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.

The Trump Administration is mulling an executive order to add the Muslim Brotherhood to the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations. The designation would represent a strong break from past U.S. administrations and, critics say, could alienate Arab allies in the Middle East. Some officials in the administration, including Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, see the Brotherhood as a front for radical, and violent, Islamic ideas that have even penetrated into segments of American society.

Critics of the potential designation–which, officials said, could come next week–say it could undermine the Muslim Brotherhood’s legitimate political efforts abroad. And, some say, equating the group to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State could stigmatize Muslims in the U.S. and elsewhere.

“Designating the Muslim Brotherhood a ‘foreign terrorist organization’ would wrongly equate it with violent extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State and make their otherwise lawful activities illegal,” said Laura Pitter, senior U.S. national security counsel at Human Rights Watch. “The designation would also unfairly taint anyone alleged to be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and undermine the exercise of its political rights abroad.”

With chapters in all corners of the Middle East and elsewhere, the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and oldest Islamic group in the region. It reached the peak of its political ambitions in 2011, when its leader in Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, was elected president. Two years later, in the summer of 2013, Morsi was ousted in a military coup. A leading general of that effort, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, assumed the mantle of president, and continues to govern the country today.

Western countries, including the U.S. and the United Kingdom, have resisted calls to brand the Brotherhood a terrorist group. But a handful of Middle Eastern countries–including the U.A.E., Egypt, and Saudi Arabia–have given the group that label. During the past few decades, the State Department has not found the legal grounds to call the group a “foreign terrorist organization,” but at least one of its affiliates, the Palestinian group Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, has made it on the list.

While it renounced violence in exchange for political autonomy in the 1970s, the group previously embraced violence in achieving its goals, and is loosely affiliated with violent actors, including Hamas. Hasan al-Banna, an Egyptian imam, founded the group in 1928 with the goal of creating a Caliphate, which would be governed by Islamic law, or Shariah. In the 1950s and 1960s, clashes with the Egyptian government forced the Muslim Brotherhood underground. Exchanging violence for diplomacy, the group was allowed to form a political body in the 1970s, and has remained active in politics ever since.

The latest probe into the Brotherhood’s activities came in 2015, when the British government requested a review of the group. The review found the Brotherhood “repeatedly defended Hamas attacks against Israel, including the use of suicide bombers and the killing of civilians.” It also found that the group helps fund Hamas, and that senior members “routinely use virulent, anti-Semitic language.” Some Brotherhood leaders have also claimed the 9/11 terrorist attacks were fabricated by the U.S. government. Ultimately, however, the report did not conclude the group is a sponsor of terrorism.

Some officials in the Trump White House have taken a hard-line stance against the group, as well as Islamic groups more broadly. Bannon, Trump’s provocative strategist and former editor of Breitbart, has a history of Islamophobic remarks. In a 2010 interview, Bannon said Islam is not a peaceful religion, but “a religion of submission.” And in 2014, during a Skype chat with a Catholic group at the Vatican, Bannon said the “Judeo-Christian west” is “at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.”

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 What is the Muslim Brotherhood? appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) ruffled some feathers in Washington on Wednesday when she announced that during a recent “fact-finding mission” to Syria, she met with President Bashar al-Assad. In an appearance on CNN’s “The Lead” and in an essay on Medium, Gabbard defended her trip against criticism for engaging with Assad, a tyrannical leader whose six-year civil war has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

“In order for any peace agreement, in order for any possible viable peace agreement to occur, there has to be a conversation with him,” Gabbard, 35, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Wednesday. “The Syrian people will determine his outcome and what happens with their government and their future.”

The House Ethics Committee approved Gabbard’s trip, she said, which included stops in Aleppo and Damascus in Syria, as well as Beirut, Lebanon. She also said her trip was not funded by taxpayer money, but by the Arab American Community Center for Economic and Social Services, or AACCESS. During the weeklong trip, Gabbard met with many of the actors involved in the conflict: refugees, opposition leaders, business owners, students and, of course, Assad.

“I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard wrote in her account of her trip. She added that her visit showed her that U.S. policy in Syria “does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.”

In her first-person account, Gabbard concluded that there is no difference between the brutal jihadist groups like Islamic State or al-Qaeda and “moderate” rebel groups that the U.S. has helped in the fight. “This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government,” Gabbard said, adding that the people she met with wish the U.S. and other countries would “stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.”

Gabbard’s meeting with Assad was condemned by a number of people, including former independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin:

Part of Moscow’s effort to undermine democracy in Europe and the US is to support the extreme left and right. @tulsigabbard @realDonaldTrump

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 26, 2017

Josh Rogin, a political analyst with The Washington Post, saw Gabbard’s trip as a propaganda effort by the Assad regime:

.@TulsiGabbard says the Syrians she spoke to all support Assad. Maybe because her trip was arranged by the regime? #facepalm

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 25, 2017

Whatever the response to her trip, Gabbard said she comes back to D.C. “with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government.” Calling on Congress and the Trump Administration to end U.S. support for some Syrian rebel groups, Gabbard added: “We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.”

