There may be fewer casualties as a result of the pause in fighting in Syria this week, but there are also starving men, women, and children who continue to suffer because of Bashar al-Assad, the president of the combusting nation. In a briefing with reporters in Geneva on Thursday, the U.N. mediator for Syria said the Assad government has failed to authorize letters that aid convoys need to pass through checkpoints. As a result, the vital aid millions of Syrians hoped to receive during the week-long ceasefire has yet to arrive.

“It’s particularly regrettable because we are losing time,” Staffan de Mistura, the mediator, said. Beginning Monday, the ceasefire has largely held. Jointly implemented by the United States and Russia, the intention is to test whether fighting can remain paused for a week.

If it can, the United States, which opposes Assad’s government, and Russia, Assad’s ally, will begin cooperating in the fight against an enemy shared by all sides, including the rebel groups fighting Assad’s regime: the Islamic State. The ceasefire agreement does not include ISIS or other terrorist groups, such as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly known as the Nusra Front.

But the cessation of hostilities agreement was also intended to crack open a window through which U.N. trucks could pass through, bringing aid to the most devastated pockets in Syria–including areas near Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. That part of the ceasefire has been a failure, and it’s unclear if a joint U.S.-Russia campaign hinges on the humanitarian relief portion of the deal. Assad is in charge of authorizing the letters that aid groups need to proceed.

“Can well-fed, grown men please stop putting political, bureaucratic, and procedural roadblocks for brave humanitarian workers that are willing and able to go to serve women, children, wounded civilians in besieged areas?” said Jan Egeland, the U.N. special adviser on humanitarian affairs.

And while combat has halted in much of the country, casualties were still recorded since the arrangement went into effect. On Thursday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported airstrikes in ISIS-held territory in an eastern province. At least seven civilians were killed, and 30 more were injured. Of the four buildings that were hit with the strikes, one was a school, the group said.

A day earlier, Russia said it killed 250 ISIS fighters near the desert city of Palmyra.

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 In Breach of Ceasefire, Syrian Government Has Yet to Authorize Aid Convoys appeared first on Law Street.

In the fight against the Islamic State, the internet is as vital a battleground as physical geography in Syria or Iraq. It’s where the group, also known as ISIS, spews its venom on potential recruits. It’s a key forum for building its caliphate and inspiring attacks. And it provides a channel for ISIS propaganda to reach those who are ripe for converting to its ideology. But Jigsaw, Google’s think-tank subsidiary, thinks it can complement governments in combating ISIS’ reach online with a strategy it aims to roll-out later this month: targeted advertising.

Jigsaw and London-based firm Moonshot CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) teamed up for an initiative called the Redirect Method. The premise is simple. It uses keywords searched via Google that ISIS recruits have commonly used in the past–the names of towns common on ISIS travel routes, for example, or the names of extremist leaders. When one of 1,700 relevant keywords are searched for, users will be prompted with ads of preexisting YouTube videos that provide counterarguments to the ideology ISIS espouses. The videos, curated by Jigsaw, include Imams disputing ISIS’ mangled view of Islam, testimonials from former extremists, or secretly filmed looks into towns under ISIS’ strict rule.

.@MoonshotCVE found that those searching for extreme ISIS content were also 3X more likely to seek content on mental illness #CounterISIS

— Jordan Humphreys (@jhumphreysDC) September 7, 2016

“The Redirect Method is at its heart a targeted advertising campaign: Let’s take these individuals who are vulnerable to ISIS’ recruitment messaging and instead show them information that refutes it,” Yasmin Green, Jigsaw’s head of research and development told Wired. For potential recruits in the West, English language video are used, for those in the Middle East, the videos are in Arabic.

There have been previous efforts using internet videos to reject ISIS ideology. The U.S. State Department released a series of videos through a YouTube channel called “Think Again Turn Away.” Those videos, however, were original creations, and thus deliberate in their messaging. Jigsaw and Moonshot’s strategy is to use organic, preexisting content delivered by those who have a counter-message to those of ISIS. Curating content that already exists, rather than having to create its own anti-radicalization videos, makes the message “more authentic and therefore more compelling,” Green said.

A pilot project conducted earlier this year was largely successful, at least in terms of how much time people spent watching the ads. During a two-month period, 300,000 people watched their curated videos. 500,000 minutes were spent watching the videos, with some netting an average viewing time of 8 minutes and 20 seconds.

At #CounterISIS, @yasmind is right that digital engagement needs to have an offline engagement component to curb #ISIS recruitment

— Daniel Hajjar (@DanielGHajjar) September 7, 2016

But simply because people are watching anti-ISIS videos does not necessarily mean they’re being dissuaded from joining the group, or from carrying out attacks in its name. At a Brookings Institute event on Wednesday in Washington, Green summed up the project’s intentions as being like any other Google search motivation–providing answers to questions.

“The branding philosophy for the entire pilot project was not to appear judgmental or be moralistic, but really to pique interest of individuals who have questions, questions that are being raised and answered by the Islamic State,” she said.

Alec Siegel

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

The post A Tech Giant and a Startup Collaborate to Counter ISIS Online appeared first on Law Street.

At the few remaining hospitals in Aleppo, Syria on Tuesday, men in pink gowns and nearly naked children gasped into oxygen masks, their lungs desperate for air, eyes wide with confusion. This ghastly scene followed what aid groups and witnesses say was a chemical attack by the Syrian government in the rebel-held eastern half of the city.

While reports of the attack could not be independently verified by media outlets, a handful of aid groups and hospital workers in Aleppo said helicopters flew over Sukkari, an eastern suburb, and dropped barrels of chlorine. Upwards of 100 people–including dozens of children–were hospitalized for treatment. There have been two reported deaths, and though most of the victims were discharged after a few hours, at least ten remain in intensive care.

This represents the third instance in which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has dropped chlorine gas bombs on his own people. The previous two came in 2014 and 2015, a recent UN investigation concluded. All three incidents occurred after a U.S.-led 2013 deal that supposedly stripped the Syrian regime of its chemical arsenal. Chlorine was not included in the deal, however, because it is considered a dual-use chemical, as it has applications other than chemical weaponry.

The attack came while leaders of the various Syrian opposition groups met in London to discuss a political end to the five-year civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. The UN report, published in late August, also concluded that the Islamic State used chemical weapons–sulphur mustard gas–in Syria.

More than 120 people, including 10 women and 37 children, were sickened in a chlorine gas attack in Aleppo, Syria. pic.twitter.com/qgFaOBD1fl

— New York Times Video (@nytvideo) September 7, 2016

“There are more actors today in Syria with the availability of the substances and the ability to mix them and use them, if they so choose, as chemical weapons; and this is something very worrying,” said Virginia Gamba, head of the three-member UN Joint Investigative Mechanism that confirmed chemical weapons use in Syria.

First used on battlefields during World War I, chlorine can lead to shortness of breath, chest tightness, coughing, skin, and eye irritation. In extremely high doses, chlorine can be fatal. The site of Assad’s latest chemical airdrop, Aleppo, has been torn apart in recent months, its citizens trapped between rebel and government-held areas. International aid groups are calling for humanitarian corridors for people to flee the city safely.

Meanwhile, while meeting in Hangzhou, China for the G-20 summit, President Obama and Vladimir Putin of Russia–a key ally of Assad–failed to reach a cease-fire agreement.

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 Syrian Regime Hits Aleppo with Chlorine Bombs; Dozens Hospitalized appeared first on Law Street.

Since becoming president of the Philippines on June 30, Rodrigo Duterte has primarily been consumed with ridding his country of drug-related crimes. This past Friday, however, the Filipino head of state officially declared a “state of lawlessness” after alleged Islamists attacked a marketplace in his hometown of Davao. Only a tier down from enforcing martial law, this latest decree now permits police and military forces to halt vehicles or frisk civilians at their total discretion.

“We have to confront the ugly head of terrorism,” said Duterte on Friday, September 2. “We will take this as a police matter about terrorism.”

Sources say that Abu Sayyaf was responsible for the attack that killed 14 and injured around 70 in the city where Duterte served as mayor for more than 22 years. Categorized as a terrorist organization by both the Philippines and the United States, the militant group is considered to be an ally of the ISIS and originally funded by al Qaeda.

Equipped with over 400 members, the insurgents are committed to forming a sovereign Islamic state on Mindanao Island, which is also where Davao is located. Known for conducting ransoms and abducting foreigners to help fund their endeavors, Abu Sayyaf’s latest operation transpired as Filipino forces led an offensive attack against the separatists in Sulu province.

Now anticipating more attacks, currently Davao is under tight surveillance with numerous checkpoints scattered throughout the city of two million people. Even though Abu Sayyaf has claimed responsibility for Friday’s detonation, “The Punisher” president is adamant about investigating other potential culprits. Bearing in mind that more than 2,000 Filipinos have been extrajudicially killed since Duterte took office, such military progressions are troubling signs that violence may intensify in the upcoming weeks.

“These are extraordinary times and I supposed that I’m authorized to allow the security forces of this country to do searches,” said Duterte while visiting the battered marketplace. “We’re trying to cope with a crisis now. There is a crisis in this country involving drugs, extrajudicial killings and there seems to be an environment of lawless violence.”

Duterte’s Controversial Track Record with Human Rights

During his candidacy Duterte gained widespread support for his “no nonsense” platform against drugs–yet 10 weeks into his presidential tenure the international community had already condemned Duterte’s policies as draconian. Although he is praised by some for his disciplinarian approach to combating drug addiction in the Philippines, others lament the manner in which he is allowing citizens to be persecuted without any legal representation.

According to Sputnik News, Duterte could very well resort to using similar tactics in his response to Abu Sayyaf’s recent belligerence. For example, as police units continue to collaborate with neighborhood patrol squads, accused drug users are being rounded up in “knock and plead” operations where they are expected to voluntarily surrender or face retaliation.

Criticized for encouraging vigilante violence by offering rewards to would-be assassins, the professionally trained lawyer has also angered the United Nations for his observed disregard on human rights, saying that “junkies are not humans” to begin with and that they’re not worthy of second chances.

On top of this, Duterte earned the reputation for being unapologetically brash after making some disparaging comments over the rape and murder of an Australian missionary in 1989–saying, “I was angry she was raped, yes that was one thing. But she was so beautiful, I think the mayor should have been first. What a waste.”

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte “Confronts Ugly Head of Terrorism” 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:

Burning Man Bourgeoisie Raided By Revolutionaries

Burning Man, an annual music festival focused on peace and love has been certifiably ruined after some Burners claim “hooligans” sabotaged their experience by cutting power lines and raiding their camp of luxury goods.

Traditionally, Burning Man, founded in 1986, was intended to be in the spirit of “radical self-reliance,” living off the land, and finding harmony with strangers. However, the event has become overrun with the spawn of the megarich who have come to enjoy Burning Man as some sort of elitist, exclusive desert resort. They glamp their way in and out of the place.

Revolution against ‘rich parasites’ at utopian Burning Man Festival as ‘hooligans’ attack luxury camp https://t.co/wAiuRCKt6n

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 4, 2016

A lot of traditionalists believe those campers who were attacked deserved it because they are erasing the core of what Burning Man was supposed to be.

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 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Moscow is claiming that a Russian airstrike killed ISIS spokesman and key figure Abu Mohammed al-Adnani in Syria on Tuesday. According to Russia’s defense ministry, he was one of 40 rebels who were killed by Russian bomber planes in Maaratat-Umm Khaush, in the Aleppo province.

The U.S., on the other hand, calls the claim preposterous–one U.S. defense official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity, that “Russia’s claim is a joke.”

The U.S. also conducted an airstrike targeting al-Adnani on Tuesday, but has not confirmed whether he was killed. One official said of Russia’s claims to CNN: “It would be laughable but for the very real humanitarian suffering Russia has inflicted.” He added: “We conducted a strike that targeted al-Adnani. We are assessing the results of that strike.”

The official spokesman of ISIS and one of its most senior members has died https://t.co/tXFjE27j1Q pic.twitter.com/646KFp3oLF

— CNN International (@cnni) August 31, 2016

On Tuesday, ISIS announced on its own news agency Amaq that al-Adnani had died during an inspection of military operations. The cause of death was not revealed, but ISIS members said they are determined to seek revenge. They said:

To the filthy and coward nonbelievers and to the holders of the Christ emblem, we bring the good news, which will keep them awake, that a new generation in the Islamic State … that loves death more than life … this generation will only grow steadfast on the path to Jihad, stay determined to seek revenge and be violent toward them.

If al-Adnani is dead, it would mean a significant blow to the terrorist organization. He was one of the remaining founding members and a visible one in his role as ISIS spokesman. He’s been responsible for attacks abroad–Al-Adnani was probably the commander behind the terror attacks in Paris in 2015, and has been encouraging lone wolf attacks on civilians. He was also the right hand of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

“He absolutely tried to maximize every opportunity to instill fear in Syria and Iraq and the international community and send fighters overseas to attack,” said CNN correspondent and diplomatic editor Nic Robertson.

Recent advances by Iraq and its allies toward the city of Mosul, where ISIS has its most important foothold, combined with the U.S. coalition cutting ISIS off from the border of Turkey has put pressure on the group. A U.S. counter terrorism official said that if al-Adnani is indeed dead, it would hurt the Islamic State “in the area that increasingly concerns us as the group loses more and more of its caliphate and its financial base … and turns to mounting and inspiring more attacks in Europe, Southeast Asia and elsewhere.”

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 Russia Takes Responsibility For Killing ISIS Spokesman, U.S. Calls Claim a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday morning, Turkish tanks and special forces units supported by American airstrikes stormed across Turkey’s southern border with Syria, into the town of Jarablus. Within hours, ISIS and Kurdish militants–who control most of the surrounding territory–were thwarted, and the town was under the control of Syrian rebel groups. ISIS troops fled south to the town of al-Bab.

The incursion, while successful from Turkey’s perspective, underscores the interconnected and at times contradictory relationships of the Syrian civil war, which is in its sixth year. Turkey is a NATO member, and therefore an important ally in the region for the U.S., especially as a bulwark against ISIS. But Syrian Kurds, who control much of the border with Turkey, are considered terrorists by Turkey, yet are also one of the U.S.’s most potent surrogates in the fight against ISIS.

But ISIS is the one common denominator in Syria, the one foe that all parties share–Turkey, the U.S., Syrian rebel factions, the Syrian government and its allies (which includes Russia and Iran), and Syrian Kurds. With Wednesday’s “Euphrates Shield” mission–Jarablus sits on the western bank of the Euphrates– Turkey made clear its goal of ridding the border of ISIS and the Kurds, a longtime adversary who it fears aims to create a border-length autonomous zone.

#UPDATE Syria rebels backed by Turkey tanks ‘seize’ IS-held town Jarabulus https://t.co/DyB9GEyXD8 pic.twitter.com/JMOCNU5ZPA

— AFP news agency (@AFP) August 24, 2016

Vice President Joe Biden, who flew to Turkey’s capital, Ankara, on Wednesday to discuss combating ISIS, stood by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Though the U.S. backs Syrian Kurds, Biden said they “must move back across the Euphrates River. They cannot, will not, under any circumstance get American support if they do not keep that commitment.” He added: “We believe very strongly that the Turkish border should be controlled by Turkey.”

Roughly 1,500 soldiers from Syrian rebel groups backed Turkey’s assault, according to an activist embedded with the rebels. It is unclear if Turkey expects the rebels to hand over control of the town, or if its accomplishment of wiping it clean of ISIS militants and Kurds is enough.

Syria, which effectively holds no governance over the territory near its border with Turkey, nevertheless called Turkey’s incursion a “blatant violation” of its sovereignty. Turkey’s aggressive incursion is a response to a string of attacks on its soil by ISIS, most recent of which was a suicide bombing at a wedding in Gaziantep on Saturday. That attack killed 54 people.

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 Turkey Brings Fight Against ISIS Across the Syrian Border appeared first on Law Street.

Turkey backtracked on Monday after suggesting a child between 12 and 14 years old carried out the suicide bombing that killed 54 people at a wedding on Saturday. “A clue has not yet been found concerning the perpetrator,” said Turkey’s Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, calling President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s previous statement a “guess” based on witness accounts. Another 70 wedding guests were wounded, including the groom, after explosions rocked the wedding in the southeastern city of Gaziantep. Nearly half of the dead were under 14 years old.

In his remarks on Sunday, Erdogan said early signs point to the Islamic State, or ISIS, as responsible for the attack. ISIS has sent children to carry out its murderous missions in the past. But the prime minister on Monday clarified that the identity of the perpetrator is foggy, saying officials are unsure at this point if it was a “child or a grown-up” who carried out the attack.

