Last year, JD.com, China’s version of Amazon, got its business off the ground–literally. The company launched a fleet of delivery drones that have been bringing packages to buyers within minutes. In one province, the company just received government approval to use drone delivery for packages weighing more than a ton, according to Vox. This form of delivery has been especially effective for JD.com in delivering packages to rural areas. The drones are fully automated and follow set paths. Rather than delivering straight to the customer’s door, they drop orders at a specific site in rural villages, where locally-based contractors then deliver the packages.

Faster delivery that reaches more people–it seems like a logical step for American companies. So why aren’t delivery drones flooding our skies? Read on to find out.

What’s Stopping the Drones?

The idea of drone delivery isn’t a new concept to American business leaders. Back in 2013, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos discussed the possibility of drone delivery in a “60 Minutes” interview. Much of his segment is already dated–Bezos talked about the very beginnings of developing original television programming for Amazon Studios–however, he said drone delivery was only a few years away. American customers are still waiting on the first air delivery and Prime Air’s website does not yet list an official launch date for the service to be available to buyers.

“We will deploy when and where we have the regulatory support needed to safely realize our vision,” the website reads. “We’re excited about this technology and one day using it to deliver packages to customers around the world in 30 minutes or less.”

The biggest barrier is government regulation. The Federal Aviation Administration has historically been hazy on drone policy. The department has come under fire for not establishing clear privacy or safety laws for drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

In 2015, the FAA required drone users to register in a federal database. Last month, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. overturned that regulation, ruling that it did not have legal standing over those flying drones for recreational, not commercial, purposes.

With regard to commercial drone usage, the FAA’s guidelines, set last June, do not permit aerial package delivery. According to the regulations, drones used for commercial purposes must remain in the line of sight of the pilot. Tech companies and others interested in commercial drone usage are lobbying the FAA to change those regulations. Amazon itself has several lobbyists working on this goal.

Going Global

To get around these federal roadblocks, Amazon has moved across the pond to test its delivery. Last summer, the company gained approval from the U.K. to test drones in the country’s airspace. Just a few months later, in a private trial, the company made its first drone delivery–an Amazon FireStick and a package of popcorn–to a customer in Cambridge.

In New Zealand, Domino’s is experimenting with drone delivery pizzas. And an American startup based in California is using the vehicles to transport medical supplies to Rwanda. Earlier this month, Amazon announced the creation of a drone testing center in Paris, which will work with the centers in the U.S., U.K., Austria, and Israel.

The delay in drone use in the U.S. is frustrating–to consumers, companies, and drone-use advocates. Timothy Carone, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and expert on automation (he co-authored the book “Future Automation–Changes to Lives and Businesses”), told Wired in December that it is “unfortunate, almost tragic” that Amazon is piloting drone delivery in the U.K., rather than in the U.S.

“The FAA, like most government agencies, works on times scales that are increasingly slower than the evolution of new businesses and technologies,” Carone said. “Soon it will make decisions on technologies that are already outdated.”

Since then, Prime Air has only made one delivery on U.S. soil–at an invite-only tech conference in March–and the delivery was pre-approved by the FAA. The convenience store 7-Eleven has had mild success in delivering packages via drone, but all of its trials have been within the pilot’s line of site, to customers within a mile of the Reno, Nevada store.

Other Concerns

Beyond the regulatory barriers, there are a multitude of other concerns and problems that Amazon and other companies will have to address before drone delivery becomes commonplace in the U.S.

Air safety and environmental concerns are top priority. To ensure that drones can coexist peacefully with other aircrafts, avoid crashing into tall buildings and construction cranes, and aren’t hazardous to birds, trees, or bodies of water, companies that wish to use drones will have to work closely with air traffic control, even developing new systems. Amazon has said that data from its trials in the U.K. are helping to develop and improve air traffic control systems that deal with drones in both the U.S., through NASA, and in the U.K. And there is, of course, the very real fear that drone deliveries will wipe out thousands of driving and packaging jobs.

On top of these challenges, leadership at Prime Air has seen some turnover. The co-founder of the project, Daniel Buchmueller, quietly left Amazon at the end of last year, at what seems to be a pivotal time in the company’s pursuit of aerial delivery.

What’s Next For Drone Policy?

President Donald Trump’s actions on drones have largely dealt with warfare. In a controversial decision in March, Trump handed authority to launch drone strikes to the CIA. Under President Barack Obama, only the military had the power to launch strikes, making the operations more transparent since the Pentagon has to report on all airstrikes.

