does create an interesting conundrum in the halls of Congress. The much-maligned Patriot Act is currently up for debate. The provision that the government was relying upon to justify NSA spying will actually expire on June 1 if no action to reauthorize or extend it is taken by Congress. By stating that the provision of the Patriot Act used to justify this spying is not applicable, the judges have put another task on Congress’ to do list if they want the NSA data collection program to continue. The move to shift the responsibility to Congress’ lap wasn’t particularly subtle either. The three judge panel even stated:

We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.

While this ruling by no means ensures any sort of end to the NSA’s heavily criticized phone data collection program, it certainly is a blow to the administrations that touted its legality under the Patriot Act, and a blow to the Patriot Act itself. Given the Congress’ lack of productivity and rampant disagreement there’s no way to tell what ramifications this ruling will have.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk over the potential shutdown of a crucial government agency–the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But for a lot of Americans, exactly what DHS does isn’t really known. What would the effects of shutting it down be, and how could it affect daily life in the United States? Read on to learn about DHS’s inception, history, functions, and the current debate in Congress over its future.

What is the Department of Homeland Security?

DHS is a department under the Executive Branch of the Government. As a result, the Department reports to the President of the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security was created just after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when Tom Ridge was appointed to serve as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. However, it was not considered to be an independent office until November 2002, when the Homeland Security Act passed Congress. The first day of business for the new office was March 1, 2003.

The DHS states its mission as follows:

The vision of homeland security is to ensure a homeland that is safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards.

Since then the Department has evolved due to acts of Congress or through actions made by its leadership. Often these changes have been made with the intention of streamlining how DHS deals with various areas of national security.

Why did 9/11 spark the creation of DHS?

On September 11, 2001, 19 members of a terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda took control of four United States passenger airplane flights and pointed them at various locations inside America. The targets of the first two flights were the Twin Towers located in New York City. The target of the third flight was the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The target of the fourth flight has not been determined, but many believe that the aircraft was aimed at the White House; however, the plane did not reach its target because it was forced down in a field located in western Pennsylvania. Between the four aircraft and their targets, roughly three thousand people died that day. The video below briefly shows what happened on the fateful day.

Prior to 9/11, an attack on American soil had been virtually unthinkable. The U.S. responded in part by creating the DHS to address the new challenges of terrorism and security in a changing global environment.

What is the Homeland Security Act?

The Homeland Security Act was a bill sponsored by former Congressman Richard Armey (R-TX) to create a department that could fulfill a threefold primary mission:

(A) Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;

(B) Reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism; and

(C) Minimize the damage, and assist in the recovery, from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.

Who runs DHS?

The Department is overseen by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Currently that position is held by Jeh Johnson, who was appointed by President Obama in 2013. Prior to Johnson, the Homeland Security secretaries were Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, and Janet Napolitano, although James Loy and Rand Beers also served in acting capacities. The Secretary of Homeland Security is a member of the President’s cabinet, and is 18th in the order of Presidential succession.

What kind of a budget does the Department of Homeland Security run on?

DHS is funded by taxpayers, and granted its budget by the United States Congress. For fiscal year 2015, the Department of Homeland Security requested $38.2 billion from Congress. The funding request to Congress was increased to forty one billion, two hundred million dollars for fiscal year 2016.

What does the Department of Homeland Security do?

DHS is involved in a number of initiatives, which cover a wide scope. The big four are known by the acronyms FRG, HSARPA, CSD, and RDP. There are also two other areas, known as SAFECOM and the Blue Campaign. Read on for more information about each of these initiatives.

First Responders Group

The First Responders Group (FRG) is a group of many programs that deal with First Response–or the government reaction to any sort of catastrophe such as the 9/11 terror attacks. The programs run by FRGs range from implementing First Responder training, to improving public safety, to conducting research into technology to help prevent or protect the public and those who are involved in dealing with disasters. One example is the website FirstResponder.gov. The purpose of this website is to keep all information on First Response in one place.

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

HSARPA is a group of different programs that aim to protect America’s borders, be they land or sea, from a range of threats. These threats can include chemical, cyber, biological, or conventional explosives. An example of the steps undertaken by HSARPA is the Air Cargo Program, which aims to develop better technology to check luggage for any signs of explosives.

Cyber Security Division

The Cyber Security Division is a branch of HSARPA that deals specifically with cyber threats to America. As it is a branch and not a standalone program, it includes a smaller group of programs. One of the biggest of which is the Rio Grande Valley System’s Analysis Project, which aims to help with the environmental and immigration challenges that are presented by the Rio Grande Valley.

Research and Development Partnerships Group

The Research and Development Partnerships Group is a newer branch of DHS, created in 2010. This group focuses on working with 30 other laboratories around the country focused on keeping America safe. An example of what RDP does is the Disaster Assessment at Harbors and Ports: The Unmanned Port Security Vessel project. The aim of this project is build a ship that functions like a drone to patrol U.S. ports for signs of danger.