The wedding was for a member of the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP). Turkey’s Kurds–a stateless ethnic group with distinct populations in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey–act as a potent force in the fight against ISIS. Yet they are also adversaries of Erdogan’s government, which considers the PKK–the Kurdish governing body–a terrorist organization. Gaziantep is roughly 50 kilometers (about 30 miles) from the Syrian border, thought to be a convening site for ISIS fighters in Turkey. On Monday, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu voiced his country’s need to rid itself of any ISIS influence.

Turkey is rocked by a string of attacks in the past year as turmoil deepens. Here is a helpful map. pic.twitter.com/jasXik0gju

— Mahir Zeynalov (@MahirZeynalov) August 22, 2016

“Our border has to be completely cleansed of Daesh [the Arabic name for ISIS]. It’s natural for us to give whatever kind of support is necessary,” he said. Some experts see Saturday’s attack as having a duel-motivation: retaliation for recent battlefield successes by Syrian Kurds, and an attempt to fan the flames of ethnic tension already rife in a country still recovering from a failed coup attempt last month.

A statement from the White House National Security Council on Sunday said: “The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms yesterday’s terrorist attack.” It also said Vice President Joe Biden will be traveling to Ankara on Wednesday to discuss strategies regarding ISIS.

As funerals for those killed began on Sunday, so did reminders of how divided and tense Turkey is at the moment. At one funeral, mourners were mostly Kurdish. When Turkish officials came bearing Turkish flags, the Kurdish mourners grew angry and began hurling rocks at the officials.

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 Was Saturday’s Wedding Bombing in Turkey Carried Out by a Child? appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that frustrated the U.S. and has some questioning its adherence to international law, Russia began using a base in Iran to launch airstrikes against targets in Syria on Tuesday. Russia confirmed Wednesday that it launched additional strikes from Iran’s Shahid Nojeh Air Base in Hamedan Province for the second straight day. The U.S. State Department condemned Russia’s actions as “unfortunate, but not surprising,” and added it could be violating a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution by utilizing an Iranian air base.

For roughly the past year, Russia has been supporting the Syrian government with airstrikes against the Islamic State, which continues to maintain a presence in the heavily fractured country. Critics say Russia is bolstering Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, in his quest to exterminate any rebel groups who oppose his rule by deliberately destroying hospitals in rebel-held regions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Syria’s five-year civil war, and millions more have fled the country, seeking asylum in Europe and elsewhere.

Russia said it’s using Iran’s air base strictly to refuel its jets. “In the case we’re discussing there has been no supply, sale or transfer of warplanes to Iran,” said Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister. Lavrov was responding to Mark Toner, the State Department spokesman who insinuated that Russia is breaching UNSC Resolution 2231, which prohibits the supply, sale, or transfer of combat aircraft to Iran without Security Council approval. “The Russian Air Force uses these warplanes with Iran’s approval in order to take part in the counter-terrorism operation,” Lavrov added.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said that Russia did alert U.S. forces of the move to launch jets from Iran, but that didn’t stop the U.S. from questioning the Kremlin’s use of an Iranian airbase as unlawful. On Wednesday, a spokesman for Russia’s Ministry of Defense, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, expressed Russia’s exasperation at suggestions that it’s breaching international law. “It’s hard to resist a recommendation for some State Department representatives to check their logic and knowledge of fundamental documents of international law,” he said, referencing Resolution 2231.

The clash underscores the knotted nature of alliances and adversaries that is crippling any semblance of peace in Syria. Russia is providing military support to the Syrian government, which is also backed by Iran. Those three nations, as well as the U.S. and its primary allies, have a common enemy: ISIS. Assad, the Syrian strongman who has exterminated large swaths of his citizenry, is also pitted against a collection of rebel groups who threaten his hold on power.

Emblematic of the violence that is tearing apart the country at the moment, Aleppo, one of Syria’s largest cities, saw seven civilians killed by rebel-launched airstrikes on Wednesday, according to Syria’s state-run news agency. Nine more were injured. Aleppo is split between the rebel-held east and the government-held west. It’s hospitals are being targeted by the Assad regime. Civilians are effectively trapped. On Wednesday, the United Nations warned of a “humanitarian catastrophe” in Aleppo should conditions remain the same or worsen.

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 Russia Launches Airstrikes from Iran for Second Straight Day appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 16, 2016

Number of Attacks

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

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

Severity of Attacks

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

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

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

Motivation Behind Attacks

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

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

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

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) August 15, 2016

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

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

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

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

Son, he is out his mind.

— brandon jenkins (@Jersey_Jinx) August 16, 2016

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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?

Peter Thiel Opens Up About Gawker

The Daily Beast isn’t the only outlet that has allegedly violated the personal privacy of its subjects. Peter Thiel published an op-ed on Monday discussing his feelings toward Gawker Media for outing him in 2007.

It wasn’t so many years ago, but it was a different time: Gay men had to navigate a world that wasn’t always welcoming, and often faced difficult choices about how to live safely and with dignity.

Thiel wanted to come out to the public on his own terms but, unfortunately, Gawker “violated his privacy and cashed in on it.”

Since then, Thiel has made it his aim to bring down Gawker by any means possible. Those means have come in the form of bankrupting the company through a series of lawsuits against Gawker. Thiel secretly funded Terry Bollea’s, or Hulk Hogan, high profile suit, and subsequently bankrupted Gawker and its founder Nick Denton.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Under a President Trump, American foreign policy would look something like this: Guantanamo Bay would remain open. Drone strikes would continue. Nation building and regime change would cease. And–in what Trump referred to as “extreme vetting” in his foreign policy speech Monday afternoon–immigrants from regions of the world that have a “history of exporting terrorism” will be subject to screening tests.

At Youngstown State University in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, highlighted America’s threats–and criticized the architects of its current foreign policy–before revealing the tenets of his foreign policy plan. With broad strokes, he painted a bleak portrait of an America under siege from “radical Islamic terrorism,” a phrase he used often and pointedly in his speech. He derided President Obama’s and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s approach to the Middle East as a failure. “The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton,” Trump said, pointing to decisions made in Libya, Syria, and Iraq that led to the region’s current instability, allowing ISIS to prosper.

That speech was a reminder that Prompter Trump will always be just as dishonest and incompetent as Twitter Trump.

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) August 15, 2016

The Cold War was a consistent reference point throughout his speech, as Trump sought to parallel the idealogical threat of radical Islam with that of communism. “Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus,” Trump said. “That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.” And in a surprising backtracking of his previous remarks that called into question NATO’s effectiveness, Trump said under his administration, America will “work closely with NATO.” He added that “we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against ISIS.”

And in a move he has alluded to in past interviews, Trump called for an “ideological screening test” that would root out “all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups.” In addition, such a test would screen out those who “believe that Sharia law should supplant American law;” “Those who do not believe in our Constitution;” and those who “support bigotry and hatred.” Specifically what such a test would look like, to whom it would be distributed, and how it would be administered was not expounded upon.

Trump ends his hateful, bigoted, fear-mongering speech promising…to reject bigotry & hatred. No self-awareness or sense of irony. Amazing.

— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) August 15, 2016

Trump’s speech–which was precluded by remarks from former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani and Trump’s running mate Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN)–focused exclusively on the threat of “radical Islamic terrorism.” He did not mention China, North Korea, or Russia, three nations that many foreign policy analysts see as some of America’s gravest threats apart from ISIS and other terrorist groups.

Though his speech mirrored the apocalyptic tone of the speech he delivered a few weeks ago at the Republican National Convention, he sought to end it on a cheery, unifying note: “I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and respected equally,” he said. “Only this way will we make America great again and safe again for everyone.”

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 Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ ISIS, Use ‘Extreme Vetting’ on Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is now trying to take back his repeated claims that President Obama “founded ISIS” by calling it sarcasm, which only proves he doesn’t even know what sarcasm means. On Friday he tweeted:

Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) “the founder” of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2016

This comes after his statement at a rally on Wednesday saying Obama was the founder of ISIS. On Thursday, radio show host Hugh Hewitt tried to clarify what Trump meant by asking if he simply meant that the Obama administration created the vacuum where ISIS could thrive. But he doubled down on his conclusion that Obama founded ISIS.

When Hewitt kept questioning him, saying that Obama is actually fighting ISIS, Trump’s clever answer was “I don’t care. He was the founder.”

The journalist Christopher Hayes joked on Twitter about Trump’s insistence.

INTERVIEWER: You mean, metaphoric–
TRUMP: No literally
INTERVIEWER: But, he didn’t *actually*–
TRUMP: No, actually. Obama is Baghdadi

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 11, 2016

Trump went on to say that Hillary Clinton also was an important player in the creation of ISIS, which caused her to react on Twitter, saying:

It can be difficult to muster outrage as frequently as Donald Trump should cause it, but his smear against President Obama requires it.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 11, 2016

She also tweeted, “Anyone willing to sink so low, so often, should never be allowed to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.”

But what Trump is now criticizing Obama for is actually what he himself wanted. He claimed Obama caused ISIS to flourish by withdrawing American troops from Iraq in 2011. But he didn’t mention that he also wanted to get out of Iraq as early as in 2007.

In an interview with CNN that year he said, “There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.” Trump has actually expressed this view several times on the record, statements he seems to have forgotten about.

Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski captured it like this:

Trump Iraq timeline:
2002: Supports the war
2004: Against the war
2008: Withdraw the troops
2016: Obama founded ISIS when he withdrew troops

— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) August 11, 2016

Trump’s latest utterance caused a lot of reactions on social media, particularly as this mini-scandal follows a remarkably familiar pattern.

THE WEEK IN TRUMP

Tues: Kill Hillary, please.
Wed: LOL, JK
Thurs: Obama founded an anti-American terrorist group, literally.
Fri: LOL, JK

— Heather Hogan (@hhoagie) August 12, 2016

A lot of people are saying Trump literally doesn’t know what day it is. A lot of people are saying. I don’t know. You tell me.

— Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) August 11, 2016

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 Trump Claims Calling Obama the Founder of ISIS was Sarcasm appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State is ”inevitably going to be defeated,” said President Obama at a press conference on Thursday. The President met with reporters after a briefing at the Pentagon from his national security team on the fight against ISIS.

He said that even though ISIS will certainly be defeated, the networks from the terrorist group will probably keep trying to commit acts of terrorism:

As we’ve seen, it is still very difficult to detect and prevent lone actors or small cells of terrorists who are determined to kill the innocent and are willing to die. And that’s why… we’re going to keep going after ISIL aggressively across every front of this campaign.

Although the press was supposed to focus on the war against terrorism, a lot of the questions ended up being about the Trump situation. But after a few, the President had had enough.

I would ask all of you to just make your own judgment. I’ve made this point already multiple times. Just listen to what Mr. Trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad.

See Obama’s speech here.

Today @POTUS convened his @NSC44 at the Pentagon for a regular meeting on efforts to degrade & destroy ISIL.https://t.co/XhNlSMdNfj

— WH National Security (@NSC44) August 4, 2016

Also on Thursday, the Egyptian army confirmed that it killed an important ISIS-allied leader, Abu Duaa al-Ansari. In total 45 terrorists were killed and weapon and ammunition supplies destroyed in the airstrikes by the army in the Sinai Peninsula.

Al-Ansari was the head of the group Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which prospered in the chaos after the Government of Egyptian President Mubarak was overthrown in 2011. The group entered an alliance with ISIS in 2014 and was responsible for bombing a gas pipeline between Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the crash of Russian flight 9268 in 2015.

Russia got a reprimand from Obama for its continued support of the Syrian government and attacks on opposing forces. But the U.S. will continue to attempt to cooperate with the nation to jointly bring down ISIS.

However, as Obama pointed out at the press conference, independents inspired by the Islamic State may very well keep attacking people in public spaces such as subways or parades to spread fear, which is why the U.S. must keep up the work of fighting against the terrorist group.

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 Obama: Islamic State Will Be Defeated, But Independent Attacks Still a Threat appeared first on Law Street.

On the night of Friday, July 15, while President Recep Erdogan was on vacation, members of the Turkish military attempted a coup. The effort involved members of several branches of the Turkish military and was only thwarted after the President took to social media to call on the people to rise up and protect the existing government. Although Erdogan was able to fend off a challenge to his rule, the history behind the coup attempt and Turkey’s significance both in the fight against ISIS and in Europe’s refugee crisis cannot be understated.

Read on to find out more about the coup itself and what it would mean if such an attempt was successful both in Turkey and throughout the region.

The Coup in Turkey

The coup started late on a Friday night when tanks dispersed into the Turkish capital of Ankara, passage to Europe along the Bosporus Bridge was blocked, and soldiers took to Taksim Square in Istanbul claiming the elected government was illegitimate and that the military has taken over the country.

However, before the military could completely seize power, President Erdogan did an interview with CNN Turk. Using Facetime, President Erdogan urged citizens to stand up to the coup and protest. This proved to be a catalyst for action, as many Turkish people took to the streets and faced down the military. By the time Erdogan landed in the early morning hours of Saturday, the coup was over and his administration was back in power. At the end of the incident, nearly 300 people were killed and an additional 1,400 were injured.

The video below details the failed coup:

Some History

The recent attempted coup was far from the first effort by the military to exert control over the country. Since 1960, three military coups have taken place and a fourth movement led by the military effectively forced out a sitting government in 1997. Although military coups take on the image of power-mad army officers bursting into cabinet offices, Turkey’s case is slightly different.

That is because the Turkish military has long served, at least in its own eyes, as the protector of the modern state of Turkey, which was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1909. As this earlier Law Street article on the history of the Turkey illustrates, the military has played a crucial role in the development of the modern Turkish state. Chief among the army’s self-imposed responsibilities is keeping the country secular and free of the religious sentiment that has gripped many Middle Eastern countries to its south.

The following video looks at the history of coups in Turkey:

In the most recent coup attempt, the army officers in charge seemed to be rebelling against President Erdogan himself. Erdogan has won a series of elections each time consolidating more power for himself while neutralizing and even arresting his opponents.

While President Erdogan himself has blamed Fethullah Gulen, his former ally who now lives in Pennsylvania, Erdogan’s opponents cite his disregard for laws and the constitution. Erdogan is now in the process of seeking Gulen’s extradition from the United States, but the U.S. government has remained relatively resistant to his request.

The Aftermath

In the aftermath of the failed coup, many outside observers worried and some have even warned President Erdogan about using it as a justification to eliminate his rivals and further consolidate his power. These fears quickly seemed to be coming to fruition with Erdogan’s crackdown to oust from the government and military people he suspects were involved in the coup attempt. It started with the military, as thousands of personnel, including over a hundred generals and admirals, were detained. After that, it spread to educators, government officials, and members of the judiciary who allegedly had ties to the coup plotters as well.

The following video looks at the aftermath of the failed coup:

President Erdogan also targeted members of the media who have been critical of him in the past. Many of these arrests have come with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Amnesty International recently reported concerns that detainees were being beaten, tortured, and even raped while in custody.

This is hardly the image of democracy triumphing over a military dictatorship that Erdogan trumpeted after the coup failed. Following the coup, Erdogan extended a state of emergency across the country that dramatically expanded the authority of the president with little oversight from the Turkish Parliament.

A Crucial Time for the West

The reason why the outcome of Turkey’s attempted coup is so important is because Turkey is a central actor in two of the biggest events currently affecting the western world. First, there is Turkey’s role in fighting ISIS and within the larger Syrian conflict.

Turkey is currently in a particularly complicated position when it comes to Syria. While it plays a large role in facilitating U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, Turkey is fighting Kurds within its own borders. The Kurds have been central to efforts to regain territory from ISIS and Turkey’s domestic issues with the ethnic group has complicated its role in the larger conflict. Turkey has also been supporting several rebel groups that are fighting the Assad regime in Syria. So far, some have criticized Turkey’s level of engagement in the fight against ISIS, as many hoped it would take on a larger role after ISIS carried out a string of bombings in multiple Turkish cities, including of the Istanbul airport.

However, that outlook may change following the coup. Lately, Turkey has been refocusing inward, purging its own military ranks of many officers suspected in the coup. This has the negative impact of reducing Turkey’s ability to fight. So far, Turkey has been an important U.S. ally in the fight against ISIS by serving as an airbase for the United States. However, Erdogan and many Turkish officials have started to argue that the United States played a role in the recent coup attempt. If relations between the two countries begin to sour–particularly if a battle to extradite Fethullah Gulen erupts–then the U.S. efforts to fight ISIS could face significant setbacks. Lastly, Turkey is home to some of NATO’s nuclear missiles, making political instability there even more concerning.

In addition to Turkey’s role in the fight against ISIS, it plays a crucial role in the international effort to deal with the refugee crisis. Turkey is home to the largest refugee camp of Syrians in the world, with 2.5 million living there. In a deal with Europe earlier this year, Turkey promised to do its best to keep refugees in exchange for more than $3 billion in aid as well as a promise to reconsider Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership. The deal, however, was also contingent upon Turkey improving its human rights practices, which the recent crackdown will likely call into question.