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 Why Did Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? appeared first on Law Street.

Gun-toting militants strapped with suicide vests stormed a police training facility in Pakistan in the late evening hours on Monday, killing at least 61 people, and wounding at least 123 more. Cadets at the scene said the militants’ attack began at around 11:30 p.m., as most of the cadets were asleep. The siege lasted four hours, ending only after one militant was gunned down, and two others blew themselves up.

Most of those killed in Monday’s attack were police cadets in training. Some army personnel were killed while responding to the attack and in the ensuing gunfight with the militants. Witnesses said many cadets woke up as the attack began. Unarmed, they ran for their lives and leaped off the roof of the facility, which sent some to hospitals for treatment. “We were sleeping when terrorists attacked the center,” Asif Hussain, a cadet who was in the academy’s barracks at the time, told CNN.

Claims of responsibility for the attack have been coming from all directions, with the Islamic State as the most recent and most prominent claimant. On its official media website, Aamaq, ISIS said its soldiers carried out the bloody assault and posted the pictures of the three militants who it said were responsible for the attack. Pakistani officials could not confirm ISIS’ claim, nor the claims of any group, including a faction of the Pakistani Taliban knows as the Hakimullah group.

#PAKISTAN#IslamicState Claims Responsibility For Suicide Bombings On Police Academy In #Quetta, Releases Bombers Picture. #TerrorMonitor pic.twitter.com/LEmGTmrPOn

— Terrormonitor.org (@Terror_Monitor) October 25, 2016

The city of Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan province in southwest Pakistan, is no stranger to terrorist attacks. In August, at least 74 people were blown to bits in one of the deadliest attacks in Pakistan’s 69-year history. A Sunni militant group that targets Shiites killed over 160 people in a series of bombings in Baluchistan in 2013.

Before ISIS and Hakimullah claimed responsibility, the head of the Pakistani paramilitary forces blamed the Sunni militant group that carried out the 2013 bombings for Monday’s attack. That group, Lashker-e-Jhangvi Al-Almi, is based in neighboring Afghanistan. A spokesman for Afghanistan’s president dismissed those claims.

Pakistani Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan expressed resolve in the face of terror: “This war isn’t over,” he said. “The enemy is weakened, but not eliminated.”

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 ISIS Claims Responsibility for Attack on Police Training Facility in Pakistan appeared first on Law Street.

Amid the convoluted conflicts ravaging the Middle East at the moment, one country that often gets lost in the headlines is Yemen, where Iran-supported Houthi rebels have been battling the Saudi Arabia-backed government since the rebels took over Yemen’s capital, Sana’a, in late 2014.

Peace talks between the Houthis and the Yemeni government, led by President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, are back on track for Wednesday. The Houthis pulled out over the weekend due to government launched flights over Houthi held territory, which the rebel group claimed breached a truce that was reached on April 10 in efforts to spur a peace agreement.

The two sides first met on Friday, which U.N. envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed called “constructive” with a “positive atmosphere.” Nothing concrete was reached, with a permanent ceasefire as the ultimate goal.

Wednesday’s talks, which will be held in Kuwait, are a top priority for the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France and China. The UNSC members applied pressure to both sides, which led to reinstating Wednesday’s talks.

“The diplomats were quite tough and used harsh language, telling them that peace in Yemen was important for regional security and that no one would be allowed to leave Kuwait without an agreement,” a source close to the discussions told Reuters. 

Yemen, which sits at the tip of the Arabian peninsula, to the west of Oman and the south of Saudi Arabia, is paramount in preventing further destabilization of the region. The vacuum left by the war has seen both al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS, or ISIL, vying for influence.

America has been criticized by human rights groups for its role in the 13-month conflict, which has seen 6,200 civilian deaths, 35,000 wounded, and more than 2.5 million people displaced. The U.S. has provided arms to the Yemen military, which receives direct support from Saudi Arabia, an important American ally in a region where reliable friends are few and far between, though that relationship has also been under pressure.

The most recent battleground development came on Tuesday morning, when a U.S. drone reportedly killed a local al Qaeda leader and five of his operatives, according to Reuters.

Syria’s civil war and the atrocities associated with ISIS and other terrorist cells might grab the most headlines, but the way things shake out in Yemen could have wide-ranging consequences for the stability of the region and beyond.

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 Peace Talks in Yemen Back on After Pressure from World Leaders appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorism is a global problem and has been an especially challenging issue for the Philippines. A nation with a long and complicated history with the United States, the Philippines plays an important role on the global stage. Read on to learn about the history of the Philippines, its relationship with the U.S., and the struggles it faces today.

