At least five people were killed and at least eight were injured when a gunman opened fire inside the Fort Lauderdale International Airport in Florida on Friday afternoon, the Broward Sheriff’s Office confirmed via Twitter.

Update: 5 ppl dead; 8 injured were taken to an area hospital.

— Broward Sheriff (@browardsheriff) January 6, 2017

The office said it got the initial 911 call around 12:55 p.m., and around 2 p.m., it tweeted that a suspect was taken into custody. But even after that, closer to 3 p.m., additional shots were heard inside the airport and the search for more perpetrators was ongoing.

Active search: Unconfirmed reports of addt’l shots fired on airport property.

— Broward Sheriff (@browardsheriff) January 6, 2017

Everyone evacuated off neighboring plane after reported shooting in baggage. We’re sitting on tarmac. Florida! pic.twitter.com/4h5kRTECso

— Stephen Falk (@stephenfalk) January 6, 2017

Photos and videos shared on social media showed injured people bleeding and general confusion about what was going on.

Shots fired at FLL airport. Guy is bleeding profusely. Supposedly others are shot on the lower level at Delta Term 2. pic.twitter.com/UcL73Y8yGx

— Maxwill Solutions (@MxWllSolutions) January 6, 2017

People started running across the tarmac as CNN tried to figure out what the current situation was.

JUST IN: Passengers at Fort Lauderdale airport seen running across the tarmac https://t.co/mSBYzuRvC5 https://t.co/UsnVix6kjc

— CNN (@CNN) January 6, 2017

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was there during the shooting and reported via Twitter that no one was let out of the airport.

All seems calm now but the police aren’t letting anyone out of the airport – at least not the area where I am.

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) January 6, 2017

Andrea Ruiz is the daughter of an airport worker and told Buzzfeed News that her mother didn’t know what was going on and it seemed like the situation was not safe yet. “SWAT and police ran into parking garage in front of Terminal 2. My mother and coworkers are back in office hiding. No one knows what is happening…something else has happened,” she said.

According to CNN, the FBI and ATF are at the scene. MSNBC reported that the shooter in custody had been identified as Esteban Santiago, a man born in 1990 with a U.S. military ID. It is unclear whether the ID is genuine.

Senator Bill Nelson on MSNBC right now. Says shooter has been identified as Esteban Santiago – carrying a military ID #FortLauderdale

— Stewart Moore (@Stewartmoore) January 6, 2017

Additional threat? After suspect arrested, police now running w weapons drawn & another terminal at Ft Lauderdale airport being evacuated.

— Lisa Fletcher (@lisa_fletch) January 6, 2017

As of Friday afternoon, the situation is still ongoing and the story is developing.

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 At Least Five People Dead After Gunman Opens Fire at Fort Lauderdale Airport appeared first on Law Street.

Armed men attacked the American University of Afghanistan in Kabul on Wednesday, while trapped students tweeted for help from inside the school. Gunshots and explosions were heard as hundreds of students and foreign staff members were trapped inside the campus.

According to Reuters, 12 people, of which seven were students, were killed in the attack. An additional 44 people were wounded. So far, no organization has taken responsibility for the attack.

One man who managed to escape the violence told the New York Times that the sound of gunfire made many students rush out through the emergency exits. Shortly after that, they heard an explosion. Two of his friends were injured and hospitalized; one jumped from a window, and one was shot in his back.

Ambulances and security forces quickly arrived at the university, and a team of police officers entered. Gunfire started again shortly after that and two attackers were killed. Even though the attack happened at night, many were still on campus taking evening classes after work.

Police officer Ahmad Jawad told the New York Times that someone detonated a car bomb outside of the school for the blind, which is adjacent to the American University. The attackers seem to have entered that school and then start shooting at the university.

In the early moments of the attack, students as well as relatives and friends on the outside desperately called for help on social media. A pillar of smoke was seen above the university during the attack. This picture from war correspondent Mustafa Kazemi shows the view from a distance.

Photo attributed to the attack on American University of Afghanistan in Kabul pic.twitter.com/EVunzOpyd3

— KAZEMI, Mustafa (@CombatJourno) August 24, 2016

Reporter: Fires on American University campus in Kabul; witnesses hear blast, gunfire. https://t.co/UBfOhQUFFapic.twitter.com/2lYGeLDL5x

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) August 24, 2016

Pulitzer Prize winner and AP photographer Massoud Hossaini was among the people on campus when the shooting started but escaped with minor injuries.

Afghanistan’s 24-hours news network TOLOnews posted updates about the situation.

#AUAF UPDATE – Relatives of wounded students donate blood at the Kabul Emergency Hospital

— TOLOnews (@TOLOnews) August 24, 2016

The American University in Afghanistan has been open since 2006 and has been an important symbol of partnership between Afghanistan and the United States. The U.S. funds many scholarships for Afghans to study there, including many for women.

On August 7, two professors, one American and one Australian, at the American University were kidnapped by a criminal group according to ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqqi. It remains unknown whether there is a connection between that kidnapping and the recent attack.

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 Armed Men With Explosives Attack American University in Kabul appeared first on Law Street.

Lloyd “Carl” Fields Jr. was tragically killed during an ISIS attack in Jordan last November. Fields, a defense contractor from Florida, was at the International Police Training Center in Amman training a policeman who killed him; ISIS later took credit for the attack. Now, Fields’ widow has filed a lawsuit against Twitter, arguing that the social media platform has essentially supported the rise of ISIS by allowing the terrorist group to spread messages and fundraise using its technology.

The lawsuit filed by Tamara Fields alleges that:

Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most- feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible. According to the Brookings Institution, ISIS ‘has exploited social media, most notoriously Twitter, to send its propaganda and messaging out to the world and to draw in people vulnerable to radicalization.’ Using Twitter, ‘ISIS has been able to exert an outsized impact on how the world perceives it, by disseminating images of graphic violence (including the beheading of Western journalists and aid workers) . . . while using social media to attract new recruits and inspire lone actor attacks.’ According to FBI Director James Comey, ISIS has perfected its use of Twitter to inspire small-scale individual attacks, ‘to crowdsource terrorism’ and ‘to sell murder.’

The fact that ISIS has used Twitter to spread messages, raise funds, and entice converts isn’t a secret. But the question that this lawsuit essentially poses is whether or not Twitter should be held responsible for those uses. Twitter’s “Abusive Behavior” policies state that “Users may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.” But exactly what that means is hard to qualify–particularly when ISIS members or sympathizers may used coded words or phrases, and when the difference between an ISIS member and a jokester, or a rabble-rouser, aren’t necessarily easy to glean. Moreover, if Twitter blocks one user, a new account usually pops up in its place. So, for a giant tech platform like Twitter, preventing ISIS from using it may be easier said than done.

Twitter has responded to the lawsuit, stating:

While we believe the lawsuit is without merit, we are deeply saddened to hear of this family’s terrible loss. Like people around the world, we are horrified by the atrocities perpetrated by extremist groups and their ripple effects on the Internet. Violent threats and the promotion of terrorism deserve no place on Twitter and, like other social networks, our rules make that clear. We have teams around the world actively investigating reports of rule violations, identifying violating conduct, partnering with organizations countering extremist content online, and working with law enforcement entities when appropriate

Fields’ lawsuit isn’t just about damages though–she’s asking the court to issue an order that Twitter has violated the Anti-Terrorism Act, which could could require not only Twitter to seriously overhaul its policies to become more responsible for how the network is used, but seriously affect our social media landscape as a whole.

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 Wife of Man Killed by ISIS Sues Twitter 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.