Conclusion

In the aftermath of the failed coup in Turkey, chaos reigned. First, it was very unclear who actually led the coup. While it appears to have been a coordinated effort by many in the military, no central figure ever came forward to claim responsibility, which may be another reason why it failed. Some speculate that the United States may have been behind the coup, training dissidents and allowing Gulen a safe haven to denounce Erdogan’s government. Other reports suggested Erdogan himself may have been behind the poorly planned insurrection, as it gave him cover to finally purge many of his foes from the government and military.

It remains unlikely that we will know the full story behind the coup anytime soon. What is indisputable, though, is Turkey’s significance to the scope of European Union, NATO, and U.S. operations. While the United States may not agree with Erdogan’s subsequent power grab or the methods of his crackdown, he has been a strong ally for the most part. For now, it appears as though the west and Turkey will need to work together, but if instability continues or worsens that cooperation could face serious challenges.

Resources

CNN: Turkey Coup Attempt: How a Night of Death and Mayhem Unfolded

Al-Jazeera: Timeline: A History of Turkish Coups

Law Street Media: Turkey: A Country Perpetually at a Crossroads

Politico: What Caused the Turkish Coup Attempt?

RT: Turkish Prosecutor Claims CIA, FBI Trained Coup Plotters

Al-Monitor: Was Turkey’s Coup Attempt Just an Elaborate Hoax by Erdogan?

Time: Turkey’s President Is Using the Coup Attempt to Crack Down on the Media

Reuters: Turkey Dismisses Military, Shuts Media Outlets as Crackdown Deepens

BBC: Turkey Coup Attempt: Crackdown toll passes 50,000

PRI: Turkey’s Coup Failed, but it Can Still Hurt the Fight Against ISIS

Vox: Turkey’s Failed Coup Could Have Disastrous Consequences for Europe’s Migrant Crisis

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 Coup That Wasn’t: Inside Turkey’s Failed Military Takeover appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Justice announced Wednesday that a D.C. Metro Transit Police Department (MTPD) officer has been arrested on suspicion of supporting the terror network ISIS. This is the first case of a U.S. law enforcement officer facing terrorism charges. Here’s what we know:

Who Is He?

The officer’s name is Nicholas Young, and he is a 36-year-old man from Fairfax, Virginia. Young has been a MTPD officer since 2003, and has been under surveillance for suspected ties to terrorism for six years.

Breaking: Fairfax home searched, of MetroTransit cop Nicholas Young, 36 charged w attempting to help ISIS @wusa9 pic.twitter.com/AN99yIjQtB

— Peggy Fox (@PeggyTV) August 3, 2016

What Did He Do?

Young is accused of allegedly purchasing nearly $250 worth of gift cards that were intended for ISIS in order to purchase mobile messaging accounts to recruit others to join the terrorist organization.

He is also accused of making vague threats to kill FBI agents and informants or bring guns into federal court, according to a criminal complaint obtained by the Washington Post. The paper writes, “Young allegedly threatened to kidnap and torture an agent who interviewed him, and leave the head of anyone who betrayed him in a cinder block at the bottom of a Virginia lake.”

How Long Has He Been on the FBI’s Radar?

According to the DOJ’s statements, Young has been on the FBI’s radar since 2010. Here is a rough timeline of his encounters with the FBI:

• In 2010, Young was interviewed by law enforcement about his relationship with Zachary Chesser, who later pled guilty to supporting a foreign terrorist organization and making threats against the creators of “South Park” for writing an episode about Islam he disliked.
• In 2011, Young traveled to Libya one time and attempted to travel a second time. He also had several meetings with an undercover law enforcement officer, many of which were with Amine El Khalifi, who later pled guilty to planning to conduct a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol Building in 2012.
• In 2014, Young met approximately 20 times with an FBI informant, who he advised how to travel overseas to join the Islamic State and evade detection.
• In 2016, he contacted the same FBI informant about purchasing the gift cards for ISIS.

Is Metro Safe?

According to authorities, there was never any credible or specific threat to the Metro system. MTPD officials initiated this investigation and have been working closely with the FBI throughout the case. Metro Transit Police Chief Ron Pavlik said in a statement.

This investigation began with concerns that were reported by the Metro Transit Police Department, and it reinforces that, as citizens, we all have a duty to report suspicious activity whenever and wherever it occurs.

Young was terminated from the MTPD Wednesday morning after his arrest.

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 How did a D.C. Metro Cop Become First U.S. Officer to Face ISIS Charges? appeared first on Law Street.

Monday marked a new collaborative effort between the U.S. and Libya aimed at debilitating the Islamic State in its last stronghold in Libya, the port city of Sirte. Responding to requests from the U.N.-backed Libyan government, the U.S. began precise airstrikes against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, targets–namely tanks and other vehicles. Fayez Serraj, the head of Libya’s presidency council, the central government cobbled together and recognized by the U.N. last December, said ISIS experienced “major casualties” as a result of the U.S. effort. Monday’s strikes are the first by U.S. forces since February, and the third overall since ISIS planted its roots in the North African country in 2014.

A statement by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook postured the “precision airstrikes” as a supportive effort aimed at bolstering Libyan forces while erasing the lingering ISIS presence in Sirte, a Mediterranean port city that serves as the group’s operational hub in North Africa. “The U.S. stands with the international community in supporting the GNA as it strives to restore stability and security to Libya,” the statement read, citing the Libyan Government of National Accord, or GNA, which arose out of a power struggle that broke out in Libya in 2014. “These actions and those we have taken previously will help deny ISIL a safe haven in Libya from which it could attack the United States and our allies.”

While the exact number of ISIS fighters remaining in Libya is unknown, officials estimate that a 6,000 strong force as of just a few months ago is steadily dropping. A few hundred are thought to be left in Sirte, a city that an ISIS force of 1,500 once held and ruled under its strict interpretation of Islamic law. U.S. support will not be limited to airstrikes–intelligence and surveillance will also be provided, officials said–but will not extend to boots on the ground. “This is the time for the international community to live up to its promises to the Libyan people,” Serraj, who is effectively Libya’s prime minister, said.

Officials briefed on the details of the U.S. plan–approved by President Obama after recommendations from Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford–said the strikes will last for at least a few weeks, or as long as Libyan forces require assistance. ISIS has faced territorial losses over the past year, but its influence continues to terrify the globe, as its members or followers have killed scores of innocent people. The group’s terror does not discriminate between hemispheres, as targets in the east–Baghdad, Iraq and Bangladesh–and west–Nice, France and Orlando–have been hit in recent months.

Swaths of its territory has been retaken by government forces in Iraq in recent months, but Sirte remains one of ISIS’ last redoubts. In 2011, Libya was liberated from its dictator, Moammar Gadhafi, who was killed during the so-called Arab Spring, a protest movement that swept through the region. A power vacuum fractured the country into tribal and ethnic factions, allowing militant groups like ISIS to flourish. GNA, the U.N.-backed government formed in late 2015. Whatever ISIS’ precise number of soldiers left in Libya is, Dunford, one of the two men who recommended the airstrikes to Obama, said the group has “suffered significant casualties.” He added: “I don’t think there is any doubt that the Islamic State in Libya is weaker than it was some months ago.”

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 With a Fresh Round of Airstrikes, U.S. Joins Fight Against ISIS in Libya appeared first on Law Street.

The past week in Germany has been rife with bloodshed and full of dread. At four public sites across the country starting last Monday, 10 people have been killed and scores more injured–some critically–in suicide bombings, stabbings, and in one instance, an ax-wielding teenager. On Sunday evening, in the most recent attack on German soil, a 27-year-old Syrian man blew himself up and injured 15 others at a fair in Ansbach, a town 90 miles north of Munich.

As information from the investigation into the attack trickled in on Monday morning, one troubling tidbit came to light: the man, identified by a neighbor as Mohammad Daleel, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, or ISIS, on a cell phone video shot just moments before he detonated his backpack full of explosives, according to Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann.

“I believe that after this video we cannot doubt that this attack was an Islamist terror attack,” Herrmann said. In the video, the suspect says Germans “won’t be able to sleep peacefully anymore,” while describing his impending attack as a “revenge act against Germans because they are standing in the way of Islam.”

In the early stages of the investigation into the attack–the week’s second to take place in the German state of Bavaria–it is unclear whether or not the man had directly communicated with ISIS, or if he had acted of his own accord, inspired by the ideology of the terrorist group. He is the second attacker in Germany this week to voice support for ISIS. The first came last Monday, when a 17-year-old Afghan asylum-seeker attacked people on a subway with an ax, injuring five. The attacker was the incident’s only fatality. 

The week’s attacks reignited the conversation in Germany over its refugee policy. In 2015, Germany absorbed nearly one million migrants, most of which were Muslims from war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan. As terrorist attacks have spread around the western world over the past year, far-right movements have gained traction, most of which run on the promise of stricter immigration policies. Three of the four attacks last week in Germany were carried out by asylum-seekers, and calls for less accommodating asylum practices are growing louder. Sunday’s suicide bomber sought asylum in Germany in 2014 but was denied due to his initial asylum request in Bulgaria, where he was to be deported to.

German officials involved in the investigation said the man had attempted suicide twice before and was in a psychiatric clinic at some point. His successful suicide and public attack was embraced by ISIS, who, through their media affiliate Amaq referred to him as a “soldier.” Since 2014, when its caliphate was officially born, ISIS has been directly responsible or has been the inspiration for 2,043 deaths in 29 countries.

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 Week of Terror: Latest Attacker in Germany a “Soldier” of ISIS 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:

People Unite to #WallOffTrump

Walls are being built for Trump! No, its not what you think, the U.S.-Mexico border is unwalled for now….But protesters have begun to create blockades against everything Trump, especially in resistance to his presidency.

“The walls that they build…”

Protesters sing while they form a human blockade to #WallOffTrump at the #RNCinCLE.https://t.co/7UOhL7pmxz

— AJ+ (@ajplus) July 20, 2016

Today at Public Square in Cleveland, people are forming human blockades and the movement has officially made its way to Hollywood where Donald Trump’s Hollywood Walk of Fame star has been outfitted with a tiny wall complete with tiny barbed wire.

OH, this is rich. RT @imfabulous13: The #WallOffTrump is already up. pic.twitter.com/jypaOuLA9u

— Panda Montana (@MrTanPanda) July 20, 2016

People are even building walls around fake Trumps in the Sims!

My thoughts when I saw #WallOffTrump#RNCinCLE https://t.co/kJxQpd66dQpic.twitter.com/0OCSrs3Kya

— Spekt3r (@Spekt3r) July 20, 2016

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 20, 2016 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:

Comedian Jim Jeffries Gets Why Trump is A No Good Candidate

Well, I think Australian comedian Jim Jeffries has definitely hit the nail on the head. In a stand-up special Jefferies touched on Trump’s plan to put Muslim Americans on a registry. Now, we all understand why this is a bad idea but Jeffries talks about something that we may not have imagined. “It’s a recruitment tool!” Jefferies lamented that Trump’s plan would only make it easier to recruit begrudged Americans to ISIS. Trump, no thanks!

Rant Crush

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Ahmed al-Menhali came to the U.S. from the United Arab Emirates for a medical procedure. What he didn’t expect was police officers approaching him, guns in the lobby of his hotel, forcing him to the ground. Now officials in Avon, Ohio, where the incident took place, have apologized.

A hotel clerk saw Menhali and thought he was a terrorist because he was wearing traditional clothing and talking on the phone in Arabic. She texted her sister and father that she was panicking, and both of them called 911. In a phone call that is posted on YouTube, the sister says the man was “pledging his allegiance or something to ISIS.”

The officers were wearing body cameras, and in one of the videos they are heard yelling aggressively to Menhali to lie down, before approaching and handcuffing him. However, when they searched Menhali and found nothing, it was brushed off as a misunderstanding. But the shock of being held at gunpoint and accused of being a terrorist caused the man to suffer a light stroke. A paramedic was at the scene to treat the hotel clerk for a “panic attack,” and made sure Menhali got to the hospital.

Xenophobia and racism have reached new levels if a tourist can’t even wear his own clothes and speak in his own language without being forced to the ground at gunpoint. The event caught the attention of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“This near hysteria [against Muslims] has been created by political candidates. It’s irresponsible and dangerous,” said Julia Shearson, director of the Cleveland chapter of CAIR to Al-Jazeera.

The incident caused many reactions on social media.

The ignorant worker and her sister should have apologized to Ahmed Al Menhali and the desk clerk should be terminated. @MarriottIntl

— Shea (@Sheaa_) July 5, 2016

Can the world advise Americans not to wear white socks in black sandals? Asking for a friend https://t.co/DP80LXOQOG

— Lexi Alexander (@Lexialex) July 4, 2016

The United Arab Emirates demanded an apology and even warned their citizens to not wear traditional clothing if they visit the United States. The police chief and Avon Mayor Bryan K. Jensen met with Menhali to apologize on Saturday and said in a statement that there might be criminal charges against the clerk that notified 911.

Menhali told Arabic newspaper Al Arabiya that the police hurt his back and threw his phone on the ground. He also pointed out: “The policemen who humiliated and insulted me arrived at [the hotel] without explosives experts or counter-terrorism forces because they knew I’m not a terrorist.”

Menhali said that he appreciated the apology, but also wants the people who called 911 to be held responsible, and that the authorities should use this experience for cross-cultural education purposes. That is a high-minded response from someone who was treated wrongly, and is educational itself.

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 Ohio Police Apologize to Muslim Tourist After Mistaking Him as Terrorist appeared first on Law Street.

As we celebrated the long weekend in the U.S., the latest round of ISIS attacks sent shocks of terror across the world.

Since Friday, major attacks attributed to ISIS took place in Baghdad, Dhaka, and Saudi Arabia. And earlier last week, on Wednesday, the attack at Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport made world headlines after terrorists caused 44 casualties at one of the world’s busiest airports.

The terrorist group has reportedly called for more attacks during Ramadan, a month of fasting and reflection for the over 1 billion Muslims across the world. And it seems that ISIS followers have heeded that call, bringing death and destruction upon major cities and sites around the world. While it is still unclear if some of the recent attacks were directly ordered by ISIS or simply inspired by them, all most certainly followed the radical doctrine prescribed by the group.

Here’s what you need to know about the targets in the group’s latest spree of terror:

Friday, July 1: Dhaka–a hostage attack at a cafe

On Friday evening, the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, Bangladesh was a site of terror after gunmen attacked and took patrons hostage. The cafe, located in the wealthy neighborhood of Gulshan, was reportedly a site for many foreign nationals and diplomats, likely making it a target for the attacks.

The horrific 12-hour ordeal ended early Saturday after commandos stormed the facility, leaving 28 dead. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, and reportedly posted pictures of dead victims on an affiliated site.

Sunday, July 3: Baghdad–the deadliest ISIS attack this week

On Sunday, a suicide bombing targeted a shopping district in Baghdad, reportedly killing at least 215 people so far and injuring at least 175 more. The bombing occurred in the predominantly Shia area of Karrada, where many were shopping for the upcoming Eid holiday. The minority sect of Shia Islam has often been a target of attacks by the group, which is predominantly Sunni.

Earlier this month, the Iraqi government wrested control of Fallujah from ISIS, a possible provocation for the attack. The bombing was Baghdad’s deadliest since 2003, and was by far the deadliest attack carried out by ISIS this week.

Monday, July 4: Saudi Arabia–3 suicide bombings in various locations, including the Prophet’s Mosque

Saudi Arabia was the target of three separate, but coordinated, suicide attacks. The first was at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, where policemen were injured and the attacker was reportedly the only casualty.

The second attack took place in the city of Qatif, where a bomber attempted an attack on a Shiite mosque. He failed, however, only successful in taking his own life.

The third attack took place in Medina, where a bomb went off in front of the Prophet’s Mosque (also known as Masjid an Nabawi). The mosque is a major holy site in the Islamic faith, as it houses the grave of the Prophet Muhammad and is a location frequented by many making religious pilgrimages. This attack led to the deaths of four people, with an additional person injured.

The attacks of the past week show the wide reach of the group’s terror, as it hit multiple countries and regions throughout the world. Even without a centralized authority, ISIS is able to carry out its attacks through people who latch on to its poisonous ideology. As Ramadan winds down this week, its final days have unfortunately been classified with bloodshed and tragedy.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About ISIS’s Weekend of Terror appeared first on Law Street.

The couple that gunned down 14 people in San Bernardino, California last December exchanged private messages on Facebook nearly two years before the attack, discussing jihad and martyrdom. In the hours following the massacre, Tashfeen Malik–one of the killers–pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State on her Facebook feed. The couple’s social media use prior to and after the attack reiterated ISIS’s savvy online; it also spurred action by the Department of Homeland Security, which announced a few months later a vague commitment to enhance its screening of social media accounts of immigrants who apply for certain immigration benefits, as well as Syrian refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.