SAFECOM

SAFECOM is a program that is designed to help to develop safer communication lines, be it improving already existing methods of communication, or helping to create new methods. One example is  FirstNet. This is an organization that DHS sponsors whose purpose is to set up and maintain a high quality network that is only available for first responders.

The Blue Campaign

The Blue Campaign is a program that was created by the Department of Homeland Security, which works in partnership with law enforcement agencies as well as other government agencies to spot, take down, and prevent human trafficking. It also seeks to provide relief and protection to those who have been victimized by human trafficking.

 What happens if the Department doesn’t get its funding?

If the Department of Homeland Security does not receive the funding that it needs to keep the doors open, all non-vital programs will be shut down and many of its employees–roughly 15 percent, or 30,000–will be furloughed. The rest–approximately 200,000–will still work, but will not necessarily receive anything for their work. While 15 percent doesn’t seem like too many, any reduction in DHS staff is a concern for our national security and first response capabilities. The video below explains not only how America arrived at this situation, but also what will happen if the money doesn’t make it to DHS in time.

Crisis Averted?

The deadline has been postponed, and the DHS is now funded through March 19, 2015. That being said, the argument still isn’t over. There are still a lot of things that Congress will have to sort out before DHS is guaranteed to stay funded. Arguments over President Obama’s immigration plans are first and foremost. The Department of Homeland Security is a vital tool that the United States uses to make sure its borders are secure and that its citizens are safe. If the funding keeps getting held up, the viability of all of these programs is at risk.

Resources

Primary

Department of Homeland Security: Blue Campaign

Department of Homeland Security: Creation of the Department of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security: DHS Budget

Department of Homeland Security: First Responders

Department of Homeland Security: Homeland Security Act of 2002

Department of Homeland Security: RDP

Department of Homeland Security: SAFECOM

Department of Homeland Security: Secretary Jeh Johnson

Additional

HISTORY.com: 9/11 Attacks – Facts & Summary

USA Today: Homeland Security Shutdown: What’s It All About?”

MSNBC: A DHS Shutdown by Any Other Name

CNBC: Congress Pursues Funding to Avert DHS Shutdown

Politico: GOP Leaders Set to Swerve DHS Off the Cliff

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Homeland Security: The Rise of National Security After 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Lately our lives have been beaten down by the constant news about terrorists. It seems like terrorism is everywhere we turn. What happened to the days when we all lived in the nice little American bubble where terrorism didn’t even seem to be a word we could rightly understand? Now it is a word that we use on a daily basis. 9/11 was the starting point of a scary reality for most of this generation and its connection to terrorism. Before that day we could get on a plane and not have to worry about if the person next to us had a bomb in their underwear or constantly wonder and worry about what might happen next. People are unpredictable and you never know what could happen. The security blanket of living in a nation considered a Super Power is no longer there; we walk around with a target on our backs.

Finally our government is getting it together and figuring out what to do to make our world a little bit safer. Even amid all things ISIS at least the government is finally trying to do something. Kudos to President Obama on the airstrikes the other night!

In an effort to deter people from becoming homegrown jihadists, our government has started a pilot program in three cities: Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis. The administration is looking for new ways to intervene in the lives of people who may want to launch an attack on us, even American citizens. The ideas they have put together seem a bit strange and big brother-esque to me, but a necessary evil in terms of protecting the many from the few.

My biggest question though, is how do you know who to look for? How do you know who is thinking or planning anything?

I always think of the film Enemy of the State when it comes to trying to keep an eye on terrorism. What if some innocent person gets pulled into something they aren’t even aware of and the government ruins their entire lives? And once it figures out they aren’t “the guy” it just leaves them alone with a simple apology and they have to to pick the pieces of their life.

How much are we willing to give up to our government in order to be safe? This is something I struggle with all the time because I certainly do not believe in big government, but I do believe our citizens should be safe and protected from harm’s way. Unfortunately there is no right or wrong answer.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Federal Pilot Program Aims to Deter Homegrown Jihadists appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the tragic and monstrous attacks on America on September 11, 2001, it is important to continue commemorating and honoring that day, and it is important to keep discussing that day’s stories and contexts. One survivor of the attacks is asking for just that. This year, Greg Trevor wrote an op-ed for New Jersey’s Star-Ledger requesting that September 11 be memorialized as a “National Day of Discussion, where Americans actively seek ways to find common ground across political, religious and cultural divides.” He suggested this as an alternative to 9/11 being commercialized like Memorial Day or rarely brought into mainstream attention like Pearl Harbor Day. America should listen to this survivor and talk about our feelings toward Islam, and our judgments about religion in general.