History of the Philippines

The settlement of the island nation began as early as 30,000 years ago. It continued with waves of Malay immigrants and Chinese merchants. Islam was brought to the area in 1500, and as Islam spread, Christianity was also introduced.

Christianity was brought to the Philippines by the Spanish, who then spent the next two centuries conquering the nation and establishing colonial rule. This was ultimately challenged and the Spanish were temporarily defeated by the British in the late 1700s. While the Philippines was eventually returned to the Spanish, the mindset had changed and rebellions against colonial rule became more prevalent, especially among the ostracized Muslim communities. As a result, Spain slowly allowed the nation greater freedom, eventually allowing free trade and a form of quasi independence.

Despite increased freedom, resistance and nationalism continued to grow, led by native Filipino members of the clergy. This led to a series of revolts that Spain was able to put down until it entered war with the United States in 1898. The Spanish were defeated by the U.S. and subsequently relinquished control of the Philippines to the United States. The video below explores the history of the nation.

Relationship With the United States

Philippines: An American Colony

While some in the Philippines saw the Americans as liberators and fought alongside them against the Spanish, this viewpoint quickly changed. Although the Filipinos quickly attempted to assert their own independence and even elected a president, the Americans snuffed out any efforts toward immediate independence. This led to years of fighting between the two countries.

Americans eventually became the de facto new colonizers of the Philippines, with Filipinos supposedly being brought along the path toward independent self-government. The final path toward independence did begin in 1934 with the creation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Soon after, the Philippines saw the election of its first president, Manuel Quezon, and the approval of its constitution. This time these actions were also sanctioned by the United States. The American plan was to allow for a ten-year transition period before proclaiming the Philippines an independent nation; however, this was all quickly undone when the Japanese captured the Philippines during WWII. The nation was eventually freed from Japanese rule in 1945 and during the following year, 1946, finally gained its independence.

Philippines: After Independence

Although technically independent, the Philippines was still highly dependent on the U.S. for trade, and there were still numerous American military bases on the islands. These bases and other forms of American intervention would occasionally crop up as major issues for Filipinos for the rest of the century. There were also concerns over American support for President Marcos, a strongman who effectively ruled the country as a dictator for over 20 years.

A particular low point in the relationship came in 1991, when the U.S. was forced to abandon its military bases in the Philippines after the government refused to renew the leases. However, the threat of a rising China and the events of 9/11 caused the Philippines to again seek a closer partnership with the U.S.

In 1999, the two sides signed a Visiting Forces Agreement under which the two countries could engage in joint military exercises as long as no American bases were established and the U.S. maintained a non-combatant role.

Following 9/11, a rotating Joint-Operations Task Force was also created in the Philippines numbering approximately 600 soldiers. Its purpose was to help the country fight against Islamist extremist groups. While several of these groups were created worldwide to fight terrorism following 9/11, the Philippines, as a long-standing American ally, was an area of grave concern. Not only was there already an established Islamic insurgency in the south, but there were concerns over two terrorist groups, Abu Sayyef and Jemaah Islamiyah, that operate in the Philippines and have ties to other international terror organizations, including al-Qaeda.

Yet another agreement was signed in 2002, which permitted the U.S. to use the Philippines as a resupply center. The Philippines is a useful ally for the U.S. to have, especially when it comes to a sometimes contentious American relationship with China.

In addition, the U.S. and the Philippines have signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which allowed greater access by U.S. personnel to Filipino military bases, the construction of new U.S. facilities, and positioning of defensive equipment. In 2014, while military cooperation was still ongoing, it was announced that the Joint-Operations Task Force would be dissolved as progress had been made. The video below documents U.S. efforts in the Philippines.

What issues are the Philippines facing now?

While many of the recent collaborative agreements between the U.S. and Filipino movements have been part of the United States’ overall involvement in Asia, the relationship between the two sides truly regained strength after 9/11. As terrorism became a main foreign policy concern for the U.S. it looked abroad to combat a wide variety of terrorist organizations, leading to its efforts in the Philippines.

In addition, the Philippines struggles with militant groups that make it difficult to successfully run the country. The current President of the Philippines is Benigno Aquino III; he was elected in 2010. He’s had to deal with many issues, including the Filipino-American relations, and the push against the terrorist and militant groups in the nation.

Terrorism

There are three prominent terrorist groups in the Philippines according to the U.S. State Department. These three are the Abu Sayyaf Group, the New People’s Army, and Jemaah Islamiyah. The Abu Sayyaf Group and Jemaah Islamiyah are both Islamist groups.

Abu Sayyaf Group

Abu Sayyaf Group, or ASG, is a splinter group of the Moro National Liberation Front. While smaller than the others, it has been the most aggressive. Its list of transgressions is long but includes such nefarious acts as murder, kidnapping, extortion, and robbery. It is mostly funded through those robberies. It operates primarily out of the southern islands of the Philippines, which have the largest chunk of the Muslim minority population.