Now, there is a push to increase surveillance of the social media accounts of all foreign travelers coming into the U.S. A Customs and Border Protection proposal filed in the Federal Register on June 23 recommends an additional section to forms filled out by tourists and immigrants at customs: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—provider/platform—social media identifier.” The proposed change to the form would be voluntary, and would not ask for passwords. For some, the voluntary aspect of the new proposal renders it useless.

“What terrorist is going to give our government permission to see their radical jihadist rants on social media?” Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) said in a statement. Buchanan is the author of legislation that is currently in Congress, the “Social Media Screening for Terrorists Act,” which includes similar proposals to CBP’s, although his bill would make filling out social media account information required. He said the new revision “lacks teeth.” 

Social media has proved an effective tool for proselytizing ISIS’s extremist ideology. But platforms like Twitter and Facebook struggle with policing accounts without breaching First Amendment rights. There is a general consensus that it is not the federal government’s role to impose restrictions on social media. But since the San Bernardino attacks and subsequent terrorist attacks around the globe, the U.S. government has increased its capacity to combat online radicalization. In its proposed revisions to the current customs form, CBP commented: “Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity.”

However the U.S. government ends up beefing up its ability to monitor the social media accounts of people entering the country, ISIS continues to recruit people online. It is definitely an issue to keep an eye on in the coming months.

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 U.S. Customs Form Could Soon Include Section for Social Media Information appeared first on Law Street.

Another deadly terror attack shook Turkey late Tuesday evening. Three suicide bombers opened fire before blowing themselves up inside Turkey’s Atatürk airport in Istanbul, killing at least 41 people and injuring 239, according to the latest information from BBC.

The attackers reportedly arrived in taxis and opened fire outside the main entrance, as well as in the departures hall. Police then responded to the shooting and the attackers detonated their bombs in three different spots around 10 pm local time.

#Istanbul #airport attack: 23 Turks, at least 10 foreign nationals killed, officials say, as death toll rises to 41 pic.twitter.com/ljSYvnjnSV

— Arab News (@Arab_News) June 29, 2016

I condemn terrorist attack at #Istanbul‘s intl airport. My condolences to the families & friends of the victims. pic.twitter.com/CPb5mjqNph

— Masood Khan (@smasood800) June 29, 2016

Atatürk airport is one of the most active airports in Europe with 61.3 billion passengers passing through in 2015. Among the killed who have been identified, 23 are Turks and 13 are from foreign countries.

An eyewitness who came out unharmed told Reuters how one of the men was walking around shooting randomly in the departures hall.

“He was wearing all black. His face was not masked … We ducked behind a counter but I stood up and watched him. Two explosions went off shortly after one another. By that time he had stopped shooting […] He turned around and started coming towards us. He was holding his gun inside his jacket. He looked around anxiously to see if anyone was going to stop him and then went down the escalator … We heard some more gunfire and then another explosion, and then it was over.”

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but officials believe the Islamic State is behind it. This attack has many similarities to the airport attacks in Brussels earlier this year. Turkey shares a border with Syria and has been experienced several bombings and terror attacks conducted by ISIS so far this year.

~ 40 people wounded in #Istanbul airport blast being transported to hospital: broadcaster Haberturk @ReutersWorld pic.twitter.com/FR6srbFTxU

— Christian Thiels (@ThielsChristian) June 28, 2016

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for a united fight against terrorism. He said in a statement, “If states, as all humanity, fail to join forces and wage a joint fight against terrorist organizations, all the possibilities that we dread in our minds will come true one by one.” He also spoke with President Obama who said he strongly condemned the suicide attack in a phone call.

CCTV footage that has been circling on social media shows one of the bomb blasts:

CCTV footage appears to show moment bomb goes off at Istanbul airport https://t.co/PudONKvbHP pic.twitter.com/fGtdHD7E6x

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) June 28, 2016

The flags at NATO’s headquarters in Brussels were at half-mast on Wednesday.

#NATO flags at half-mast marking yesterday’s attacks at #Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport. @TurkDelNATO pic.twitter.com/96LfpGEvaE

— Oana Lungescu (@NATOpress) June 29, 2016

Istanbul made an effort to not give in to terrorism. The airport is back up and running less than 24 hours after the bombing.

Incredibly #Istanbul airport is up and running less than twenty four hours after the attack pic.twitter.com/cHCDtt0C5W

— alex rossi (@alexrossiSKY) June 29, 2016

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 Suicide Bombers Kill 41, Injure 240 in Istanbul Airport appeared first on Law Street.

In May 2011, a man was arrested in a Paris suburb, along with eight others, for planning to travel to Pakistan to wage jihad. He was imprisoned for two years while awaiting trial. A judge sentenced him to three more years in prison. But he was released immediately following the trial, as it’s French practice to dock years spent in prison awaiting trial off the eventual sentence. On Monday, that man, Larossi Abballa, stabbed two police officers to death and held their three year-old son hostage until a police raid killed Abballa and rescued the boy.

Given that Abballa pledged to the Islamic State, or ISIS, during the raid, and a statement from ISIS’s official news service Amaq alluded to Abballa as an “Islamic State fighter,” Monday’s gruesome attack has been dubbed “incontestably a terrorist act” by French President Francois Hollande. Coming just months after the terror Paris faced in November, when 130 were killed in coordinated strikes across the city, and the horrific massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida over the weekend, France and other Western nations are on especially high alert concerning independent terrorist actors.

The terrorist threat “is high in France, it’s high in Europe, it’s high in the Western world as shown by the events that happened 48 hours ago in the United States,” French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Tuesday morning. He also said more than 100 people have been arrested in France so far this year in connection to terrorist activities.

The stabbings occurred in Magnanville, a small town on the Seine river, roughly 35 miles west of Paris. According to statements by the French Interior Ministry, Abballa, 25, murdered a police captain and his partner outside their home. He could not decide how to handle their three year-old son, so he held him hostage in the home of the slain police officers. The boy was rescued and Aballa killed by police in a three hour operation. Police raided Abballa’s home Tuesday morning, and reportedly found a hit list with names of “rappers, journalists, police officers and public personalities.”

As police conducted their investigation and journalists covered the attack Monday night through Tuesday morning, some notable bits of information regarding the circumstances before and during the stabbings have surfaced: On Monday, before he killed the two police officers, Abballa spent so long praying at his neighborhood mosque that the rector of the mosque had to ask him to leave. In addition, France’s anti-terrorism prosecutor said Abballa shot a 12-minute video of him during the attack which he made public on Facebook Live, the social media network’s live video service. The video–and Abballa’s account–have been removed.

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 Man Kills Two Police Officers in Parisian Suburb, Pledges Support to ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of a tragic shooting in Orlando, Florida early June 12, President Barack Obama addressed the nation in a televised press conference, while presidential candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took to Twitter to comment. Here’s a tweet-by-tweet look at how each candidate responded to the national tragedy.

Trump sent out the first tweet, about two hours after Orlando police tweeted that the shooter was dead.

Pulse Shooting: The shooter inside the club is dead.

— Orlando Police (@OrlandoPolice) June 12, 2016

Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton followed, expressing her concern as she awaited new information.

Woke up to hear the devastating news from FL. As we wait for more information, my thoughts are with those affected by this horrific act. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump did not tweet exclusively about the event, but tweeted more frequently than Clinton throughout the day.

Clinton made a false ad about me where I was imitating a reporter GROVELING after he changed his story. I would NEVER mock disabled. Shame!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton posted Spanish translations of select tweets.

Desperté con la devastadora noticia de FL. Mientras esperamos más información,mis pensamientos están con los afectados de este horrible acto

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don’t want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Trump tweeted in anticipation of Obama’s address to the nation.

Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Reporting that Orlando killer shouted “Allah hu Akbar!” as he slaughtered clubgoers. 2nd man arrested in LA with rifles near Gay parade.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton’s account quoted her throughout her public statement.

“I join Americans in praying for the victims of the attack in Orlando.”

Hillary’s statement: https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“This was an act of terror. … This was also an act of hate.” —Hillary on the attack in Orlando https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump brought the election into the conversation.

“@WandaWalls20: @realDonaldTrump Please make us safe. We cannot have Hillary as president. We will be in so much trouble.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Clinton addressed the LGBT community and expressed her thoughts about gun control.

“To the LGBT community: please know that you have millions of allies across our country. I am one of them.” —Hillary https://t.co/MmaGjrSufr

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“We need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals.” —Hillary on the FL attack

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

“This is a time to stand together and resolve to do everything we can to defend our communities and country.” —Hillary on the attack in FL

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Declaraciones de Hillary Clinton sobre el ataque en Orlando. https://t.co/onc4230GUH

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) June 12, 2016

Trump ended the day’s tweets by commenting on what he felt the nation needed from its leadership.

What has happened in Orlando is just the beginning. Our leadership is weak and ineffective. I called it and asked for the ban. Must be tough

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016

Even though each candidate chose to address the tragedy differently, they both were united in sharing their condolences for the victims and their families.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Orlando Shooting: How did Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Respond? appeared first on Law Street.

In an “SNL” skit that aired last November, a politically (and factually) incorrect relative at Thanksgiving dinner claimed that she “actually saw an ISIS in the A&P the other day.” While just a joke, when you consider how the FBI is acting these days, the sentiment doesn’t actually seem too crazy. The Bureau has a long history of secretive tactics, but has reached a new high with regards to terrorism-related cases, according to a recent New York Times analysis.

In investigations against Americans suspected of involvement with the Islamic terrorist group, undercover “sting” operations have played a part in two-thirds of cases, or 67 percent, since February 2015, compared to 30 percent in 2014, according to the analysis. During these sting operations, FBI employees or informants pose as Jihadists, bomb-makers, and gun dealers to connect with ISIS members.

Undercover operators have helped suspects acquire weapons and plan routes to Syria to join the Islamic State. Some have gone so far as to drive a suspect to a synagogue where he wanted to carry out a bombing, arresting the bomber as he stepped out of the car with the bomb in his hand.

Michael B. Steinbach, Executive Assistant Director of the FBI’s National Security Branch told the Times, “We’re not going to wait for the person to mobilize on his own time line.”

The FBI’s tactics, though effective, put their employees in a risky legal situation. Agents have to toe the line between allowing a crime and provoking one to avoid illegal entrapment, an issue which has surfaced in court.

In 2013, four terrorists tried to appeal their convictions by accusing officers of entrapment among other crimes, like perjury. The court found that the agents had not entrapped the criminals, even though the investigation was intense and included an FBI-manufactured fake missile that was delivered to the men.

When it comes to search and seizure issues, undercover operations are in their own category and do not require a warrant, but some still find the practices unethical.

Former undercover FBI agent Michael German told the New York Times that the FBI is “manufacturing terrorism cases…these people [working undercover] are five steps away from being a danger to the United States.” 

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Agents are Posing as Terrorists appeared first on Law Street.

Amid machine gunfire and plumes of smoke, the Iraqi military halted its push to retake the city of Fallujah from the grip of the Islamic State on Wednesday. The pause is due to a confluence of factors: to protect civilians still inside the city, and to weather a fierce Islamic State, or ISIS, counterattack.

The Fallujah offensive began on May 22. In the days since, the outskirts of the city have been pounded by American led airstrikes and Iraqi forces on the ground. The city proper, a dense urban sprawl with 50,000 civilians still trapped inside (20,000 of which are children, according to UNICEF), has yet to be directly attacked. The Iraqi army and American forces are reluctant to attack the city proper because of the deep roots ISIS has planted there during its two year occupation and the high risk of civilian casualties.

Deepening the dicey situation in Fallujah is the fact that sectarian divisions that have long been present in Iraq are heightened by the warring factions as well as the non-fighting citizens. ISIS is largely comprised of Sunnis, as are most civilians in Fallujah, and the Iraq military is dominated by Shiites. The two Islamic sects have been at the center of violent clashes in the country since its inception in 1920.

Despite the sluggish pace of the offensive, The Associated Press reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi remains confident, noting the “remarkable advance” by his country’s forces against ISIS. “The main goal of the military operation now is to reduce civilian and army casualties,” he said.

Fallujah is the last city held by ISIS in western Iraq, though the group still controls Mosul, the country’s second-largest city to Baghdad, which is 40 miles east of Fallujah. Preparations for an offensive there are currently being made, with a full-scale attack expected sometime next year.

According to the United Nations, 3,700 people have already fled Fallujah for nearby cities that are not about to be shelled. Still a massive concern for the Iraqi army, the U.S. air force, and international aid groups is the thousands of children still within the city.

A statement by UNICEF–the U.N.’s child rights arm–expressed hope that both sides will recognize the danger this conflict poses to the children in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq:

“Children face the risk of forced recruitment into the fighting, strict procedures for security screening and separation from their families. Children who are recruited see their lives and futures jeopardized as they are forced to carry and use arms, fighting in an adult war.”

It added, “According to reports, food and medicine are running out and clean water is in short supply.”

A total of 867 people were killed in Iraq in May. Over half of those were civilian deaths.

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 In Fallujah, Offensive Stalls As Civilian Lives Are Threatened appeared first on Law Street.

Minnesota has one of the biggest groups of ISIS-recruit defendants in the country; a large diaspora of Somali immigrants, socially isolated from the rest of society and often facing racism, can be a breeding ground for extremism. Ten years ago there was the case of a few young Somali men leaving Minneapolis to fight for al-Qaeda, now it’s ISIS in Syria.

Since 2014 the FBI has arrested nine young Somali American men in the state for planning to join ISIS. They are charged with conspiring to commit murder abroad, and providing material support to a terrorist group, charges that carry life and 15 years in prison, respectively. Now officials in Minneapolis are turning to different approaches, by treating the young men with counseling instead of extended prison sentences.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who is in charge of the case, said that they have consulted a German researcher, Daniel Koehler, to investigate the young men before starting a de-radicalization program, a method that is common in European countries such as Germany and Denmark.

Six of the nine men have pleaded guilty to the crimes they are charged with, and all of those six have already volunteered for the program that Koehler is about to set up. The aim is to reintegrate the men into society, instead of locking them up without treating the actual causes of radicalization. These evaluations could lead to shorter prison sentences and a focus on probation.

Heartland Democracy is a local Minneapolis group that is conducting its own counseling for young radicalized men. Ahmed Amin, a high school teacher who moved from Somalia to the US with his family at the age of 12, is one of the counselors, and said to NPR:

I understand the difficulties of identity that lead people to join organizations like ISIS. It is hard trying to live in two worlds. From 9 to 5 these kids have to live one way when they are at school, they are socialized to be American. And then they go home, learn to be religious and are trying to cope with that. It is harder than you’d think.

One of the young men participating in the trial was Abdirahman Bashir, who agreed to become an informant for the FBI after his attempt to leave the U.S. for Syria failed. Since he cooperated by spying on his former friends, he is unlikely to face any charges, and told the court on Tuesday that he was looking to pursue a career in law enforcement. He even asked one of the FBI agents if he could use him as a reference on his school application. Hopefully, education, integration, and communication can help end extremism and radicalization as we know it.

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 ISIS Recruits in Minnesota to Receive Counseling appeared first on Law Street.

In October 2014, a teenager from the suburbs of Chicago was arrested at O’Hare International Airport for attempting to join the Islamic State terrorist organization. His method of communication with the group, also known as ISIS, or ISIL: Twitter.

Over the past few years, ISIS has increased its presence on social media platforms as a radicalization tool. From the European Union to the United States, ISIS has taken advantage of the relatively borderless world of social media to bring Muslims and non-Muslims into its twisted realm of influence, encouraging them to take violent action in their home country or to make the journey and join the caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq.

At a panel hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus in Washington D.C. on Friday, experts discussed ISIS and other terrorist networks’ increasingly sophisticated online recruitment methods and what the government and the private sector can do to mitigate their efforts without affecting freedom of speech.

“[ISIS and other terrorist groups] reach out to disaffected youth and offer a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging,” said Rashad Hussain, member of the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. “As twisted as it sounds, they claim to be building something.”

A recent report by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University provided a window into the demographics of people ISIS is recruiting in the U.S. According to the report, the average age of those in the U.S. who have been recruited by ISIS is 26. Eighty-seven percent are male, and thirty-eighty percent are converts to Islam, not people who grew up in the faith. As of April 30, 2016, 85 individuals have been arrested on ISIS-related charges. 

Policing social media poses a unique challenge to the federal government: how to effectively tamper hateful messaging and support of violent acts without infringing on the First Amendment.

There has been increased co-operation between the government and social media companies to thwart the threat of online radicalization. But Emma Llanso, Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project and a member at Friday’s discussion, worries about government policies that could throw a blanket over the broad and ambiguous category of “unlawful speech.”