The new presidential administration has had little to say on commercial and recreational drone usage. But last week, the White House backed proposed legislation that would allow the government to track and destroy drones flying over U.S. soil that it deems a security threat. This is a security and privacy issue–the administration is concerned about the ability of terrorists to use drones to carry weapons or conduct surveillance.

The draft document warns that government activities, like wildland firefighting, search and rescue operations, and border control, could be threatened by the commercial availability of unmanned aircraft systems. According to the document, drones are difficult to detect and monitor, but the technology available to do so may not be currently legal for such purposes.

“Some of the most promising technical countermeasures for detecting and mitigating [unmanned aircraft systems] may be construed to be illegal under certain laws that were passed when UAS were unforeseen,” the document reads. “These laws include statutes governing electronic communications, access to protected computers, and interference with civil aircraft.”

It is unclear how legislation like this, should it pass, would affect the ability of companies like Amazon to use drones for delivery.

“An Emerging Technology”

Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary, spoke briefly on drones for commercial use during her confirmation hearings. She has not proposed any changes to policy as of yet, but emphasized the importance of safety regulations in any drone laws.

“Safety will continue to be the primary objective,” Chao said. “Regulatory decisions should be rooted in analysis derived from sound science and data.”

“Farewell Reception Honoring Hudson Distinguished Fellow and Secretary of Transportation-designate Elaine L. Chao” Courtesy of Hudson Institute: License (CC BY 2.0)

Chao also acknowledged that the government’s “failure to pace with emerging technologies” is causing U.S. transport to fall behind other countries.

“It’s an emerging technology, there are those who see the benefits of commercializing them for various uses, it’s transforming the way we work, the way we do commerce,” she said. “There are also those who are very concerned about privacy issues, security issues, and again for going forward with an emerging technology as important as this with such vast implications for our future, I think we need to talk about it, we need to have again a national consensus for where we’re going.”

Conclusion

With JD.com’s success with drone delivery, and Amazon’s fourth international development center opening soon, everyone from consumers to CEOs are anxiously awaiting improvements to federal policy that will make drone delivery a reality for Americans. Some say the key lies in redefining drones so that they are not considered aircrafts and subject to the same regulations as jetliners.

Even without delivery, the presence of drones themselves is only going to become more prominent as the months go on. The FAA estimated earlier this year that the number of drones used for recreational purposes will increase from 1.1 million in 2016 to more than 3.5 million over the next five years. For commercial drones, the fleet could grow from 42,000 in 2016 to as many as 1.6 million by the end of 2021, depending on how quickly regulations catch up.

With numbers like that, it’s understandable that American consumers are getting antsy waiting for drone-dropped packages to appear on their doorsteps.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Are the Drones?: How Red Tape is Slowing Down Drone Delivery 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:

Britain Raises Threat Level, Anticipates More Attacks

British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level in the country to its highest level yesterday evening, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester on Monday night. In a speech late last night, May declared that the government anticipates more attacks. She said the move to raise the threat level was based on “not only that an attack remains highly likely, but that a further attack may be imminent.” The heightened threat level, set to the maximum for the first time in 10 years, means as many as 5,000 troops could be soon patrolling the streets. Military personnel will assist police officers in “guarding duties at key fixed locations.”

UK prime minister says threat level has been raised from “severe to critical”; another attack “may be imminent.” https://t.co/A8P88DB3nl pic.twitter.com/0TgcSxkVzm

— ABC News (@ABC) May 24, 2017

May also said that the police are investigating whether the bomber, Salman Abedi, was acting alone. “The work undertaken throughout the day has revealed that it is a possibility that we cannot ignore, that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack,” she said. Some of the victims have now been identified, and one of them was only eight years old.

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: May 24, 2017 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.

Last week’s top stories on Law Street included SCOTUS ruling that evidence obtained illegally can be used in court, new FAA rules for commercial drones, and RantCrush’s top stories from June 23. ICYMI, check out the top stories below.

1. Utah v. Strieff: SCOTUS Narrows Fourth Amendment Protections

A verdict in Utah v. Strieff was handed down by the Supreme Court yesterday, weighing in on how the Fourth Amendment applies to illegal searches. In a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed a ruling from the Utah Supreme Court, concluding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be used in court. Read the full article here.

2. FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules. Read the full article here.

3. RantCrush Top 5: June 23, 2016

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 ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules.

The problem for Amazon and other retailers with hopes of delivering orders via drones is the requirement that mandates the pilot to always be in the line of sight of the aircraft. In addition, drones can only fly in daylight, and can’t weigh more than 55 pounds.

DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems https://t.co/yr1VUrygOf #drones #flysafe pic.twitter.com/XaUTA9rhB7

— The FAA (@FAANews) June 21, 2016

The Big Brother Aspect

The biggest issue with regulating drones has been ensuring safety and privacy. Several groups have expressed fears that they could be used for spying on people, or are simply not safe enough. The fact that they can now be as small as insects, and can use cameras with facial recognition technology, is indeed unsettling to some. “The FAA continues to ignore the top concern of Americans about the deployment of commercial drones in the United States–the need for strong privacy safeguards,” Marc Rotenberg, president of Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Boston Globe.

Drone captures 70 tiger sharks feasting on a whale https://t.co/JGGv3F9pPa pic.twitter.com/gBrqVjmVYZ

— Drones (@drones) May 24, 2016

Despite this, some in the business sector are happy with the new rules. Michael Drobac, a lawyer for drone efforts at companies like Amazon and Google, said:

Within months you will see the incredible impact of these rules with commercial drones becoming commonplace in a variety of uses. This will show the technology is reliable, and then it becomes harder to argue against broader uses–like for delivery.

More Jobs

According to the press release from the Federal Aviation Administration, the new regulations could open up more than 100,000 new jobs within the next 10 years, and could generate more than $80 billion for the U.S. economy. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said: “We are part of a new era in aviation, and the potential for unmanned aircraft will make it safer and easier to do certain jobs, gather information, and deploy disaster relief.”

Before the new rules, a piloting license was needed in order to operate a drone, but with the new rules you only need  a “remote pilot certificate,” which is attainable by passing an aeronautical knowledge test. You must be at least 16-years-old to fly a drone, and cannot fly the aircraft over other people. The new rules don’t affect hobbyists, however, so if you own a drone and want to know what is allowed, you can read the FAA’s “Fly for Fun” guidelines here.

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 FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones appeared first on Law Street.

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

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 Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

The future is now…on hold until further notice. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed drone regulations that will make Amazon’s future drone service (dubbed “Amazon Prime Air”) nearly impossible to implement. Unfamiliar with the online retailer’s plan to send packages via unmanned drone? Take at look at this video with Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos featured on CBS This Morning.

The concept of drone ethics has become a hot-button issue both in the United States and abroad. Most recently, the off-Broadway play “Grounded,” starring Anne Hathaway, has brought issues regarding remote drone pilots into the spotlight.

Drone regulation remains a highly divisive issue. There is no question that drones have the potential to be used as weapons of war  as well as tools for efficient aid delivery.

Let’s highlight some clear benefits to delivery by drone in the United States. If small aircraft are being used, that means having fewer delivery trucks on the road, less fuel being consumed, and faster delivery times. Companies like Amazon and Google are urging the FAA to revise its irksome rules that impede the use of drone technology rather than accommodate it.

For example, under FAA rules all drone operators must fly aircraft “only within their line of sight.” While this rule might make sense for a recreational drone user, it does not necessarily make sense for a commercial drone that could be programmed to follow a GPS path to an exact location.

Speaking of recreational drone users–if you or anyone you know owns a drone, you could get into big trouble if you do not abide by the FAA’s policies regarding small, unarmed aircraft systems.

Seems like a lot of rules for a device that could be bought online for under a hundred bucks. In fact, on most sites there are no age restrictions to purchase drones. Are kids or teenagers going to know that flying drones above 400 feet is illegal? Are they even going to abide by the FAA’s rules even if they do know? Hopefully they don’t try to fly drones in harsh weather. Or fly too close to seagulls. Or interfere with local air traffic. (Suddenly smart phones don’t seem so dangerous anymore.)

The FAA has created conservative rules regarding drone use, and it is going to take its time evaluating comments from the public and private sectors while it revises those rules. Roughly speaking, it will take 18 to 24 months for the FAA to review everything and speak with Amazon regarding proposed policy changes.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking Forward to Amazon Deliveries Via Drone? FAA Says Not So Fast appeared first on Law Street.

Push a button, kill people thousands of miles away: who is surprised that PTSD is a result? United States pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, are not immune to the devastation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), despite their relative physical distance from carnage.