Jemaah Islamiyah

The other Islamic extremist group is Jemaah Islamiyah. Unlike the ASG, Jemaah Islamiyah is based out of Indonesia but operates in the Philippines. The group engages in many of the same criminal enterprises as ASG, particularly in bomb-making. Both groups also have ties to Al-Qaeda which has provided logistical support for both, particularly Jemaah Islamiyah.

New People’s Army 

The third group is a bit of a throwback to an earlier era. The New People’s Army, or NPA, is the Communist party of the Philippines, founded with the goal of overthrowing the Filipino government. Unsurprisingly, the group was founded in 1969 during the height of the Cold War. This group mainly targets public officials and U.S. personnel, as it is highly critical of the U.S. presence on the islands. The NPA receives most of its funding locally or from ex-patriots in other countries. While the group’s main aims might be different however, its members still often train alongside Islamist groups.

Other Actors

Along with these groups are the Alex Boncayao Brigade and the Pentagon Gang which were other organizations that were formerly listed on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. However, their capacity has been reduced to the point where they are no longer considered terror groups.  The following video gives a detailed explanation of terrorism in the Philippines.

Militant Groups

Moro National Liberation Front 

Along with the terrorist groups that operate in the Philippines are two militant groups that are also very prominent. First is the Moro National Liberation Front or MNLF–“Moro” is the Spanish name for  Muslims in the Philippines. It comes from the word “Moor.” Founded in the 1970s, this group has waged a guerrilla campaign against the Filipino government, which it believes has marginalized Muslims in the southern area of Mindanao. In 1996 the two sides reached an agreement with Mindanao achieving semi-autonomy from the government in Manila. Following the agreement and a failed uprising the MNLF’s status has declined.

Moro Islamic National Front 

The second group is the similarly named Moro Islamic National Front, or MILF. Besides sounding similar, the overlap extends further, as the MILF is actually a splinter group formed from the MNLF. Also founded in the 1970s, this organization employs many of the same tactics as the MNLF. The MILF reached its own peace agreement with the government in 2001; however, whereas the MNLF declined following its treaty with the government, the MILF–which is the larger of the two–has continued fighting in hopes of creating an independent Islamic nation in the south.

As fighting continued for the next decade, both sides were also working to reach some kind of a peace agreement, which they finally did in 2014.

Current Outlook

With peace made between the main insurgent threat and the Filipino government, it is fair to ask whether the efforts by both the Filipino government and the U.S. have succeeded. While the terror groups have not completely abated and probably never will, their capabilities have been greatly reduced to the point that the U.S. feels comfortable enough to dissolve its anti-terrorism unit there. Thus, while it may not be the best-case scenario, it does provide a type of closure in the war on terror that is better for both sides than more fighting. This type of agreement might also prove to be the standard going forward in the war against terrorism globally for other afflicted nations.

There are of course many other issues that the Filipinos will have to address in the coming years. As the continued U.S. presence suggests, the Philippines may be a central point of action if relations between China and the U.S. deteriorate to the point of no return. Although this seems far from certain, potential flash point disagreements still exist between China and her neighbors, many of whom are U.S. allies, including the Philippines.

Other issues also exist, such as extreme poverty. The gravity of this problem was on display following the devastation from Typhoon Haiyan, which killed over eight thousand people. The storm also destroyed large swaths of desperately needed farmland. This forced as many as four million people to be displaced and seek help from outside sources. Already many people there were living on around a dollar a day and scavenging just to get adequate food supplies.

Domestic violence has also been on the rise in the nation. While more cases were naturally expected to be reported following the passage of the Violence against Women and their Children Act in 2004, the results are unsettling. According to one report by the Women and Children’s Protective Center, the rate of violence rose over 150 percent from 2004 to 2011. While these numbers are unnerving, it is still suspected that incidents are underreported as abuse is seen as a private matter.

These are only some examples of existing issues and while they are certainly not exclusively Filipino problems, they do point to areas of future concern. Also, while an agreement is in place, something more concrete will likely need to be worked out between the ruling government in Manila and its autonomous regions. Whether this is full independence or greater inclusion of the Muslim minority, the status quo does not appear likely to hold out forever, as evidenced by history.

Resources

Primary

Council of Foreign Relations: Terrorism Havens: Philippines

Additional

Anti-Defamation League: The Philippines and Terrorism

Nations Online: History of the Philippines

Foreign Policy: Old Frenemies

War on the Rocks: End of An Era in the Philippines

Global Security: Moro Islamic Liberation Front

Huffington Post: Is This What Terror War Success Looks Like?

Reuters: Typhoon Haiyan

IRIN: Philippines Steep Rise in Gender Based Violence

International Business Times: China-Philippines Territorial Dispute

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 The Philippines: A U.S. Ally Grapples with Terrorism appeared first on Law Street.