“Is it a direct incitement to violence? A true threat of violence? We don’t have broad prohibitions against hate speech, no definition of extremist content as a set of unlawful speech,” Llanso cautioned.

She underscored the importance of prohibiting hate speech or actions that incite violence, but also the imperative to preserve freedom of speech, something she noted as leading to the innovation that sparked the variety of ways we now have to express ourselves online.

Social media platforms all formulate their own terms of service, or a sets of rules that outline the types of messages that are or are not welcome on their sites and might be taken down or reported to government authorities. Llanso portended that a policy requiring companies to share messages deemed “unlawful” would do more harm than good.

She said it would lead social media companies “to err on the side of caution in reporting their users to the government as suspects of terrorist acts.”

Hussain agreed that government should play a limited role in ensuring social media platforms don’t exist as places where extremist ideas are disseminated and allowed to fester. He advocated for a “counter messaging” strategy, taking advantage of the platforms to spread messages on the other end of the spectrum as groups like ISIS.

He called for spreading messages “highlighting ISIL battlefield losses” and ones that “expose living conditions” of ISIS members.

“[Social media] platforms provide an opportunity for counter messaging and positive messaging,” he said, noting that there are also opportunities to spread the positive values Muslim communities stand for.

Seamus Hughes, who heads the Program on Extremism at George Washington University and is a previous member of the National Counterterrorism Center, also underlined the need for counter messaging in lieu of “takedowns,” or the removal of ISIS-supported accounts on sites like Twitter.

Studies have shown that accounts that are removed do experience an immediate drop in followers when they come back, he said, but the platform’s “built in system of resiliency” allows users to reconfigure their accounts under different names.

But for all of the radicalization opportunities afforded by the tricky semantics and difficult-to-police sites like Twitter, Hughes reinforced the fact that “the physical space of a caliphate is a driver for people to go.”

“Twitter is a place to facilitate the recruitment,” he said. “It’s not like if Twitter went away tomorrow we wouldn’t have recruits that are joining [terrorist groups].”

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 A Delicate Dance: Fighting ISIS Online While Protecting Free Speech 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.

On Monday, April 4, Tunisia became the first country to announce that it would reopen its consulate in Tripoli, the capital of Libya. While Tunisia did so out of concern for its citizens living in Libya, as well as for trade considerations, the move also reinforced Tunisia’s place as an outlier. Approximately five years after the Arab Spring, Tunisia is the only country left standing with a democracy and not mired in a civil war or an authoritarian takeover. While its neighbors, especially Libya, have all but collapsed, Tunisia has remained above the fray, even as the threat of ISIS rises.

Read on to find out how the Arab Spring affected Tunisia, how it is handling the ISIS threat, and what unique qualities have allowed the country to succeed following the Arab Spring when every other nation has essentially failed to live up to its promises.

History of Tunisia

The settling of the land where Tunisia now sits has been ongoing for thousands of years thanks to the country’s access to both the Mediterranean and the inland Sahara region. In classical times, Tunisia was home to Carthage, the powerful empire that challenged Rome but ultimately lost. After its defeat, it was ruled by Rome and later by the Berbers who converted to Islam in the 7th century after their defeat by Arab invaders. Tunisia was then ruled by a series of Muslim empires until 1881 when it was conquered by the French, becoming one of its colonies.

The French maintained control over Tunisia through a mixture of repression and concession, but that was not enough to stem the Tunisian independence movement, known as Destour. In the 1930s, Habib Bourguiba, who later became Tunisia’s first president, started the Neo-Destour party to renew the independence effort. Bourguiba was imprisoned in France but was later released by the German occupiers during World War II, at which point he began advocating for the gradual independence of Tunisia. In 1956, France officially granted Tunisia complete independence with Bourguiba as the head of state.

Habib Bourguiba served as Tunisia’s president from 1957 to 1987. During his tenure in Tunisia, Bourguiba ruled as a one-party leader who led a relatively western-style government. The first few years after its independence were marred by residual conflicts with France. Other significant events occurred later in Habib’s rule, such as when the Arab League and the PLO temporarily relocated their headquarters to Tunisia. In 1987, Bourguiba was replaced by his prime minister, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in a nonviolent coup. Problems with corruption and human rights violations led many to become dissatisfied with Ben Ali’s rule, eventually sparking a revolution.

Tunisia and the Arab Spring

Perhaps it is fitting that Tunisia is the last country espousing the promise of the Arab Spring since it was in Tunisia where protests initially started. In December 2010, an unemployed man named Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire in protest after Tunisian police stopped him from selling fruit on the street. This act sparked protests that led to mass unrest. The protests eventually prompted the end of Ben Ali’s rule, forcing him to flee to Saudi Arabia. Since then, the country has had two democratic elections and enjoys relatively high levels of freedom.

However, things in Tunisia did not go off without a hitch. The first election was won by an Islamist group in 2011. By 2013 however, the momentum behind this group had stalled and was accompanied by the assassination of a prominent opposition candidate. Instead of collapsing, the party in charge looked at its neighbor in Egypt, which was seeing a nearly identical situation unfold, and agreed to try something different. In Tunisia, the ruling Islamist party agreed to step down while maintaining a role in the election process. This negotiation was orchestrated by four groups of activists which eventually earned them the Nobel Peace Prize.

Despite some success, the country faces several significant challenges. Namely, Tunisia has been slow to clamp down on corruption or hold security forces accountable for their history of violence. It is also struggling to deal with the growing influence of extremism among its citizens. Still, it bears asking, how or why has Tunisia succeeded while every other country involved in the Arab Spring failed?

Preserving Democracy

One explanation of Tunisia’s success appears to be the very same Islamist party, Ennahada, which was elected after the revolution and then subsequently gave up power. Unlike many of its regional neighbors, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Ennahada is much more secular and abhors the ideals of radical Islam. Aside from its ideology, what probably preserved democracy in Tunisia as much as anything else was its decision to give up power, which is one of the pillars of any democracy. By stepping aside in a volatile environment, Ennahada showed that change can be achieved peacefully through democratic means.

Despite these encouraging signs, more work needs to be done. In a recent poll, 83 percent of Tunisians stated they believed the country was going the wrong way. Much of this discontent is focused on slow-moving political reforms, especially when it comes to the economy. Many of Tunisia’s educated young working class have had a hard time finding jobs and are losing faith in the government’s ability to solve the problem. On top of all this is the security threat from Libya and ISIS. Tunisia has kept the democracy experiment alive through voting and the peaceful transition of power, but many Tunisians are getting frustrated with the current path.

The following video looks at Tunisia in the context of the Arab Spring and how it has been successful:

The Threat of ISIS

Tunisia’s success with democracy is all the more impressive given the large influence that ISIS has in the region and within the country. This paradox is most clearly illustrated by the fact that, despite being the most democratic and literate countries in the Islamic World, Tunisia is also the largest source of foreign fighters for ISIS. Between 6,000 and 7,000 Tunisians have left their homes to join ISIS with another 15,000 barred from making the trip. Even more interesting, many of these fighters have come from middle-class, even affluent, backgrounds. This throws the traditional narrative of terrorist breeding grounds into question. Some locals and experts attribute ISIS’s success in recruiting to a sense of disappointment with the post-Arab Spring government.

While Tunisia grapples with being simultaneously being the Islamic world’s most promising democracy and at the same time home to the most ISIS fighters, it must also look to danger from abroad. In 2015, Tunisia was home to two terrorist attacks that left 38 and 21 people dead respectfully. These attacks were conducted by ISIS and targeted tourists. As a result, the tourism industry, which makes up close to 10 percent of Tunisia’s economy, fell decreased significantly.

Perhaps Tunisia’s greatest threat, though, comes from neighboring Libya. Libya is where many Tunisian ISIS recruits go to train before coming back to plan attacks. One such attack was beaten back earlier this year in March when Tunisian security forces managed to fight off an invasion attempt from ISIS soldiers in the town of Ben Guerdane. Although they managed to successfully repel ISIS in Ben Guerdane, the fear and likelihood of more attacks remain strong. In fact, Tunisia is now constructing a wall along its border with Libya with help from the United States and Germany.

The video below takes a closer look at Tunisian government’s difficulty preventing its citizens from joining ISIS:

Conclusion

Five years after the start of the Arab Spring the results do not look promising. Three of the countries involved are engaged in civil war–Yemen, Libya, and Syria–and in Bahrain, the monarchy clings to its power. Meanwhile, authoritarian rule has been restored in Egypt. By most accounts, Tunisia is the only power to experience any meaningful progress toward democratization. Tunisia’s success is even more inexplicable because it is also the number one source of foreign fighters for ISIS and it remains under the constant threat of attack by ISIS fighters who are based in Libya.

But Tunisia and its Arab Spring idealism continue to endure. The nation is certainly not without difficulties and it nearly succumbed to the same problems that doomed Egypt. How was Tunisia able to navigate this mine field when everyone else failed? A leading explanation is Tunisia’s peaceful transition from one government to another, despite its political and social chaos.

Ultimately, though, people’s patience is not infinite and new polls suggest concerns over the political process, the economy, and national security may threaten the long-term success of democracy in Tunisia and the Arab Spring in general. But if Tunisia can solve these problems it will be a testament to a movement that believed that democracy is possible in the Islamic world.

Resources

Libya Herald: Tunisia to Reopen its Tripoli Embassy and Consulate

Encyclopedia Britannica: Tunisia

History World: History of Tunisia

Time: Why the Arab Spring Has Not Led to Disaster in Tunisia

The Wall Street Journal: How Tunisia Became a Top Source of ISIS Recruits

The Telegraph: Tunisia sees a Million Fewer Tourists after Terror Attacks

NPR: Tunisia’s Fragile Democracy Faces A Threat From Chaotic Libya

The Atlantic: Tunisia Is Still a Success

U.S. News and World Report: 5 Years After the Spring

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 Tunisia: The Last Vestige of the Arab Spring? appeared first on Law Street.

Most people know that the Kurds have been one of the most effective groups when it comes to fighting ISIS. But beyond that, little is known to some in the United States about who the Kurds are and what the history of the ethnic group is. With the United States and the many countries involved in the fight against ISIS relying on the group, it is important to take a closer look at who they are and what the majority want.

Who exactly are the Kurds and how did they become the largest ethnic group without a homeland? Read on to find out who the Kurds are, what their role in the Middle East is, and most importantly, what they are looking for.

History of the Kurds

The history of the Kurds is, in many ways, as convoluted as their present–with no exact date or time for when they first appeared on the world stage as an ethnic group. Some speculate they were part of an ancient group that ruled large chunks of the Middle East more than 2,500 years ago. The first widely acknowledged mention of the Kurds as a people came in the seventh century when they converted to Islam. The Kurds often “fought for other groups that succeeded as regional powers, receiving a reputation for being fierce fighters.”

Along with their fighting prowess, the Kurds were also known for their nomadic lifestyle. According to the Kurdistan Tribune, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds–like many other groups in the region–were guaranteed a homeland by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. But like many other groups, they were lied to. After Kemal Ataturk rose to power and Turkey’s borders were formalized in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the Kurds were not given a country of their own. They were then left in the historically unenviable position of being an unpopular minority in an unwelcoming region. This led to a revolt by Kurdish groups and a subsequent violent crackdown by Turkish forces in the 1920s and 30s.

The Kurds and Turks have had an especially hostile relationship following these failed revolts. For years, the Turks tried to suppress the Kurds’ cultural identity by forbidding them to wear traditional clothes or teach their own language in schools. Not surprisingly then, a Kurdish leader named Abdullah Ocalan rose up and created an organization, the Kurdish Workers’ Party or PKK, to fight the Turks and gain a Kurdish homeland in 1978. Despite years of fighting and guerrilla warfare against Turkey, Ocalan ultimately failed and was eventually captured by Turkish forces in 1999. Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist organization and its campaign to fight the group in the southeast region of the country has escalated recently.

Aside from Turkey, the Kurds also had issues in other surrounding countries where they have sizable minorities. After many years of allowing Ocalan to manage the PKK from within its borders, the Syrian government forced him from the country in 1998 after being pressured by Turkey. In Iran, the Kurds made two attempts, both with little success, to carve out an autonomous region.

Iraq rivaled Turkey in its harsh treatment of the Kurds. Throughout the 20th century, the Kurds in Northern Iraq launched several revolts, all of which ended in defeat. However, the worst situation for the Kurds came after Saddam Hussein took power. Angry over their support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein targeted the Kurds with chemical weapons. These attacks stopped after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, however, he crushed another Kurdish revolt soon after.

The video below gives a look at Kurdish history:

Role in the Middle East

Today the Kurdish people live in an area at the intersecting borders of five countries; Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Despite not having a homeland, the Kurds are still an important group made up of as many as 30 million people–the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East. So what role does such a large group, spread over a number of countries, play in the region?

Turkey

Currently, Kurds make up 15 to 20 percent of the population of Turkey. Turkey and the Kurds have a long and bloody history of animosity. Much of this recent struggle has centered on fighting between the PKK and Turkey. Since the PKK took up arms in 1984, approximately 40,000 people have been killed. However, when the PKK toned down its demands and exchanged autonomy for independence in 2012, a ceasefire was finally reached. Nevertheless, all that work was undone in 2015 following a suicide bombing against the Kurds in Suruc. In response, Kurdish forces lashed out against Turkish authorities reigniting the old feud.

Still, the PKK is not representative of all Kurds and, in fact, many are actually entrenched in the Turkish economy. This group, in fact, is a strong pillar of support for the ruling Turkish Justice and Development Part (AKP).  There is also a third group that splits the middle between the supporters of the Turkish AKP and the militant PKK, the People’s Democratic Party or HDP.

Iraq

The Kurds make up as large of a portion of the Iraqi population as they do in Turkey–between 15 and 20 percent. As in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq have faced years of crackdowns and repression following unsuccessful rebellion attempts. However, they achieved some limited autonomy following the First Gulf War and even greater autonomy after the second in 2003. Since the formation of the new Iraqi government, the Kurds have been constant participants in Iraqi politics. Amid the rise of ISIS and the resulting conflict, Kurdish leaders have gone beyond autonomy and called for a referendum on independence.The Kurds and the Iraqi government eventually reconciled several of their differences and started working together closely in the fight against ISIS.

Kurds in Iraq have made the most significant progress toward autonomy relative to Kurds in other countries. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution actually guarantees the Kurds an autonomous area, in which they have established their own government that operates within Iraq’s federal rule. The Kurds have taken advantage of this arrangement with its involvement in the Iraqi oil industry. The Kurds operate a pipeline between Iraq and Turkey, for which they have a revenue sharing agreement with Iraq. A recent dispute over the revenue sharing agreement disrupted oil transfers pending a new agreement.

Syria

The Kurds make up a sizable portion of the population in Syria as well, accounting for between 7 and 10 percent before the Syrian Civil War erupted. This population was concentrated in urban centers and in the north of the country. Like in Turkey and Iraq, Kurds in Syria were also marginalized through repression from the government, which also denies citizenship to over 300,000 Kurds living there. Once the war in Syria began, however, Kurds began asserting their rights and now plan to carve out autonomous regions for themselves. They have also sought to be actively involved in the peace talks determining Syria’s fate.

The Kurds’ battle against ISIS has been particularly challenging in Syria. Several Kurdish positions were overrun by ISIS, partly because Turkey refused to let Turkish Kurds cross the border to intercede. But in October, Turkey eventually allowed some fighters to help Syrian Kurds push back ISIS with the support of U.S. airstrikes. However, the Kurds continue to encounter challenges in terms of their relations with Turkey, notably after their recent attempt to establish an autonomous zone in Syria. While they were quick to clarify they are not seeking independence to appease Turkey, this may have fallen on deaf ears. The Turks have worked to exclude the Kurds from Syria’s peace talks, meaning the appeasement may not be enough.

Elsewhere

Kurds make up about 10 percent of Iran’s population, however in total numbers, they rank only second to those living in Turkey. Nevertheless, unlike in other countries Iranian Kurds enjoy no autonomous regions and like in other neighboring countries they are violently repressed. There is also a much smaller Kurdish community living in Armenia; unlike in other places this group does not govern nor aspire to an autonomous region. The accompanying video looks at the Kurds role in the Middle East:

What the Kurds Want

As the world’s largest “stateless nation,” a priority for the majority of Kurds has long been a country of their own. This has been evident since the start of the Kurdish nationalist movement beginning after WWI, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It is also evident today in Kurdish efforts to achieve autonomous areas where it has large populations, which it has in three countries: Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The real question, then, is not what the Kurds want, but how they hope to achieve it.