Often framed as the ruggedly masculine problem of a “drone warrior,” the PTSD of drone pilots has a history of being valorized by journalists: GQ’s introduction to a piece on Airman First Class Brandon Bryant’s drone-induced PTSD describes him as having “hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar.” Writing about “terrorists” (many civilians are killed by drone attacks) like they are not human (“hunting”?!), much of the journalism surrounding drone pilots’ PTSD valorizes the suffering of white, straight men as being “for the sake of their country.”

There are exceptions, of course: some journalists slam drone attacks as murder (see video above). However, regarding drone pilots and PTSD, the glorification of American masculinity generally rules the day. Bryant, for instance, tugged at the sympathy of readers when his PTSD was framed by various news sources as being a burden on his sex and love life, turning women away from him and isolating him from potential peers. Even pieces covering PTSD that do sometimes challenge U.S. policy as opposed to glorifying the grit of traumatized male soldiers still leaves readers with the impression that, even if the public is not entitled to know all the details that make drone attacks “necessary,” drone pilots “probably know” (implying, of course, that there are, in fact, justifications for these strikes).

Now don’t get me wrong: PTSD is PTSD, and I would never, ever wish its horrific and suffocating grip on anyone, no matter what they’ve done.

And yet. And yet. Not all PTSD is created equal.

In the context of the U.S. engaging in another war in Iraq (to the tune of depressingly little [or little covered] organized public outrage), the coverage of PSTD in drone pilots is again—and again, and again–on the rise.

What purpose does this serve?

Focusing on U.S. drone pilots having PTSD is important: it is itself horrific and demands attention, and it also may help draw the attention of those who may otherwise find drone attacks unqualified successes. But focusing on the PTSD of U.S. pilots detracts focus from where it really needs to be: the traumas and horrendous death and psychological tolls that drone attacks inflict in countries of color. When “precise” drone strikes target 41 people but end 1,147 human lives, certainly the discussion should be broader than the (undeniably horrendous) pain of the (in media coverage) white American men who pulled the triggers. We must use this coverage of PTSD to expand the conversation to discuss the myriad ways that U.S.-inflicted terrorism in countries of color privileges the terrible traumas of U.S. soldiers at the expense of confronting the mass traumas and mass murders that the U.S. is inflicting through drone attacks.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drone Pilot PTSD is Awful, But Also Beside the Point appeared first on Law Street.

Commercial aviation received a long-awaited triumph Sunday when the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) released draft rules for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) that could mark the beginning of a commercial drone trend for businesses. According to The Washington Post, once these rules undergo public review and are finalized, the FAA estimates more than 7,000 businesses will obtain drone permits within three years.

These new UAS rules would make it relatively easy for businesses to acquire drone piloting licenses. After paying about $200 in fees, operators would simply have to pass a written proficiency test, and be vetted by the TSA to receive a license–no flight demonstrations necessary.

However these new FAA rules have some limitations that aren’t entirely business friendly. Operators must be at least 17-years-old and are required to remain within eyesight of their drones at all times. Drones can also only be flown during daylight hours under 100 mph and below an altitude of 500 feet. These restrictions would make long distance flights impossible, squashing “drone delivery” plans for Domino’s Pizza “Domicopter,” newspaper distributors, and Amazon’s plan to deliver goods by drone.

Amazon’s Prime Air promised to reinvent modern delivery systems, with designs to “safely get packages into customers’ hands in 30 minutes or less using small unmanned aerial vehicles.” An example of how the futuristic delivery system would work can be seen in the video below.

In July, Amazon execs pleading with the FAA for more regulatory support after hampered outdoor testing efforts, threatening to take their system overseas if not given a solution. This seems to have had no effect on the FAA decision making. Paul Misener, Amazon’s vice president for global policy, told USA Today that these current rules wouldn’t allow Prime Air to operate in the United States, but it’s not likely to stop Amazon from working towards a time when it can operate. Misner stated:

The FAA needs to begin and expeditiously complete the formal process to address the needs of our business, and ultimately our customers. We are committed to realizing our vision for Prime Air and are prepared to deploy where we have the regulatory support we need.

These regulations only apply to drones weighing 55 pounds or less. The FAA is still drafting plans for larger drones that are expected to take several more years before being sorted out. The small hobby drones that have become exceedingly popular in the U.S. aren’t subject to the rulings either. Under a law passed by Congress in 2012, the FAA is largely prohibited from regulating them as long as they do not interfere with air traffic.