Hello again! It feels like it has been a year since I’ve written. (Get it? Because it is 2015 now? Lol?) But I am back now, and it’s time to get into the thick of it.

We are now nearly two weeks into the new year and have already had a heavy dose of tragedy. Unless you have been cut off from internet and television over the past few days, you’ve heard about the Charlie Hebdo shootings. Regardless of what your opinion is of that publication, the murder of those people was an act of terror and an infringement on their rights as humans and French citizens.

Whenever there is an act of extremism related to one system of belief, there are those who call out the entire group. I don’t know why this does not go without saying, but ONE BAD APPLE DOES NOT SPOIL THE WHOLE BUNCH.

While Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups call themselves Muslim, not all Muslims belong to Al-Qaeda. Yet, people like news magnate Rupert Murdoch go off and blame the entire religion.

Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible.

— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) January 10, 2015

Uhh….

Luckily, we have witty and intelligent people in the world like J.K. Rowling, who some of you may know as the author of a little series called Harry Potter, to put people like Murdoch in their place.

I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate. http://t.co/Atw1wNk8UX

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) January 11, 2015

.@dom209 The Spanish Inquisition was my fault, as is all Christian fundamentalist violence. Oh, and Jim Bakker.

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) January 11, 2015

 

It is always promising when voices of reason speak out, especially when those voices have four million Twitter followers. Rowling’s cutting sarcasm continued with responses to fans who joined in her satire, resulting in a truly entertaining and enlightening Twitter feed.

When horrible things happen, like the events in Paris on January 7, instead of playing the blame game, those with sizable influence–like Murdoch–should join in the fight for justice. Yet, too often, we see hate answered with hate.

We can be thankful that most of the world’s population, including many political leaders, have joined together and targeted the real source of the attacks: religious extremists. Infamous hacking organization Anonymous has even declared war on jihadists, laying out a plan of attack centered in cyber world. It is not the responsibility of practitioners of Islam to rid the world of Islamic extremists. We are all affected by their acts, and we can all help in the effort to “destroy their growing cancer.”

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post J.K. Rowling Has Perfect Response to Anti-Muslim Tweets appeared first on Law Street.

A bomb went off at a Colorado chapter of the NAACP yesterday. The office is located in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and although there were no injuries or deaths reported, there was minor damage to the offices, as well as to a hair salon located in the same building. The FBI has announced that it believes that the bomb was “deliberate.”

What exactly that means, however, no one is completely sure. The FBI has said that it could have been some sort of domestic terrorism, but they’re not able to be sure yet. Amy Sanders, media coordinator for the Denver office said:

Certainly domestic terrorism is one possibility, among many others. We are investigating all potential motives at this time.

Members of the NAACP have hinted that it could it have been a hate crime. Sandra Yong, President of the Denver Chapter of the NAACP said:

This certainly raises questions of a potential hate crime. But at this point we’re still gathering information. It’s a very sad situation, but we’re happy our people in Colorado Springs are safe.

She also stated that her branch:

Stands tall with the community of Colorado Springs in rejecting an attempt to create fear, intimidation and racial divisiveness. Although this is an active investigation, one thing is clear: This is an act of domestic terrorism.

However, the President of the Colorado Springs NAACP chapter, Henry Allen Jr., said on Tuesday after the incident that he wasn’t ready to call it a hate crime.

So, what exactly happened? What we know is that witnesses heard a booming sound around 10:45am and then saw smoke. In addition, the side of the building where the NAACP office is located appeared to be burnt. The bomb has been called by many news sources “makeshift” or “homemade.” It was placed next to a gas can, but luckily did not cause the gas can to ignite or explode.

There is a person of interest in the investigation. He has been described as a white man in his forties who drove a dirty white pickup truck and had a license plate that was covered or obstructed in some way. One witness said that he looked on the heavier side, and that he was wearing a Carhartt type jacket.

While no one’s certain that it was the NAACP that was targeted, it seems like the most likely target for the bomb. Most onlookers have pointed out that the nearby hair salon probably wasn’t the target.

The bigger story that has seemed to come out of the incident was the media coverage, or more accurately, the lack thereof. While this happened yesterday, it didn’t really get covered on last night’s news lineup. According to ThinkProgress:

A ThinkProgress search of television databases suggests CNN gave one cursory report on the incident at 6:34 a.m., while MSNBC and Fox News appear to have not mentioned the incident on air since it happened. Other networks, including Headline News, (HDLN) mentioned the incident in the morning news.

There were obviously other big news stories happening at the same time–the start of open-season on Congress, for example–but it still seems like a possible domestic terrorist attack should have gotten more than a “cursory report.” The hashtag #NAACPBombing is trending on Twitter, where many are coming forth to say that the social media tag is the first time that they’ve heard about the bombing.