But it’s important to note that the Kurds are by no means a monolithic group. While they share the same ethnicity, they are a very diverse group. In Turkey, where the largest Kurd population resides, there are three major Kurdish political groups ranging politically from loyal to the state to hostile to it. There are also major divisions in Iraq with one party controlling two of the Kurdish provinces and a different party controlling the other. The leaders of the dominant party have close relationships with Turkey and have even worked with the Turks in fighting the Turkish PKK. The Kurds in Iraq also fought a civil war during the 1990s which lasted three years.

The Kurds are also divided at even smaller levels with sizable differences between those in cities and those still adhering to their nomadic roots. Even in a country as small as Armenia, there are divisions between traditional Kurdish Sunni Muslims and Kurdish Christians. While many Kurds seek a homeland, for now, the best they may be able to get are autonomous regions like the ones in Syria and Iraq. The following video looks at some of the different Kurdish parties at play across the Middle East:

Conclusion

It is easy to characterize the Kurds as just one more ethnic group with deep historical roots wandering the Middle East searching for a homeland, but that characterization is overly simplistic. The Kurds are not a monolithic group, but a diverse set of actors spread mostly across five countries that are bound by a common heritage. Yes, many do want a homeland, but due to the diversity within the group, how they achieve it, or even if they can, varies widely.

In the seemingly never-ending conflicts in the Middle East, the Kurds are a recurring actor. Much of what is known or understood about them comes from other generalizations–they are Sunni Muslims, they are searching for a country, etc. This is all true but the reality is more complicated. The Kurds’ situation is emblematic of many other realities in the Middle East, an intricate web of interconnected groups with, at times, converging and differing interests. While the Syrian conflict has actually given them the opportunity to further assert their claims, nothing in the fluid region is certain. Thus, only time will tell if those dreams can amount to more than that.

Resources

Washington Post: Who Are the Kurds?

New Historian: History of the Kurds

BBC News: Who are the Kurds?

The Atlantic: What Exactly Are ‘the Kurds’?

Reuters: Iraq seeks financial agreement with Kurds before pumping crude to Turkey

RT: Turkish fighter jets pound PKK targets in Northern Iraq

BBC News: Iraqi Kurdistan Profile

The New York Times: The Kurds Push for Self-Rule in Syria

TA Central: Kurds

Council on Foreign Relations: The Time of the Kurds

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect sources of information.

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 Who are the Kurds? appeared first on Law Street.

The city of Brussels, Belgium fell victim to a series of ISIS-claimed terror attacks during Tuesday’s morning rush hour at the Zaventem airport and downtown Maelbeek subway station. So far, at least 34 people have been reported dead, and the number of those injured is in the hundreds.

“A lot of people were on the floor” — #Brussels attack witnesses describe carnage, chaos https://t.co/QVs0OWNXSv pic.twitter.com/bzXcdH0Gyr

— CNN (@CNN) March 22, 2016

In total there were three explosions. The first two took place at around 8 AM local time, or 3 AM Eastern time in the departure hall of the Brussels Airport. Officials have said that at least one of the explosions was triggered by a suicide bomber. The blasts happened outside of the security checkpoints for passengers near an airline check-in counter and a airport Starbucks. Reports have placed the first attack’s death toll at 14 people ,and estimated the number of those injured to be 92.

About an hour later there was another explosion, which targeted the Maelbeek subway station which resides in the heart of Brussels. At least 20 people were killed and 106 were injured at the subway station.

Images and videos of the attacks showed panicked travelers escaping trapped train cars and fleeing the smoke filled airport.

Warning: The following video shows actual images from after the attack.

Belgium has called for three days of national mourning and has effectively shut down travel in and out of the city. All flights in and out of the international hub have been suspended and the entire subway network has been closed. Workers at two nuclear power plants in Belgium were also evacuated, but so far there has been little information on whether or not there is a direct threat to the facilities.

Amaq News Agency, an ISIS-affiliated new agency, released a statement that claimed Islamic State fighters armed with explosive belts were responsible for the attacks. The statement also claimed that the bombers “opened fire” before detonating their bombs inside Zaventem Airport.

Many believe the attacks may have been in response to the Friday arrest of Salah Abdeslam, who is considered to have been the main fugitive and sole survivor involved in the November 13 terror attack in Paris that killed 130 people.

Belgium authorities have released the following photo to the media of the three men who are currently suspects in the airport attack. According to BBC, “the two men dressed in black are believed to have blown themselves up, while the man in white is thought to have escaped.”

Image of three possible suspects in #Brussels airport attack widely shared by Belgian media https://t.co/oyQsHushEk pic.twitter.com/L3i3vU8SyK

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) March 22, 2016

President Obama offered his condolences for the attacks at the beginning of his long awaited speech to the Cuban people Tuesday, saying:

We stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people. We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally Belgium in bringing to justice those who are responsible. And this is yet another reminder that the world must unite. We must be together regardless of nationality or race or faith in fighting against the scourge of terrorism. We can and we will defeat those who threaten the safety and security of people all around the world.

Many people have also responded by sharing their condolences on social media.

The international community comes together for #Brussels: https://t.co/S8dORpsnOJ pic.twitter.com/0y3jYFJnQ8

— Good Morning America (@GMA) March 22, 2016

The senseless tragedy today breaks my heart. Sending thoughts & prayers to #Brussels. Time for us to stand together. pic.twitter.com/85kDLXicSR

— Caitlyn Jenner (@Caitlyn_Jenner) March 22, 2016

I hate waking up to yet another terrorist attack.This world is out of control. #notagain #PrayersForBrussels pic.twitter.com/La6ELmAs7F

— kingscourtautographs (@kingscourtgraph) March 22, 2016

A lot of details surrounding the attacks are still unknown, and we could still see a rise in the death toll and the number of those injured. We’ll continue to update you with more information as it comes.

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 World Shocked by Terror Attacks in Brussels, Death Toll Still Rising appeared first on Law Street.

While this doesn’t necessarily imply that there’s any sort of legal obligation of involvement when the word “genocide” is used, it makes a more compelling argument for the U.S. to take stronger action against ISIS. And even though the international law can be very ambiguous, Secretary Kerry said in today’s statement that “we must hold the perpetrators accountable. And we must find the resources to help those harmed by these atrocities be able to survive on their ancestral land.” To add to that even further, it’s also pretty rare for the U.S. to make such a declaration: the last time the U.S. officially declared genocide was over a decade ago, in 2004, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used it to refer to the atrocities in Darfur.

So while it’s still not completely clear to what extent this affects our current foreign policy toward ISIS, it could mean a significant international effort to take action against the group, and shows that we definitely aren’t walking away from this conflict any time soon.

Mariam Jaffery

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

The post Kerry Says ISIS “Responsible for Genocide”: What Does That Mean? appeared first on Law Street.

After years of fighting destroyed cities, led to massive waves of refugees, and killed hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, world leaders are finally coming to the table in order to reach a peace agreement. On February 1, leaders from around the region and the world met in Geneva, Switzerland in order to lay the groundwork for a deal that might end the conflict.

While even getting this far is an accomplishment, actually achieving a sustained peace is further complicated by the various regional and world powers involved, each of whom has their own agendas to satisfy. Couple that with the role of non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front and the reason why peace has been so elusive becomes clearer. Read on to find out about the origins of the Syrian conflict, what each side wants and how those involved expect to create a lasting peace.

A Brief Overview

The war in Syria marks the last gasp of the Arab Spring. Beginning in March 2011, thousands of protesters took to the streets after government forces arrested, tortured, and killed opponents of the Syrian regime. But doing so escalated the conflict leading to the consolidation of several rebel factions that rose up in violent resistance. Since the conflict devolved into full-fledged civil war, there have been atrocities and war crimes committed by both the rebels and the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad. The most infamous were the chemical weapons attacks in 2013, which nearly led to a direct U.S. intervention. The situation was eventually resolved when the United States, Russia, and Syria reached an agreement to dispose of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile.

Unsurprisingly, the conflict has resulted in violence and destruction on a mass scale. As of the start of 2016, an estimated 250,000 people had been killed and 11 million others have been displaced either internally or abroad. The resulting refugee crisis has reached historic proportions, testing the limits of neighboring countries and the European Union.

Who is Involved?

Due to the long-running nature of the conflict as well as the number of people killed or displaced, many of the world’s major powers have also gotten involved. The contingent opposing Assad includes Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, the United Kingdom, France, and the United States. The countries bolstering Assad are Iran and Russia. Along with these nations are non-state actors such as ISIS and the Al Nusra Front. With all of these groups involved, to understand how the peace process hopes to work, it is first necessary to understand what they each want.

The United States and its Allies

The clearest distinction in what the two sides are hoping to achieve comes in the targets of their respective airstrikes. The U.S.-led collation has focused on targeting ISIS positions while trying not to assist Assad in any way. The coalition’s main goal is to bring the conflict to an end peacefully, ensure that Assad leaves office, and also stop the flow of refugees.

So far, the west has focused almost exclusively on defeating ISIS and not fighting the Assad regime directly. The Obama administration initially authorized a program to train rebels, but it was viewed as a disaster and the program was shut down last October. Aside from logistical problems, one area of contention was Washington’s insistence that rebels focus on fighting ISIS over Assad, which they did not agree with. In its place, the United States began to directly offer arms to the Syrian rebels.

An ideal peace agreement for the United States would involve Assad leaving power and the creation of some form of a cooperative, moderate government to take his place. Doing so would need to also enable displaced Syrians to return home and allow the United States to focus on defeating ISIS exclusively.

Russia

Much of Russia’s interests in Syria run counter to what the United States wants to see happen. This starts with Russia’s airstrikes, which have reportedly been targeting the opposition groups fighting Assad and not terrorist organizations such as ISIS. Like Iran, Russia hopes to keep its client Assad in power in Syria, however, its larger aims in Syria and the greater Middle East are far-reaching and complex. For more information about Russia’s role in the Middle East and its interests there check out this explainer.

So far, Russia has been willing to openly assert its positions even at the expense of a potential peace deal. Most recently, as countries involved in the region agreed to a version of a ceasefire, Russia embarked on an airstrike campaign to support a Syrian government attack on Aleppo, frustrating potential peace partners. For Russia, the best case scenario would be Assad maintaining his power so that Russia maintain its foothold in the area and the stability of one of its longstanding allies.

Saudi Arabia and Iran

Two other major players are Saudi Arabia and Iran. While the Saudis are tentatively an ally of the United States, the country has several important interests in the conflict. Iran is similarly situated but on the other side of the conflict, finding itself partially aligned with Russia. Both countries’ concerns with the Syrian conflict center over their expanding proxy war, which pits them against one another on religious and geopolitical grounds. The conflict was already sectarian in nature, pitting President Assad–a member of the minority ruling Shia Alawite sect–against the majority Sunnis. Iran, another Shia country, provides billions of dollars in military and economic aid to Assad. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been funneling a lot of support for the Syrian rebels. The escalating feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia has already strained the existing peace efforts–the execution of a cleric in Saudi Arabia causing Iran to retaliate and tensions to rise.

For Iran, it would be a major victory if Assad is able to stay in power. Not only would it mean keeping him as a client, it would also help them maintain influence in Lebanon as well. Additionally, it would serve as a victory over both Saudi Arabia and the United States. For Saudi Arabia, victory would mean Assad losing power and a new government made up of the Sunni majority population. This would give the Saudis a badly needed win in a proxy war that has so far seen Iran gain influence throughout the gulf.

Non-State Actors

Adding fuel to the sectarian nature of this war is the presence of non-state groups such as ISIS and the Al-Qaida sponsored Nusra Front. These groups have battled each other, the other countries acting in Syria, and Assad’s forces. ISIS has proven to be the most successful and prominent group, taking and holding large chunks of territory in both Iraq and Syria. In fact, ISIS is the reason why the foreign powers are in Syria in the first place, although Russia, Iran, and likely some of the Gulf States are clearly there for other concerns as well.

The presence of ISIS and Al Nusra has severely complicated the situation in Syria. The mere presence of these groups makes any effort to arm Syrian rebels much more complicated, as countries fear that their weapons will fall into the wrong hands. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish who is a member of ISIS and who is just someone fighting against the regime. Aside from ISIS and Al Nusra, Iran-backed Hezbollah and the Syrian Kurdish PYD have also been involved in the fighting.

Syria

Then there’s Syria itself. The ongoing conflict has destroyed much of the country’s infrastructure and displaced massive portions of the Syrian population. Estimates indicate that the cost to fix the damage done to the country from a monetary standpoint could be as much as $200 billion. Considering how hard it has been to merely find the funds to help Syrian refugees, it appears unlikely that much money could or would be raised to rebuild an unstable country.

The best case scenario for Syria is hard to pinpoint. Assad’s departure would certainly be in the interest of the majority Sunni population, but doing so could also create a massive power vacuum furthering the rise of extremism. In this case then, perhaps forming some type of coalition which incorporates both the opposition and elements of the Assad regime in to order maintain some sort of peace may be the most that can be hoped for.

With all these parties involved and the constant infighting, little has been accomplished. The reality is, there is more than one war going on in Syria at the moment. To achieve peace in Syria, all these separate conflicts would need to be resolved at once, with the possible exception of the fight against ISIS.

The following video gives a sample of what may be next for Syria:

Peace for our Time?

In mid-December, the U.N. Security Council agreed to create a path that would eventually lead to peace in Syria. After years of violent conflict, peace talks finally began on February 1 in Geneva, Switzerland. The talks started with a U.N. special envoy Staffan de Mistura meeting separately with the government and opposition representatives. The talks are tentatively planned to last for six months. However, there is not even a preliminary understating of how, let alone if, Assad will give up power.

In fact, the only reason these talks are even taking place now is conditions are so bad in some places as to potentially demand war crime charges. The opposition only considered participating because they were promised that major headway would be made toward addressing these most serious issues. And almost immediately after the process was initiated, it was suspended due to attacks by the Syrian government with Russia’s backing. How much ultimately comes from these talks and whether they even occur as planned remains a mystery. The following video gives a quick look at some of the problems plaguing the peace talks:

Conclusion

After years of fighting, millions displaced, and hundreds of thousands dead, peace talks in Syria must be a good idea, right? Unfortunately, all available evidence suggests that there is very little chance of a sustainable peace agreement on the horizon. While talks may help strengthen diplomatic ties as the conflict rages on, there appears to be very little in the way of progress to stop the violence.

The problem with this peace process is there are too many different parties at play, with very different sets of interests and strategic goals. One side wants Assad to stay, the other will not negotiate unless he is forced to leave. But that is just one of the many questions at hand, as many parties have a wide range of strategic interests in the war. This problem is compounded further, by the fact that the opposition to Assad is a hodge-podge of groups and no one can agree on who to trust. In fact, the strongest opposition group in Syria is probably ISIS or the Al Nusra Front, but neither of them was invited to the peace conference for obvious reasons.

While some sort of peace in Syria may be possible down the road, the possibility that it is favorable for all those involved, especially the Syrian people, is far less likely.

Resources

International Business Times: Syria: Shaky Peace Process to Start in Geneva Amid Deadly Bombings and Sieges

BBC News: Syria: The Story of the conflict

BBC News: Syria Crisis: Where Key Countries Stand

Law Street Media: Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

The Guardian: Future of Assad in Doubt as UN Unanimously Supports Syrian Peace Process

Euro News: Aleppo Assault Threatens Fragile Syrian Peace Process

Al Jazeera: Prominent Syrian Rebel Commander Killed in Airstrike

Al Jazeera: Saudi-Iran Crisis Throws a Wrench in Syria Peace Talks

History News Network: 6 Predictions About What will Happen in Syria

CNN: You Thought Syria Couldn’t Get Much Worse. Think Again

The New York Times: Syria Talks Are Suspended

BBC: Arming Syrian rebels: Where the US Went Wrong

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 Why Does Peace in Syria Remain Elusive? appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS’s revolutionary ability to use technology for organizational, recruitment, and propaganda purposes is well known, but the terrorist group has now built its own encrypted Android app to use for covert conversations. It’s called “Alwari,” and it was recently uncovered by a counter-terrorism technology watchdog and Anonymous affiliate called Ghost Security Group.

Alwari is presumably in response to a few different recent developments. For one, Anonymous and other groups have threatened ISIS’s use of messaging apps like WhatsApp and Telegram. Additionally, those apps have the potential to be monitored by national security officials, such as the FBI, and some applications, including Telegram and Twitter, have taken steps to remove or block ISIS-related accounts.

Alwari isn’t the first time that ISIS has made an attempt at its own app. Ghost Security Group discovered last month that ISIS members were using Telegram to download a propaganda app called Amaq Agency. While it has now been taken down, according to Fortune it “provided users with a stream of news and videos filled with ISIS propaganda messages including executions, battlefield footage, and speeches.”