Don’t expect to see  one of these buzzing billboards anytime soon though; businesses likely won’t be able to begin adopting them until at least early 2017. As for Amazon, Prime Air may not be a complete lost cause in the states. Commercial drone regulations are likely to loosen as they become more commonplace.

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 FAA Drone Rules Will Slow Amazon’s Prime Air Plans appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

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 ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Iraq, the country America spent over eight and a half years nation building, is in a state of chaos, and a group called ISIS is responsible. Here’s everything you need to know about the sources of conflict in Iraq, who is to blame, and what America can do about it.

Update: June 19, 2014

What is ISIS?

ISIS stands for Islamic State In Syria, and is also known as the Islamic State In Iraq and Levant. It is a Jihadist militant group that lays claim to land in Syria and is rapidly gaining territory in Iraq. Their stated goal is to create an Caliphate (Islamic state) ruled by a caliph (successor to Muhammad) that includes large regions of Syria and Iraq.

The group has taken advantage of the chaos of the countries they operate in to become one of the most powerful and well-financed militant organizations in the world.

ISIS used to be Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria and Iraq, but Al Qaeda disavowed the group this past February after months of feuding.

They are now fighting with the Iraqi government for control over many key cities.

What is ISIS’s problem with the current Iraqi government?

Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, is a member of the Shia branch of Islam. He has been accused by his critics of exacerbating tensions between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds by appointing hardline Shiites to government positions.

What’s the difference between Sunnis and Shiites?

Sunni and Shia are two separate branches of the Islamic faith. After the Prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, Sunnis believed that the next leader of the Islamic world should be decided based on merit, whereas Shiites believed that the next leader of the Islamic world should be a descendant of Muhammad. The two branches split and there has been tension as well as bloodshed between the two ever since.

This is a very simple explanation of the divide. A whole article would be necessary to accurately explain why these two groups are still causing so much violence in the world today.

Iraq is home to three major ethnic groups: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. None of these groups like each other, and that tension has been the cause of sectarian violence ever since the United States invaded in 2003.

Who is winning?

ISIS, by a long shot.

They have complete control over Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, and ISIS is already fighting over Baghdad, the nation’s capital.

Iraqi soldiers have been dropping their weapons and fleeing from ISIS, and the ones who have not run away have been brutally executed (WARNING: Graphic images).

What impact is this having on the region?

This is pretty much the worst case scenario for a post-U.S. invasion Iraq. The Iraqi government is collapsing quickly. Iraqis have lost confidence in their government and have joined militias to protect themselves. A top Shiite cleric has called upon all Iraqi Shiites to take up arms and repel the Sunni militants. This combination of a power vacuum and ethnic tension has all of the makings of a major ethnic conflict and, if ISIS is that powerful and brutal, a genocide.

Ethnic violence has reached the point of a humanitarian crisis. On June 15, ISIS claimed to have executed 1,700 Iraqi soldiers and posted gruesome photos to their social media profiles. Government forces shot 44 Sunni prisoners in their cells on June 16. That same day, a suicide bombing killed 16 Shiites.

The fact that Saudi Arabia is known to back ISIS has created even further tension throughout the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other, and a Sunni militant organization taking so much land near the Shia Iranian border does not make the Iranian government feel safe. Things are so upside down that Iran, who often refers to America as the “Great Satan,” has spoken with American diplomats about working together to stabilize the crisis.

This tweet from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani seems to say that Iran will not wait if the United States does not respond. Iran is ready to “protect” holy Shiite sites in Iraq, most likely with force.

Iranian nation will protect #Iraq's holy shrines & they aren't alone. Iraq's Sunnis, Shias & Kurds all ready to defeat terrorism #solidarity

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) June 18, 2014

Meanwhile, the Kurdish population in the Northern regions of Iraq have taken advantage of the chaos by strengthening their hold over their land. While this region has always been somewhat autonomous, Kurds believe they have a real chance to take this land away from Iraq entirely and claim it for themselves. Of course, there are disputes over which lands are Kurdish, which are Sunni, and which are Shiite, so this independence will not take place peacefully. Kurds have already started a militia called the Peshmerga to claim and protect these territories. Here is a Vice News report about the Peshmerga, ISIS, and their respective strategies:

The impact on Iraq’s oil exports could send shockwaves through the global economy. While most of the ports in Iraq are safe in the Southern region of the nation, there have already been clashes over the nation’s largest refinery. An oil conflict in OPEC’s second largest exporter could have a major impact on the market as a whole.