Seriously, we should all be questioning WHY it took a trending hashtag for us to learn about the #NAACPBombing. We know the answer though…

— Derrick Clifton (@DerrickClifton) January 7, 2015

Here’s all the best media coverage of the #NAACPBombing that I’ve seen so far –> pic.twitter.com/6AtGymj8Jk

— Eric Wolfson (@EricWolfson) January 7, 2015

Despite the fact that the manhunt is still underway in Paris for the men who committed a terrorist attack there this morning, it is a bit weird that there’s been little coverage of the NAACP incident.

Given that the suspect is still at large, one of the best ways to keep people on alert and on the lookout is to spread the news. While the proliferation through Twitter has been great, and an amazing look at the way in which the internet has made it so much easier to communicate, it’s not quite enough.

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 NAACP in Colorado Bombed: No Injuries But Also No Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

The nation, and quite frankly the world, is reeling after the disclosure of an investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee into the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture practices following September 11, 2001. The report took a long time to come out–there was significant back-and-forth from the Senate, the White House, and the CIA. But now that it has, there’s no doubt–we regularly tortured people, and it didn’t work. The report is revealing, horrifying, and honestly, not entirely unexpected.

It’s an interesting time to be an American. We’re taught, from the youngest possible ages, that if you do something bad you pay the consequences. Our justice system is proof of that–we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With freedom comes responsibility. Despite that, the CIA operatives, leaders, and anyone else in our government who were involved in this torture will probably never be punished. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black, except the kettle is someone who’s been thrown in jail for a few years for something like well, selling pot, and the pot brutally tortured approximately 100 prisoners.

There’s significant evidence to suggest that legal tracks were covered with regard to how we treated these prisoners. International Law, as grey and ineffectual a field as it is often considered, does exist. The Geneva Conventions dictate how nations behave in war and peace, and the particularly pertinent part is called Common Article 3, which forbids torture of prisoners. Essentially, it says that if someone is no longer an active participant in the conflict because of various reasons–including being detained–they must be treated humanely and the following cannot happen to them:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

In February of 2002, President George W. Bush signed an executive order proclaiming that Common Article 3 did not apply to Al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners; however, it was ruled four years later by the Supreme Court that Common Article 3 does apply, in a separate case regarding Guantanamo prisoners. The ridiculousness of the fact that Bush decided part of International Law didn’t exist is kind of beyond the point–the Supreme Court has even acknowledged that Common Article 3 can be used in federal court for prisoners’ protection. As The New York Times put it:

Perhaps most significantly, in ruling that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees, the court rejected the administration’s view that the article does not cover followers of Al Qaeda. The decision potentially opened the door to challenges, by those held by the United States anywhere in the world, to treatment that could be regarded under the provision as inhumane.

Furthermore, the Justice Department has authorized at least some of the torture tactics used, although some of that was after the fact. The Justice Department began an inquiry in 2009, but no charges were ever brought against anyone. It has announced that it’s not going to revisit that decision.

Now, with the disclosure of this report, U.N. officials are demanding that the U.S. do something. As the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad al-Huseein, put it while calling for prosecutions:

In all countries, if someone commits murder, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they commit rape or armed robbery, they are prosecuted and jailed. If they order, enable or commit torture recognized as a serious international crime they cannot simply be granted impunity because of political expediency.

He also pointed out that the United States did ratify the U.N. Convention Against Torture in 1994. Other U.N. officials, as well as leading humans rights experts have come forward to condemn the U.S.’s actions and demand some sort of accountability. It would be great if there was that accountability, but at this point I would be shocked. Everything the U.S. has done–Bush and Obama administrations alike–indicate that’s not going to happen. Everything in American history indicates that’s not going to happen. We have consistently shied away from the prospect that we could be held internationally accountable for our crimes.

Now, international law is incredibly complicated; the ways in which it applies to American law even more so. No one has the exact answers about what should or could happen here. But what’s almost certainly not going to happen is any sort of American appearance in front of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Located in The Hague, the ICC has the ability to prosecute individuals for various violations of international law. The statute that governs that court–the Rome Statute–has never been ratified by the United States. And the United States has veto power in the U.N. Security Council, meaning we can’t be referred.

The torture report indicates a horrifyingly dark time in this country’s recent history. We have the opportunity to make it clear that we recognize that truth, and an obligation to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We have a chance to show that we screwed up and we’re willing to pay the price. A chance to be an example of all of those ideals–freedom, democracy, right and wrong–that we espouse to other nations. Too bad we’re almost certainly not going to take it.

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 The CIA: How to Get Away With Torture appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority 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.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.