Exactly how technologically advanced Alwari is is unclear. While it doesn’t have the sophistication of WhatsApp or Telegram, whoever made it had the wherewithal to make sure that messages are protected. Unlike most Android apps, Alwari can’t be downloaded by visiting Google Play. Instead, it’s accessed through a shared code.

The U.S. is currently discussing the idea of “backdoors” into some encryption software–essentially ways that would allow the U.S. or other governments to access information sent via encryption. FBI Director James Comey has pushed for, at the very least, a debate over including these features. But, that debate may become somewhat irrelevant if there’s no ability to create those backdoors in the first place because the group we are trying to monitor has its own way to securely communicate. ISIS’s ability to use technology is, at the very least, unprecedented, but it shouldn’t be surprising, and at this point certainly needs to figure into the debate about privacy and backdoors waging in the U.S.

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 Alwari: ISIS Creates its Own Android Messaging App 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.

Happy holidays, everyone! It’s understandable that you may have gotten behind on your news during the holiday season, but never fear, Law Street has you covered. ICYMI, check out our best stories of the last week.

#1 #NotMyAbuela: Twitter Mocks Hillary Clinton’s “Hispandering” Post

While Donald Trump is busy alienating Hispanics, other candidates are desperately trying to tap into the highly valued Hispanic vote to fuel their campaigns. So in an attempt to connect with Hispanic voters, Hillary Clinton’s team uploaded a new post to her campaign site Monday titled “7 things Hillary Clinton has in common with your abuela.”

In the post Clinton plays up her new role as grandmother while talking about the importance of el respeto, but Hispanic voters weren’t buying it. Clinton was immediately accused of “hispandering” aka pandering to Hispanics, and the backlash was muy grande. Read the full story here.

#2 Rand Paul Wins Twitter with Festivus Rant

Rand Paul started to bid farewell to 2015 with a special edition of his “Waste Report,” a regular roundup of government spending that he considers wasteful. Paul releases these reports as part of his unending effort to cut the federal deficit, but this edition commemorated the, objectively speaking, most underrated holiday in the United States: Festivus. Read the full story here.

#3 Woman Calls Cops On Neighbors For Chanting “ISIS is Good” During Sex

An 82-year-old Wisconsin woman just took being a nosy neighbor to a whole new level. According to a local CBS News station, the woman called the Brown Deer Police Sunday night to report that her neighbors were chanting “ISIS is good, ISIS is great” while having sex. Read the full story here.

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: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

An 82-year-old Wisconsin woman just took being a nosy neighbor to a whole new level. According to a local CBS News station, the woman called the Brown Deer Police Sunday night to report that her neighbors were chanting “ISIS is good, ISIS is great” while having sex.

I’m just going to let that marinate for a second.

This woman dialed 911 because she believed her neighbors “non-traditional” sexual proclivities constituted a declaration of terrorist intentions. The police, however, didn’t seem too convinced that there was any immediate danger, telling the woman to call back if she heard more chanting or anything else unusual.

When asked on Twitter about the incident, Brown Deer Police Chief Kass replied, “maybe taking see something, say something a little too far?”

@Eric_Steckling @BrownDeerWIPD @CBS58 maybe taking see something say something a little to far?

— Chief Kass (@browndeerchief) December 22, 2015

Once social media got wind of the story, several users began coming up with their own hilarious explanations for the possible chant.

@CBS58 @robdelaney No sex. I was enjoying My McDonalds Sweet tea and moaning “Ice is… is good”. And yes I have a slight stutter. — Derek Rowe (@KentuckyBlacc) December 22, 2015

@Boiler2015 @CBS58 who DOESN’T yell ISIS is good during sex?? Settle down grandma! — Bentzburgh (@Bentzburgh) December 22, 2015

@CBS58 @AdrianChen How dare someone steal my safeword. — emily nussbaum (@emilynussbaum) December 22, 2015

@dhambrick63 @CBS58 true story, there are women named Isis in America… — DocBeerio (@docbeerio) December 22, 2015

All jokes aside, this poor old lady was probably just trying to do her civic due diligence. Maybe next time she’ll think twice before trying to cockblock her neighbors by calling the cops.

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 Woman Calls Cops On Neighbors For Chanting “ISIS is Good” During Sex appeared first on Law Street.

Charming to some. Smug to others. Abrasive to most. But even with such mixed feelings and emotional reactions invoked at the mention of his name, Donald Trump is leading the Republican polls. Most recently, Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States–which he further explained did not apply to U.S. citizens who were Muslim and would only last until the incompetent politicians on the hill can get themselves together. What that means is unclear, but it is evident from his interview with CNN’s Don Lemon that Trump, along with much of America, is not pleased with the lack of progress, law-making, and reform taking place in Washington, D.C.

Yes Mr. Trump, give yourself a pat on the back for creating a dialogue on an issue that is quite important and one that most Americans are less than educated about. However, you get points off for spreading extra bigotry. The American public needs to be wary of what Trump’s proposal actually means and the kind of law-making it reflects before we nod in agreement like the political pawns we are expected to be.

Apart from the blatant unconstitutional basis for this proposal, such a ban as the one proposed by Trump is problematic for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to ban a group of people from entering the United States on the basis of religion would be next to impossible in practice. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, equaling about 23 percent of the world’s population. These are 1.6 billion people coming from the Asian-Pacific region, the Middle East, Europe, Northern Africa as well as other African nations, just to name a few. These are people that do not share many physical characteristics and are not identifiable by a singular trait as they encompass anybody and everybody.

So how exactly would one prove he or she is not Muslim? Would people carry around affidavits sworn by their pastors? Would wearing a cross save you from categorical discrimination on the basis of religion? And what about the atheists of the world who practice no religion at all? How would they convince those around them that they are not Muslim? Additionally, do we really think ISIS members or other radical extremists would volunteer information about their practices to U.S. Customs Officers? These questions might sound absurd, but they are real and only highlight the ridiculousness of Trump’s proposal.

Secondly, there are a large number of Muslim businessmen and women, doctors, scientists, and academics that frequently travel to the United States and greatly contribute to the technological, educational, medical, economic, and scientific growth and advancement of the U.S.–areas of practice and study that have been decreasing in domestic educational interest for years. To ban them from entry into a country that they have been actively and positively contributing to would not only serve to offend them and turn them off from future engagements and endeavors, but it would be just plain stupid. Punishing Muslim innovators and educators due to the actions of a few–people whose behaviors they condemn and find absolutely reprehensible–is a waste of invaluable resources on an unfounded basis.

Thirdly, Trump’s ban is reminiscent of much darker times in history–i.e. when Jews were forced to wear badges identifying their faith under Adolf Hitler’s leadership and when Japanese-Americans were placed into internment camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor. One would assume that many lessons had been learned following the colossal tragedies that resulted out of such blatant and unfounded discrimination, but yet, with Trump’s rhetoric, it appears we have not. This Nazi-esque type of discrimination and exclusion based on religious beliefs has been condemned by parties on all sides and was even dubbed “un-American” by former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Finally, Trump seeks to confuse the issue at hand and puts the U.S. into an action-based response that is anticipated, wanted, and planned by extremist groups such as ISIS. The point of terrorism is to create terror, to stir up emotions of fear and irrational reactions used to isolate, alienate, and leave people vulnerable, open to great influence–exactly what the likes of ISIS would welcome, large groups of Muslim people feeling abandoned, isolated, and unwelcomed by the very societies they have set out to enrich, contribute positively to, and raise families in as model citizens. ISIS wants to build a “complete society” with men and women alike and they will recruit. Those vulnerable and rejected by Western societies are likely targets.

Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous two-fold. Not only does it seek to alienate and isolate Muslims from Western societies, leaving the doors open for ISIS recruitment, but it also works to confuse Islam with terrorism, dangerously perpetuating the idea that the two are interchangeable when they are absolutely not. Trump is promoting a display of Islamophobia that would be considered disgusting for anyone, much less a possible Republican Presidential candidate.

Ajla Glavasevic

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

The post The Dangerous Rhetoric of Donald Trump appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has been the focal point of public discussion for several months now and it seems like the group will not leave the spotlight anytime soon. But while we often talk about what the group is doing and how to respond, we often spend less time understanding how it is able to sustain itself. How do ISIS and other terrorist groups manage to continuously fund global operations while being attacked by several world powers?

In the case of ISIS, estimates suggest that the group’s assets equaled approximately $875 million in 2014, coming from a variety of sources that include oil production and taxes. ISIS and many other terrorist groups actually seem to resemble a sort of mix between a state government and a criminal syndicate, as their funding comes from a wide variety of sources. Read on to see where some of the money supporting ISIS, and other global terror groups, comes from.

Funding Terrorism in the Past

Traditionally terrorism has primarily been funded through private donations. This was certainly the case for ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaida, which received much of its funding from wealthy Saudis. Charities can be effective because they are difficult to detect and tie to radical organizations. Many of these groups worked on legitimate causes while also funneling money to extremists, muddying the waters even further.

The money raised by these charities is then laundered through shell companies and some legitimate businesses, then transferred to a terrorist group. Another popular means of moving money is through remittances, which are popular in the Middle East. One example of remittances is the use of Hawalas, which are essentially untraceable wire transfers that allow people to send money from one country to their friends or relatives in another. According to a Treasury Department report, Hawalas are often cheaper and faster than traditional bank transactions, making them particularly appealing. Using middlemen with contacts in both countries, payments can be made without needing to transfer money for each transaction. While Hawalas are useful for many people who send money abroad for legitimate reasons, they are also well-liked by terrorist groups because they can be used in areas with little financial infrastructure and are hard to trace.

Efforts have been made to crack down on this type of financing–pressure has been placed both on Gulf nations, like Saudi Arabia, and financial institutions to look for any suspicious activity. While this certainly remains a viable source of income for terrorists, it has generally stopped being the number one source as governments have placed additional scrutiny on international financial transactions. Instead, ISIS and other groups have shifted to new tactics. The following video gives a look at money laundering and how terrorist groups raise funds illegally:

Help from Their Friends

While Gulf states’ support for terrorism has declined, it has certainly not been eliminated altogether. People in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have long been known as funders of ISIS and other extremist groups that include al-Qaida. These countries, which are in many ways American allies, argue that they are protecting Sunnis from Shiites in a larger struggle for the heart of Islam. The accompanying video looks at from where and how ISIS gets private donations, including those from American allies:

While banks, especially Western banks, have measures in place to identify money laundering and terrorist funding, the same is not true for all of the Gulf states. In places like Qatar, these controls are not as stringent and are not strongly enforced. ISIS also hires fundraisers to reach out to wealthy individuals and solicit money to support its cause.

Money can also be sent to ISIS in the form of fake humanitarian aid packages. These packages are often sent to war zones under the guise of humanitarian assistance but are not actually directed to an individual or organization. These transactions tend to be very difficult to stop for a host of reasons. In addition to poorly regulated banking systems, groups and individuals who send money are often influential in their home countries. Additionally, few humanitarian organizations have direct ties in the region to ensure that the assistance makes it to the proper aid workers.

Traditional Means

Taxes, Extortion, and Robbery

To fill the gap from private donations, ISIS, like traditional states, relies heavily on taxes. The group places a tax on everything it believes to be valuable, from businesses to vehicles. ISIS also taxes non-Muslims, giving them the choice between forced conversion, paying a tax, or facing death. These shakedowns take place at businesses, public areas, or at checkpoints, forcing people to pay or face violence and possibly death. ISIS also sends fundraisers ahead of its fighters to a town or city to demand money. It is important to note that the group only attacks and attempts to conquer areas with some sort of financial value. It rarely, for example, conquers vast tracts of desert simply to take more territory. Taxation has become an especially important source of income as its other revenue streams, like oil production, have declined.  In fact, taxation and extortion were actually ISIS’s largest sources of income in 2014, amounting to a reported $600 million in revenue.

In many ways, the taxation practiced by ISIS is a form of theft, but the group also does its fair share of outright robbery. When the group took the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit last year it seized vast quantities of money from bank vaults–estimates suggest those confiscations amounted to $1.5 billion. The group is also notorious for outright stealing possessions from people when it conquers a new territory.

Kidnapping

Another means for ISIS to offset its expenses is turning to organized crime. Emulating its predecessor al-Qaida, ISIS has relied heavily on kidnapping for ransoms. ISIS’s victims are traditionally Westerners, many of whom work for wealthy organizations. Although European countries sometimes pay ransoms, some countries such as the United States will not, though some corporations will discreetly pay ransoms for their workers.

In 2014, the U.S. Treasury estimated that ISIS made as much as $20 million dollars from kidnapping. This money did not only come from abducting foreigners, it was also the result of the group’s willingness to kidnap citizens within its own territory if it feels it can generate a high enough payoff.

Drug Trafficking

Along with trafficking in people, like any criminal organization, ISIS may deal in drugs. While it is unclear how much revenue the group receives from the practice, it seems likely that drugs are one more weapon in ISIS’s financial arsenal. This is another example of ISIS learning from its predecessor Al-Qaeda.

Oil/Water/Food

While these are all important revenue streams for ISIS, its most valuable asset is the one it shares with its Middle Eastern neighbors: oil. Iraq has the fifth largest proven oil reserves in the world and ISIS uses this supply to help fill its coffers. While many of the world’s nations impose sanctions on ISIS to prevent it from selling any of these supplies, the group still manages to smuggle oil for profit. Using paths developed in Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein, the group is able to smuggle out oil, cash, and other contraband to neighboring countries. In 2014, depending on the always-volatile price-per-barrel of oil, ISIS was making between $1 to $2 million a day off oil revenue.

Although much of the oil is smuggled illegally into neighboring countries, it may also be finding more legitimate routes. According to Russian sources, Turkey is allowing large shipments of oil from areas known to be under ISIS’s control. While this could very easily be a baseless accusation in the wake of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet, it may be worth considering. David Cohen, the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the U.S. Treasury noted that Turkey, Syria, and the Kurds have all made deals, through middlemen, to acquire oil from ISIS despite openly fighting the group.

Other Means

ISIS has also utilized other creative methods to fill its reserves. One such method is looting the historical sites that it has become notorious for destroying. Another is through its well-known skills with social media. ISIS uses apps such as WhatsApp and Kik to coordinate covert money drop-offs from its supporters. Other groups such as Boko Haram have even more innovative schemes, from acting as local muscle to employing internet scams.

Ultimately, though, how much ISIS relies on any one source and how valuable any one source is to the group tends to fluctuate a lot. After all, the group now makes far more from taxes than oil production and early sources of income like robbing banks may start to dry up. So far, this strategy has been effective as ISIS really only spends money on fighter salaries, while it salvages weapons and avoids building projects because of the threat posed by airstrikes.ISIS’s strategy is one of thriftiness, especially regarding the social services it offers to its conquered subjects, could prove more decisive than any allied bomb strike in determining its future.

The video below details how ISIS gets its money:

Conclusion

ISIS has proven to be extremely difficult to defeat by conventional means. Despite waves of airstrikes and military support for the Syrian, Kurdish, and Iraqi militaries, the group has endured and even thrived. This is a result of several factors, one of which is ISIS’s ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources while operating a crude form of local government. Another is its ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources much like a criminal enterprise. Many of these methods were pioneered by al-Qaida and are now also being adopted by Boko Haram as well.

However, ISIS’s ability to survive is also partly attributable to the difficulty, and the occasional unwillingness, of bordering countries to crack down on the flow of money to terrorist organizations. These countries have, in some cases, let ISIS smuggle goods into their countries, rampage unopposed and even somewhat directly financed its operations.

To eliminate ISIS, like al-Qaida before it, ISIS’s finances must be crippled. If you can’t pay people to fight for you, or provide services as a government, staying in power becomes increasingly difficult. However, ISIS and like-minded groups have become particularly effective at keeping the lights on.

Resources

Council on Foreign Relations: Tracking Down Terrorist Financing

Newsweek: How does ISIS fund its Reign of Terror?

The Jerusalem Post: How does the Islamic State Fund its Activities?

Security Intelligence: Funding Terrorists the Rise of ISIS

The Daily Beast: America’s Allies are Funding ISIS

Independent: Russia Publishes “Proof” Turkey’s Erdogan is Smuggling ISIS Oil Across Border from Syria

RFI: Nigerian Intelligence Chief Calls for Untangling of Boko Haram Funding

Perspectives on Terrorism: A Financial Profile of the Terrorism of Al-Qaeda and its Affiliates

Political Violence at a Glance: ISIS, Ideology, and the Illicit Economy

New York Times: ISIS Finances Are Strong

Vox: This Detailed Look at ISIS’s Budget Shows That it’s Well-funded and Somewhat Incompetent

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 Cost of Terrorism: How is ISIS Funded? appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican field is about to have its fifth (but feels like 275th) debate of the 2016 primary season, hosted by CNN. Given that the field is still depressingly crowded, the last debate of 2015 promises to be a contentious one. Here’s a rundown of what you need to know before tomorrow night’s debate:

Participants:

It’s no secret that the Republican field has been so crowded this time around that we’ve needed two debate stages to hold them all. CNN is following the format of the first four debates, with a “JV” table consisting of Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham ,and former New York Gov. George Pataki.