Who is to blame for this mess?

It’s Britain and France’s Fault

At this point you are probably asking yourself, “what idiot drew the borders of Iraq to include three ethnic groups that despise each other to the point of taking up arms?” The answer to that question lies in your high school history curriculum, all the way back to World War I. In 1916, both Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which split the Ottoman Empire between the two powers after they won the war. This map ignored tribal lines and instead drew borders that would benefit the imperial powers.

There is no footage of this agreement being drawn out, but The Daily Show gives us a pretty good idea of how it probably went down.

These borders have stayed roughly the same, until now. ISIS is ripping apart the Sykes-Picot map in favor of their own borders. The problem is that Sunnis and Shiites do not live in different parts of Iraq. They are a heterogeneous population. If ISIS wants a Sunni-only population, they will have to kill or force the migration of a lot of people.

It’s Obama’s Fault

President Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 after a war that had lasted almost nine years. Despite multiple debates with Maliki, Obama was unable to secure a deal that would leave a small number of troops in Iraq that would help keep order and train the military. It is this lack of any residual forces that the Republican party is blaming for the current unrest. In their eyes, Iraq was in a good spot before the United States withdrew. Crime was down, elections were taking place, and insurgents were effectively counterbalanced by U.S. forces.

Obama made the political choice to withdraw from Iraq without thinking about the consequences or planning for an Iraq in a post-war environment.

Obama’s decision to stay out of Syria has also been criticized, as this allowed groups like ISIS to form in the jihadist hotbed.

The GOP has been hammering Obama on Sunday talk shows and in newspaper columns over this mess. Even former Bush Administration officials, most notably Vice President Dick Cheney, have piled on in the past week.

It’s Bush’s Fault

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that Bush Administration officials have some serious nerve blaming Obama for a problem they created. These are the same people that got us into Iraq (under false pretenses) in the first place. They removed Saddam Hussein from power, destabilized the country, and spent almost nine years, billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives trying to hold the place together.

Liberals have been heavily critical of those who they believe were wrong about Iraq in the first place. This quote from a Paul Waldman column in the Washington Post is particularly strong:

They’re the ones who swore that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, that he had a terrifying arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, that the war would be quick, easy and cheap, that since Iraq was a largely secular country we wouldn’t have to worry about sectarian conflict, and that democracy would spread throughout the region in short order, bringing peace and prosperity along with it.

Bush, much like the British and French of the World War I era, ignored centuries of ethnic conflict in the Middle East, opened a huge power vacuum, and assumed that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds would just work it out peacefully.

From a liberal point of view, Cheney giving fault to Obama for the current crisis in Iraq is blame avoidance at its worst.

It’s Maliki’s Fault

Observers of Iraq argue that this is not the fault of Obama or Bush, but a political failure on the part of Maliki. During his tenure as Prime Minister he has stifled Sunni protests, refused economic concessions to Kurdish regions, and generally ignored a large plurality of the population. ISIS is gaining influence not because of their radical Islamist views but because they provide an opposition to Maliki that is powerful. Those who are fighting are not necessarily joining ISIS but are merely battling alongside them against a common enemy. Obama and Iran have been trying to get Maliki to start discussions with Sunni and Kurdish leaders, but it might be too little, too late. There is no good will between himself and Sunnis for Maliki to use as a way to get anyone to the table. A moderator of any diplomatic settlement would have to be an outsider, and a precondition to talks would most likely be Maliki’s resignation.

What can the United States do?

The United States has already sent 275 troops back to Iraq, but they are only there to protect the U.S. Embassy. They will not be fighting for the Iraqi government.

However, there are ways that Obama could assist Maliki in repelling this militant invasion. The New York Times is reporting that he is considering selective airstrikes on the militant groups using drones.

Beyond that, few people have any concrete ideas about what the United States should be doing to solve the crisis. Some in Congress are arguing that the United States should do “something,” but will not specify what that “something” is.

Retired Marines Lt. Col. Oliver North seems to be one of the few people arguing for sending troops to Iraq to fight ISIS.

Should the United States do anything?

If you ask the American people, the answer is no. According to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, 74 percent of Americans oppose sending troops to Iraq. 46 percent of Americans in a Rasmussen poll support air strikes, but that is still not a large mandate.