This summer, the Arab American Institute polled Americans about their attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Its key findings include sad statistics: just under half of Americans “support the use of profiling by law enforcement against Arab Americans and American Muslims,” while an increasing “percentage of Americans say that they lack confidence in the ability of individuals from either community to perform their duties as Americans should they be appointed to an important government position.” In the 13 years since 9/11, these numbers have only gotten worse. It’s part of a persistent Western Islamophobia. One Gallup article details this fear that so many in the West have of Muslims. At 48 percent, Muslims are the religious group most likely to feel racially or religiously discriminated against by Americans. There is great concern among Muslims internationally, too, about how the West treats them. Because the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 were Muslim, a great deal of latent Islamophobic sentiment was released after the attacks. How are we addressing this reaction?

President Obama recently reaffirmed his statement that Islamist extremists, from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, are not truly Muslim. Saying that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” he claimed that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama has made this claim before, and his predecessor affirmed the same. Less than a week after 9/11, President George W. Bush said that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” On the one hand, these proclamations from American presidents are laudable and can do much to temper Islamophobia in the U.S. On the other hand, it isn’t their place to make claims like that about an entire religion.

Let’s get something straight: religion is kind of complicated. There are a lot of religious texts, doctrines, and mandates that condone, value, and encourage violence. This isn’t restricted to Islam. The Old and New Testaments, too, have inspired a great deal of violence. Religions that originated in the East are not free from it, either; this summer Buddhists in Burma again attacked their Muslim neighbors.

Yet peace is prevalent in religious texts, too. Love, compassion, and understanding are fundamental in many religions, Islam included. Both these presidents are Christians, but they were more than willing to paint the over one billion adherents with one broad brush. I do not think that one person of any religion should make a broad claim about each of its adherents. Religion is a complex web of faith that we should be wary of characterizing singularly. President Obama is right in that Islam is a peaceful practice. President Obama is wrong, too, as devout Muslims have looked to their texts for justification of sick violence.

Politically, it’d be preferable if religion could be summed up by either “peace” or “violence” or some other trait. But religion’s complexity, dynamism, and diversity make it interesting, relevant, and beautiful, even. Of course, the aspects of violence contribute in no way to that beauty. Should people use religion as a justification for violence? Never. But to ignore that violence is a part of religion’s history, present, and most likely its future is unfortunately a mistake.

This is why we need a Day of Discussion. This is why we need to talk, learn, and grow. We can’t be prejudicial of Muslims, but we sure can be prejudicial of the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have to be mature enough to condemn those Muslims and not condemn all Muslims. Hindsight allows us to condemn the Spanish Inquisitors who persecuted people of other faiths. Those Catholics did horrible things, but we can’t condemn all Catholics or Catholicism generally. Making these distinctions is important, and generalizing is dangerous. If we listen to survivor Greg Trevor and sit down to talk about it a little more, I think we would be on the right path.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence, Religion, and the Need for a 9/11 Day of Discussion appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has changed its mission statement. For years, the primary mission of the agency has been “law enforcement.” However, as of this year, the primary mission is being labeled as “national security.”

This notable departure is both somewhat expected and surprising. It makes sense because national security has been evolving into a more central aspect of the agency since 9/11. But, at the same time, it is a big change from the FBI’s historic roots as a law enforcement agency.

One of the most notable parts of this change was the way in which the FBI did so. They didn’t have any sort of announcement, they just quietly changed the mission statement they released. Foreign Policy asked the FBI for a statement on the change, and they claimed that they were just trying to make their mission reflect the direction in which the agency has been moving in the post 9/11 world. A spokesman from the FBI named Paul Bresson stated, “we rank our top 10 priorities and CT [counterterrorism] is first, counterintel is second, cyber is third. So it is certainly accurate to say our primary function is national security.” This claim is backed up by the FBI’s actions in recent years. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of agents who worked on counterterrorism doubled.

The timing of the change is also interesting–why make this change now, especially if the FBI has been moving towards counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber intelligence work for years now? Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer, responded to the departure by asking, “what happened in the last year that changed?”. The FBI chose not to comment on that issue.

What the FBI does now is very different from what it did at its inception. The FBI originally and traditionally has worked on domestic issues, such as organized crime, white collar crime, high profile kidnappings and murders. While its responsibilities expanded during World War II and the Cold War to include more counter-espionage, it’s undoubtable that they have expanded into those duties even more since 9/11. This definition seemingly just makes this transition official.

There is some concern about this priority shift though. If more resources are given to counterterrorism and the others alike, resources will obviously taken from those fields on which the FBI has traditionally focused. According to an investigation by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 2007, none of the officers that were reassigned after 9/11 were replaced. The effects are tangible–in 2000, about 31,000 cases were filed with federal prosecutors through the FBI. But 5 years later, in 2005, only about 20,000 were filed. In 2000, 10,000 white collar crimes were referred to prosecutors, but in 2005, the number dropped to 3,500. These are substantial changes, and they indicate that less work is being put into those areas.

While national security is obviously incredibly important, other cases are as well. A goal for the FBI should be emphasizing national security, while not losing other avenues of investigation.

[Foreign Policy]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jonathan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Changes Mission Statement appeared first on Law Street.