Prominent religions worldwide preach many similar ideals, some of which include exhibiting kindness to others and living a peaceful life. Although these religions have vastly different teachings, they generally urge followers to be good and fair to one another. However, religious extremist groups claiming to adhere to certain religious ideals often distort the teachings of their faith in order to justify violent acts. Some of the groups at large in the United States today include al-Qaeda, Yaweh ben Yaweh, al-Fuqra, The Army of God, and the Klu Klux Klan. These groups, among several others, have all taken the teachings of different religions and mutated them into extremist ideologies used to condone violence.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Christianity to Justify Discrimination and Violence

The Phineas Priesthood is a prime example of a group that twists religious concepts to justify hateful acts. Claiming to be servants of Christ, Phineas Priests believe that in order to carry out God’s will, they must strive for a completely white North America. The group targets Jews, those with mixed-race backgrounds, and anyone else they consider “undesirable.” Individuals professing to be Phineas Priesthood members have used Christianity as an excuse for committing terrorist activities such as bombing, robbery, murder and arson.

The Klu Klux Klan strives for similar goals and defends its actions by saying they are following Christian ideologies. The Klan believes in an entirely Christian and white North America. Though the number of members in the Klan has dwindled since its foundation many years ago, they still have at least 500 members. Just recently in Florida, a police officer was fired from his position after his ties with the KKK were discovered.

Another group that associates with Christianity, but focuses less on adhering to its teachings, is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. This group does not openly use Christian values to defend its actions, but rather calls itself anti-government as well as racist, and has been known to associate with the Klu Klux Klan. Although its members have not committed many high-profile crimes aside from the 1974 assault of an I.R.S. agent, many have been convicted of tax evasion, weapons possession, and attempting to circulate counterfeit bills.

The Army of God, another clandestine group calling itself Christian, believes in preventing abortion by any means necessary. This includes murdering doctors who perform the procedure. The group defended the actions of member Paul Hill, who allegedly murdered abortion doctor John Britton. They claimed, “his actions are morally justified if they were necessary for the purpose of defending innocent human life. Under these conditions, Paul Hill should be acquitted of all charges against him.” This extremist group even provides a how-to manual for its members, explaining how to execute attacks on abortion clinics using bombs, gas and other means. One of the highest profile crimes carried out by an Army of God member occurred in 2001, when Clayton Waagner sent over 550 anthrax threat letters to clinics and signed them with the name Army of God.

Defending Islamic Ideals at All Costs

There are two major groups operating in the United States that use Islamic teachings to justify their violent acts. One such group, Al-Fuqra, has been linked to “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid. Even more infamous is al-Qaeda, which operates out of the United States, in addition to other countries around the world. The philosophies of both groups are ones of “defensive jihad,” a term defined as the defense of Muslim communities at all costs. Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda, encouraged each Muslim to fight what they consider to be attacks on Muslims across the world. The extremist group aims to overthrow governments that they believe oppress their Muslim citizens and replace them with genuine Islamic governments. They also stand strongly against all Western influences.

The Jewish Extremist Justifications

The only major Jewish extremist group that operates in the United States today is The Nation of Yahweh. Yahweh ben Yahweh formed the group, which had a relatively large following in Florida during the 1980s. They believe that blacks are the true Jews and that their founder is the messiah. Ben Yaweh often ordered members to murder his perceived enemies, who were mainly white. Eventually, he formed a group called “The Brotherhood.” In order to become a member of his cult, young men had to kill a “white devil” and bring a body part back. The group is far less active today following the death of ben Yaweh in 2007.

Other Spiritual Reasoning

One group that follows multiple ideologies and has an operating base in the United States is called Aum Shinrikyo, also known simply as Aleph. The group, formed in 1984 by a Japanese man named Shoko Ashara, adheres to Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and New Age ideologies, as well as some elements from other religions. Ashara encouraged his followers to confront the Japanese establishment. The group members have used their spiritual beliefs to justify murder. Aum Shinkrikyo members have not conducted any noteworthy attacks in the United States, despite having a base here. However, the group has wreaked havoc in Japan on multiple occasions. In 1994, members conducted a sarin gas attack which killed seven people. Perhaps the most infamous Aum Shinrikyo attack occurred in 1995 in Tokyo when the group released sarin nerve gas, killing twelve people and injuring over 5,000 others on the metro.

Many religious extremist groups,  such as the Klu Klux Klan, have their own websites to further explain their ideologies. One of the keys to preventing the expansion of these violent groups is to reduce the sympathy potential members feel for their respective causes. Revealing the twisted nature of their allegedly “justified” reasoning by which they commit crimes could be a way to reduce the desire to join. The United States also has organizations that work to alert the public about the statuses of such hate groups. Hopefully through education and awareness, religiously justified violence will one day be a thing of the past.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Religion to Justify Extremism: A Worldwide Issue appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, have you been watching the news lately?

I’m guessing yes, because you’re all socially conscious, politically engaged legal mavericks, right?

Awesome! So you’ve heard about ISIS, then, I’m sure.