Lawmakers are unsure about whether or not they support any military action in Iraq. Congressmen who supported the war 12 years ago are suddenly unsure about even using air strikes.

These signs point to a public and a government that is wary of war in the Middle East. The wounds of the Iraq War are too fresh to reopen.

“After a decade of war, we’ve all had enough,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

The last time Obama considered military action that the public opposed and Congress was unsure of was in Syria. He ended up not bombing Assad’s regime.

An airstrike would give Obama one benefit: If it succeeded, and helped Maliki conduct a successful counterattack, it would give him the leverage he needs to negotiate a peace deal and make his government more inclusive.

However, without spotters on the ground, it is difficult to accurately strike the right target and not strike any civilians. Effective air strikes would require at least some troops in Iraq.

As General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it at a recent Senate panel, “it’s not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of a convoy and then striking it […]These forces are very intermingled.”

Conclusion

Iraq is falling, and there is not much that the United States can do about it. Centuries of sectarian conflict, a decade of U.S. occupancy, and incompetent Iraqi leadership have all led to this moment. ISIS is on the verge of tearing apart the Sykes-Picot borders and establishing a caliphate in the Middle East. The inevitably bloody upcoming civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds might bring about the end of Iraq as we know it.

Update: On June 19, Obama announced that 300 military advisers would be sent to Iraq. Obama will also provide Iraq with counterterrorism equipment and two joint operations centers to give Iraqi forces the intelligence they need to fight ISIS. However, in the same announcement, Obama made two things clear: these military advisors will not engage in direct combat and that United States will not provide support to one Islamic sect at the expense of another. He still insisted that ground troops would not be sent to the conflict.

American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again,” Obama said. “We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in thousands of troops and committing the kind of blood and treasure that has already been expended.

Obama also mentioned that other military options were still on the table, and pressured Maliki to create a new, more inclusive government.

 Resources

Primary

Yale Law SchoolThe Sykes-Picot Agreement

Additional

BBC: Profile: Islamic State In Iraq and Levant

Merced Sun-Star: Congress lacks consensus on Iraq

The New York Times: US and Iran signaling new joint effort in Iraq Crisis

The New York TImes: Obama considering selective airstrikes

The New York Times: Massacre claim shakes Iraq

News 4: Oliver North: Boots on the ground only viable option

Hill: American troops in Iraq might be inevitable

CBS News: GOP: Iraq disintegrating because of Obama’s withdrawal

Foreign Policy: Who lost Iraq?

Atlantic: Let’s not ignore those who got Iraq wrong

Reuters: Timeline of the Iraq War

LA Times: Kurds see historic opportunity in Northern Iraq

Foreign Policy: How does ISIS fund their operations?

Foreign Policy: Three major worries about Iraq

Mediaite: Is Iraq more or less stable without Hussein?

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crisis Hits Iraq: The Rise of ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Whether you’re for or against drone strikes, it should at least be accepted that regulations should be followed when using drones. The Obama Administration’s drone strike policies have most recently come into question after a wedding procession turned into a funeral. The December 2013 drone strike in Yemen violated the Administration’s own policies to prevent civilian casualties, according to a recent report by Human Rights Watch. A dozen people were killed and many others injured, including the bride. While the government claimed that the strike targeted and killed only militants, Human Rights Watch reported otherwise. This incident begs two questions:

1. What are the Obama Administration’s drone strike regulations?  

2. Are the regulations effective at targeting terrorists and protecting civilians?

Obama cited his administration’s drone policies in a speech last May, stating that strikes are permitted only when there is ‘near certainty’ that no civilians will be hurt. However, the phrase ‘near certainty’ was never officially defined and remains ambiguous. Additional guidelines included the following: ‘near certainty’ of the presence of the enemy; the enemy still poses a threat to the United States; and no possibility of the enemy’s being arrested or captured by different means. According to Human Rights Watch, the U.S. did not meet any of these guidelines in the December Yemeni attack.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that the terrorist was among the group in the wedding procession?

The U.S. claimed they did, and that among the members of the targeted group was Yemen’s most-wanted terrorist, Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani; however, the government has not offered any conclusive evidence or video proof that the target was, in fact, present during the attack. The government is not legally required to report the logistics of drone strikes, but this very fact points to a potential flaw in the policies. Without a record, there is no way to demand accountability. Moreover, the government’s claim contradicts statements that Human Rights Watch gathered from witnesses and members at the wedding party, none of whom affirmed the presence of the terrorist or other members of Al-Qaeda.