In case you haven’t been watching the news lately — because sunshine and summer weather — ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist group that currently controls a significant chunk of northern Iraq and parts of rebel Syria. Not coincidentally, their territory overlaps a TON with important oil sources. Once a part of al-Qaeda, ISIS split off as its own separate entity earlier this year.

Why?

Because their ideology was too extreme even for bin Laden’s cronies. That says a lot.

ISIS — which stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – made news this week after the Washington Post translated its “Contract of the City,” a document that was distributed to citizens of the Iraqi province of Nineveh. Folks, it’s pretty cray.

The contract essentially reads like a list of rules, a dos and don’ts guideline, if you will, for the people of Nineveh. It lists limb amputation as a suitable punishment for stealing, allows for the crucifixion of criminals, and essentially bans women from leaving their homes.

This is really not cool. But! Before you get all hawk-eyed and demand American intervention in Iraq to save all the poor, downtrodden Iraqi victims, let’s all take a moment and listen to Jon Stewart.

I fucking love this man.

Folks, here’s the deal: Groups like al Qaeda, and its increasingly violent offshoot, ISIS, are awful and dangerous and need to be stopped. They totally need to stop existing. We are all in agreement there.

Not only do they pose a threat to the Iraqi people as a whole — who are at risk of getting their limbs chopped off willy nilly if they break a rule on their way to work — but they also pose a threat to the larger global community. Their ideology is depressingly common, and the more power groups like theirs seize, the more hostile the world becomes to people who don’t fit into their agenda.

Namely women, queer people, trans people, disabled people, and people of different races, ethnicities, and religious backgrounds.

This is a group that sees women as inherently less than. They’re required to wear “modest dress,” which essentially means they’ll be punished for wearing anything other than a full burqa. They can’t leave their homes. They are bought and sold like property from fathers to husbands. And wife beating? Totally cool.

ISIS doesn’t see women — or anyone else who isn’t a straight, masculine-presenting, Muslim man — as people. They’re not human beings. It’s a really, really bad situation.

And because of that, along with obvious national security concerns, many Americans want to rush our military right back into Iraq. John McCain, as the always entertaining Jon Stewart reminds us, is one of those folks. But there’s a huge hole in that plan.

Groups like ISIS exist because of Western intervention in the Middle East. They are a direct result of Western imperialism. Al Qaeda formed in the late 1980s as a reaction to Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan — a move that subjected the Afghan people to extreme violence and poverty. It formed as a resistance movement, an answer to the injustices Afghanistan faced at the hands of European, imperialist oppressors.

And they only gained traction as the West continued to insert itself into a corner of the world where it ultimately didn’t belong. Violence and living conditions worsened for civilians. Coups were staged, leaders were deposed, and corrupt figureheads were set up in their place. (Remember Saddam Hussein? The U.S. and Great Britain put him there).

The political problems that plague the Middle East are largely our fault. But instead of taking responsibility for the consequences of misguided power-grabbing and oil pursuit, the U.S. likes to paint a different picture. A pretty racist one, in fact, where Iraqi is a confused, childlike nation, unable to govern itself without making a huge mess. And Americans? We’re painted as the concerned father figure, stepping in to calm the commotion.

But folks, it’s not true. This story is a lie.

The U.S. isn’t a soothing father figure. It’s more like an instigator. And the sexist, xenophobic ideology of groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda isn’t the product of an unsophisticated, backward, childlike nation. The ideology of our conservative leaders is chillingly similar, if more palatably phrased and with Jesus, not Allah, at its helm.

The white savior narrative that war hawks like John McCain are spewing was created by an elite group of politicians and corporate powerhouses who crave money, power, and oil. They don’t care what it costs.

But I hope that you do.

Let’s come up with a more innovative solution to warmongering in Iraq. A solution that doesn’t rely on lies, racism, and increased violence. A solution that creates real, positive change for the people living under ISIS’ tyranny.

Show the comments what you’ve got.

Featured image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PLEASE STOP: How Warhawks Are Perpetuating Violence and Racism appeared first on Law Street.

The state department announced that 19 embassies and consulates will be closed through Saturday due to a threat of a terrorist attack.  Many of the embassies were already planning on being closed for part of the week in observance of the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, however intelligence suggests this threat is very serious.

Politicians from both parties have expressed their concern regarding this threat and on Sunday many of them appeared on television shows to shed further light on the situation.  Senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland) reported that an attack is being planned by an al-Qaeda affiliate on the Arab Peninsula, which is considered to be one of the most dangerous groups within the terrorist organization.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R- South Carolina) supports the Obama administration’s decision to temporarily close down the embassies stating the president has learned from what happened in Benghazi.  Additionally, the intelligence regarding the attack was recovered by a controversial NSA surveillance program that was recently leaked by Edward Snowden.

[Reuters]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Orlygur Hnefill via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 19 Embassies Close Amid Terror Threat appeared first on Law Street.