Was the main target and others involved in the attack a threat to U.S. security? 

Shawqi Ali Ahmed al-Badani is claimed to be an Al-Qaeda affiliate who was involved in the shutdown of around a dozen U.S. diplomatic centers across the Middle East last year. It seems that the target did, in fact, pose a continuing threat to U.S. security. However, the study suggests it is likely that the terrorist was not among the group attacked. Furthermore, Human Rights Watch acknowledged that there was a possibility that some Al-Qaeda associates were among the dead; however, it is unknown whether these people posed imminent threats to U.S. security.

Did the U.S. have ‘near certainty’ that no civilians would be hurt?

The fact that those targeted were part of a wedding makes it hard to believe that the United States was sure no civilians would be killed or injured. Moreover after the attack, Yemeni officials presented money and assault rifles, a traditional gift of apology, to the families of the dead and wounded. The Yemeni officials’ apologetic actions signify that many of those attacked were civilians and were mistakenly targeted. Finally, Human Rights Watch asserted that targeting the whole group to eliminate the terrorist would still not justify an attack by the United States since the attack would involve a disproportionate amount of civilian casualties.

According to the report, the Obama Administrations’ drone strike guidelines were not properly followed. Furthermore, the guidelines are not stringent enough to protect civilian lives, as there is no clear and established meaning of ‘near certainty.’ The phrase leaves much to the interpretation.

As more civilians are killed in the process of targeting terrorists, the United States risks endangering its relationship with countries that are working with them to stop terrorism. The U.S. risks breaching international laws of war due to the amount of civilian casualties. There have been more than 390 drone strikes during the Obama Presidency, and the consequences of these strikes include the deaths of 273 civilians. Lawyers from a British human rights organization have already filed in the ICC for the killing of civilians in a drone strike in Pakistan, which signifies the threat of a violation of international law is real. Not only do drone strikes pose a potential threat to civilian life, but they could also worsen the United States’ diplomatic relations with other countries and its own international reputation.

[Washington Post] [Human Rights Watch] [Bureau of Investigative Journalism] [Truthout] 

—

Sarah Shelden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [doctress neutopia via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians? appeared first on Law Street.

Drones: depending on whom you ask, drones are either the military instruments of the future, or the machines that will incite humanity’s destruction. But no matter how you feel about drones, unmanned aerial vehicles in various forms have been used in combat for years.

The United States may have to answer for their use of drones in the weeks to come. Two United Nations experts by the names of Christof Heyns and Ben Emmerson, have released large UN reports on the overall use of drones. The crux of these reports is a demand for greater transparency from countries who use drones—and for the United States to release more robust data on their use of drones.

According to the United Nations, 33 different drone strikes have been detected that have resulted in the death of civilians. According to the government of Pakistan, since 2004 there have been about 330 drone strikes in the northwest territory of Pakistan. These strikes have supposedly resulted in the deaths of 2200 people, 400 of which have been civilians. Emmerson has stated that in Yemen, up to 58 civilians may have been killed by drones.

In the United States, the CIA is inextricably linked to the use of drones. As a result, much of the information about US drone use is classified.  In his report, Emmerson slams this, stating that it creates, “an almost insurmountable obstacle to transparency.” Emmerson claims that the United States does not accurately self report the civilian casualties caused by drone strikes.

There are serious international law issues tied in with the killing of civilians. International law is a somewhat vague and grey field; although the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and various tribunals exist, international law still remains a very abstract idea.

At the risk of over-simplifying a very complicated topic, a brief discussion of international law on the topic of civilian killings can be had. This topic falls under the category of International Humanitarian Law, sometimes referred to by its Latin name jus in bello, used to regulate actions during war. The Geneva Convention amendment Protocol I specifically deals with protections afforded to countries involved in international armed conflicts. The Geneva Convention amendment Protocol I does contain protections for civilians, but the United States has not ratified it.

The United Nation’s implications that US actions may violate international law unfortunately fall on mostly deaf ears. The United States is not going to be brought before a tribunal or a court, at best the United Nations can condemn US drone actions, but there really isn’t any action they can take that will show any sort of teeth. The question of the future of drones and their applicability to conflict, will not be answered with these United Nations reports.

[The Guardian]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Don McCullough 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 The United Nations and Drones appeared first on Law Street.