The main debate will feature nine presidential hopefuls–according to CNN:

Businessman Donald Trump, the front-runner for the nomination, will again be center stage flanked by retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson on his right and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on his left, CNN announced Sunday. The six remaining participants in the prime-time contest will be Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The moderator will be Wolf Blitzer, with CNN’s Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash joining Salem Radio Network talk show host Hugh Hewitt as questioners.

Seating Arrangements

The podium arrangement, which places higher-polling candidates front and center, will look like this:

.@CNNPolitics releases lineup, podium arrangement for final GOP debate of 2015 https://t.co/flm7OnriN0pic.twitter.com/ke1uPuRo2s

— Allison Wisk (@allisonwisk) December 13, 2015

Where’s the debate?

It’s going to be held in Las Vegas, at the Venetian hotel. It’s hosted by CNN, so if you want to stream it from the comfort of your own living room while playing a drinking game (no judgment) check out CNN.com’s live stream.

Will there be any feuds?

Given that we’re getting closer and closer to primary votes–the Iowa caucuses will be held in February–candidates are starting to get a bit nastier with each other. For example, Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz–two of the frontrunners, are almost certain to attack each other, most likely on foreign affairs issues. Cruz is painting Rubio as a centrist who can’t be trusted, while Rubio’s gripe with Cruz is that he’s weak on security-adjacent concepts like surveillance.

We may also see some squabbles between Cruz and Donald Trump. Trump has gone after Cruz hard in recent days. On “Fox News Sunday” Trump called Cruz a “little bit of a maniac” when discussing his career in the Senate. Cruz’s response was surprisingly even-tempered, as he tweeted a reference to “Flashdance” at Donald Trump:

In honor of my friend @realDonaldTrump and good-hearted #Maniacs everywhere: https://t.co/KOPIi4XTVt

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 13, 2015

Whether or not Cruz will take the bait on the stage remains to be seen. 

What will they talk about?

Unlike the last few debates, tomorrow’s doesn’t have a specified theme. So, what the candidates will talk about could encompass a wide range of issues, but there are a few topics that it’s very safe to bet will be discussed. For starters, national security will be a hot topic. A lot has happened since the last debate on November 10, most visibly the horrific terrorist attack in Paris, France, that sparked conversations about the fight against ISIS, Syrian refugees, terrorism, and the status of Muslims in the United States. Additionally, the shooting in San Bernardino, California set many Americans even more on edge, leading to calls from Trump to stop allowing Muslims into the United States. Questions about gun control may also come up, as well as the economy and Planned Parenthood. 

Law Street readers: are there any topics you want to see discussed? Let us know the in the poll below:

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 What Do You Want to Hear About in the Next Republican Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top stories last week included more news on Planned Parenthood and ISIS, as well as some bizarre custody drama involving a former TV talk show host. The number one story looked at a hilarious open letter to ISIS written by an Irish comedian, that quickly went viral on social media. The number two story revealed that a judge denied Sherri Shepherd’s request to cut legal ties with a baby she and her now ex-husband had via surrogacy. The last top story discussed how politicians are ultimately the ones to blame for the hateful Planned Parenthood rhetoric we see today. ICYMI check out these top stories below.

#1: Finchie Cova: Irish Comedian Pens Hilarious Open Letter to ISIS

A 21-year-old Irish comedian has skyrocketed to internet fame after posting a hilarious long-winded open letter to ISIS that has gone viral. Finchie Cova penned the 800+ word letter on his Facebook after the terrorist organization announced last week that it plans to attack Ireland, labeling it “Europe’s weakest link.” Read the full story here.

#2: Sorry Sherri Shepherd, But You Can’t Renege Your Baby’s Surrogacy

A Pennsylvania appeals court has found television personality Sherri Shepherd legally responsible for a child born to a surrogate that she and her ex-husband hired before they divorced. According to USA Today, the former actress must now continue to pay $4,100 a month in child support to her ex-husband Lamar Sally for little Lamar Jr. Read the full story here.

#3: Politicians To Blame For Hateful Planned Parenthood Rhetoric

“No more baby parts.” That is what Robert Lewis Dear, the gunman who killed three people and injured several more at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, allegedly told authorities following his arrest. We can assume that the shooter was referring to the smear campaign of videos released earlier this year by the Center for Medical Progress. These videos have been analyzed multiple times and have been proven to be doctored, falsely claiming that Planned Parenthood sells parts from aborted fetuses for profit. Planned Parenthood does not sell baby parts. So why did Dear say “no more baby parts”? Read the full story here.

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.

This morning, Donald Trump called into “Fox and Friends” to explain what he would do to take down ISIS. While outlining his strategy he voiced some incredibly disturbing, legally questionable, and morally wrong ideas. Check out the clip for yourself:

.@realDonaldTrump: “I’d knock the hell out of ISIS… you have to take out their families.” https://t.co/ju4LYTl0JV

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) December 2, 2015

Yup, Donald Trump said that in order to fight ISIS we have to “take out their families,” and that we’re fighting too politically correct of a war, in which we’re just too worried about civilian casualties.

Here’s the issue: what Donald Trump is advocating for by targeting ISIS members’ families is pretty much a crime against humanity. Whether or not he’d actually ever be held responsible for it is a whole different matter, given that the U.S. is not party to the various international courts that actually punish perpetrators. But what Donald Trump is advocating for isn’t just a show of aggression, or tough tactics against ISIS. It’s fundamentally against what we, as humans, have decided is acceptable in war.

International law is a complicated, very gray field. But there are some basics that it lays out. These are things that we’ve all pretty much universally decided should be illegal in war. There are “peremptory norms,” sometimes referred to as jus cogens, that lay out the things that are never acceptable under any circumstances. Peremptory norms include things like acts of genocide, slavery, and torture. That’s not to say that these things never happen, but more that they are viewed as the worst of the worst. Peremptory norms include crimes against humanity, which specifically forbid killing any civilians on purpose. While it’s pretty well recognized that sometimes civilian casualties are unavoidable, directly targeting civilians is always unacceptable.

There’s also Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which forbids: “murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” for “persons taking no active part in the hostilities.” The idea that killing civilians is morally unacceptable has been reiterated in court over and over again, beginning with the Nuremberg Trials. Put very simply: we, as humans, have decided time and time again that directly targeting civilians in war, regardless of who they may be related to, is wrong.

Michael Walzer, a professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study, discussed Trump’s statements with Mic, saying:

The crucial moral and … legal requirement … is to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and noncombatants and to attack only the combatants. To target the innocent is the worst crime of war.

International law truly is a gray area, and the U.S. hasn’t always been great about following it. We haven’t ratified the treaty that created the International Criminal Court, and we have a contentious history with accepting rulings by the International Court of Justice. Yet for one of our leading presidential candidates to argue that we should purposefully and publicly break international principles is beyond the pale. If we stoop to the level of committing atrocities against civilians, we are truly no better than our enemies.

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 Donald Trump’s New Strategy to Fight ISIS: Crimes Against Humanity? appeared first on Law Street.

A 21-year-old Irish comedian has skyrocketed to internet fame after posting a hilarious long-winded open letter to ISIS that has gone viral. Finchie Cova penned the 800+ word letter on his Facebook after the terrorist organization announced last week that it plans to attack Ireland, labeling it “Europe’s weakest link.”

Irishman writes open letter to ISIS warning dire consequences if they destroy a single pub. https://t.co/iSfcmM0ki3 pic.twitter.com/E9uiFgjlO7

— someecards (@someecards) November 30, 2015

In the letter Finchie explains to ISIS that he and his countrymen are “only here for the craic” (aka good times) and that Ireland is too neutral to join a fight they “clearly don’t want to be apart of.” But if for some reason the terrorists still plan to come to Ireland and “piss in their cornflakes”, he has a slew of a tips on how to proceed, i.e. don’t even think about bombing any pubs or Leo Burdocks!

Finchie’s effort to make light of the situation quickly resonated with others, causing it to to be shared more than 22,000 times and liked by more than 300 people so far. So if you need a nice post-Thanksgiving afternoon pick-me-up keep reading and enjoy.

The letter in full reads:

So after the past few weeks of shite that’s been floating around on Facebook iv tried to stay out of it. But I can’t, not anymore. Finchie needs to speak.

MY OPEN LETTER TO ISIS

What’s the craic lads! I don’t think we have officially met. Finchie here from Ireland, we are that non aggravating, laid back post English island to the west of the bullshit.

So how’s yourself? Been busy I hope. I see from the shallow media outlets and “copy paste” fear posting on social media that ye have been up to your neck in it the past few months. Good for you!

Sorry to be bothering ye boys while ye are busy planning the world’s biggest burning man festival in the name of Alan, (or what ever he’s called) but something has come to our attention to past few days that we need to have a quick “chat” about it.

What’s this I hear about ye adding us to a list of countries called “The Global Coalition” in some mad 80’s themed propaganda video? Ah lads come on will ya, shtep down from 3 legged horse now for a second and rewind the cassette cuz I think ye got it wrong.

First of all, lads were only here for the craic! We have been through too much shite hawking over the past couple of thousand years to be goin all “rouge and shit” and joining in fights we clearly don’t want to be part of. It’s like when a fisht fight breaks out in primary school between Vince and Iano Kelly. Most of us just watch, shout a bit and kick a bin to make noise or whatever, but we don’t bother getting involved (well Vince is English so any sly opportunity for a shneaky kick to the shins and were all over it) we couldn’t be arsed with the hole thing, we’re simply too laid back.

Now keeping that in mind let me let you in on a few tips if you do decide to come over here and piss in our cornflakes.

Don’t judge us on the actions of the lads across the pond. We don’t like that craic. I get that ye have yer fight an all, but dont drag us into it, we don’t give a left bollock for Alan and what he tells ye to do.

Sharon’s law, (or whatever it is) won’t work here. I know a Sharon, and she’s a cunt. We don’t like her either.

Don’t bomb our shit. We just finished building it back after breaking free from the very enemy you also have on your hit list. (if you want tho you can destroy leitrim, absolute shitehole lads I’m not joking)

We have more than one army. 1 official army (actually went training in north cork recently to prepare for your arrival. And yes north cork is exactly like Damascus, especially fermoy on a Friday night).

We also have a few non official, highly secretive, multi talented armies all with the same name (you get used to it after a while) who hate each other but have one very important thing in common…all mad bastards. Let that sink in

By the way the unofficial armies are all trained in guerrilla warfare. Meaning your fucked. Like actually fucked. Unless you want to buy weapons, then some of them will turn a blind eye to ” the cause” and sell ya a few AKs while you visit.

Don’t even think about blowing up Leo Burdocks!!! Consider this your harshest warning!

If any single pub is damaged during your short stay here, we will consider this an act of war!!! And we praise to our God Arthur, we will strike down on you with great vengeance and furious anger on those who attempt to destroy our drinking patterns during a time of crises!.

On a final note, remember these and you should be fine:

1. Offies close at ten
2. Don’t leave the immersion on
3. PM me for Bono’s address
4. Don’t bomb shit when the toy show is on
5. Start with leitrim
6. If your looking for virgins you won’t find any on Harcourt street
7. Get a Tesco clubcard. Trust me.
8. If you want to blow up a stadium, go to dalymount please.
9. Go to a water protest, they don’t judge you for where your from, just if you pay or not.
10. Finally, if asked for change, eyes down and keep Fucking walking!

So ISIS its good to meet you. Do yourself a favour and us, stay where you are. You don’t want to come here, were not bothered with the issues you have.

But if you do, we will beat the shit out of all of you using mammies wooden spoon, kilkenny hurlers and the bouncers from the copper faced Jack’s.

Yours unintentionally

Finchie and the rest of Ireland

EDIT: offaly, offaly too!

Clearly Finchie is enjoying his 15 minutes, taking the time to post a screenshot of an ISIS Google search on his Facebook accompanied by the caption,

Google: ISIS

Results: Finchie

Troll level: 1,000,000

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 Finchie Cova: Irish Comedian Pens Hilarious Open Letter to ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Before it entered the world vocabulary as the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria,” the name “Isis” was already relatively ubiquitous. Usually referring to Isis, the Ancient Egyptian goddess of nature, childbirth, healing, and magic, the word has been used for retail shops, restaurants, and even baby names. But in its current context, it has caused a lot of issues for those people who used the “Isis” name for completely peaceful reasons.

Take for example Isis Books & Gifts in Denver, Colorado. The business specializes in spiritual books and products from a variety of world religions. Last weekend, it was vandalized for the fourth time in recent months when a brick was thrown through the sign outside. Owner Karen Charboneau-Harrison explained that she didn’t exactly know the motivation of the vandal, saying:

We’re all very heartbroken (about the Paris attacks) so I don’t know if somebody walking down the street just saw our name on the sign and kind of lost it for a moment and threw a rock through it. Or if it was an ignorant person who actually thought this was a bookstore for terrorists, I don’t know.

But this isn’t just a problem for Isis Books & Gifts. There’s a California-based Isis pharmaceutical company, which is considering changing its name. There’s also an Isis Collections in New Jersey that specializes in wigs and hair pieces, and a bridal shop in California. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, there are 270 products or businesses who use the name “Isis” in the United States alone.

TV comedy “Archer” removed the name of the spy organization, ISIS or the “International Secret Intelligence Service,”  that its title character works for from the show, and even rerecorded some lines from earlier seasons to erase it completely.

Then there are all of the people (overwhelmingly women) named Isis, usually after the Ancient Egyptian goddess. Last year in the U.S. alone, there were just shy of 400 babies named Isis. One of them, Isis Anchalee, from San Francisco tweeted that Facebook recently shut down her account after it was flagged as fake or offensive.

Facebook thinks I’m a terrorist. Apparently sending them a screenshot of my passport is not good enough for them to reopen my account.

— Isis Anchalee (@isisAnchalee) November 17, 2015

With these controversies in mind, some are pushing to stop calling ISIS by the acronym, instead arguing for the term “Daesh” or “Islamic State.” The use of ISIS seems popular, however, and not about to go away anytime soon, so hopefully people realize the very important distinctions.

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 Bad Luck: The Struggle of a Business Named “Isis” appeared first on Law Street.

The hunt intensified in Brussels Sunday as Belgium underwent the country’s highest level of terror alert. Authorities investigated an unspecified “serious and imminent threat” that many believe was in connection with ISIS and the alleged gunmen involved in the Paris attacks.

Steven Vandeput, Belgium’s minister of defense, and police in Brussels asked residents to refrain from posting any information on social media that would expose police whereabouts and activities during the raids for security purposes.

Police are asking the public not to report their movements on social media, please support & rt #BrusselsLockdown

— Steven Vandeput (@svandeput) November 22, 2015

However, in the midst of an intense lockdown, Belgians had the purr-fect response–cat photos.

Belgian police asks users to post cute cat pics with the hashtag #BrusselsLockdown to show terrorists some love. RT! pic.twitter.com/omisqm83m0 — jochem maes (@hetjoch) November 22, 2015

Instead of going completely silent, Belgians used humor to defuse the situation by flooding Twitter with a stream of hilarious cat photos using #Brusselslockdown. The tweets showcased memes and gifs portraying trapped Belgians, the police, and suspected terrorists all as cats, and we’ve gathered some of the best below.

so now we wait. #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/xUhmh1mlPm

— sjeel (@whatkindafukery) November 22, 2015

Stay inside they said. #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/hpAfV417Hf

— Julia Reda (@Senficon) November 22, 2015

BREAKING NEWS : Belgium Police using the new 200mph Hovercat during terrorist operations #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/MnIpiOZT3x — Jayce le Satirique (@jaycelight) November 22, 2015

You can’t keep hiding. #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/4ls1e9qB3s — Lore Vonck (@lorevonck) November 22, 2015

They got him #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/qrKBKRh0Tc — Geert Van Bondt (@Geertvanbondt) November 22, 2015

Meanwhile in Belgium … #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/9RIU4nD1WZ — Paul Taquet (@au_taquet) November 22, 2015

Picture of Belgium’s National Security Council when the door opens in the middle of the meeting #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/4oWuBRtipO — Florence (@flowindey) November 22, 2015

Don’t tell them I’m there!!! #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/SNfoXCISjl — Emmanuel Di Pretoro (@edipretoro) November 22, 2015

Residents told to stay away from windows. Not sure they got the message #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/kv3Mosk5mZ — Matteo Albania (@m_albania) November 22, 2015

BREAKING: Belgian police have released a photograph of the main supect #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/8FDAjZglZn — Jeroen Flamman (@jflamman) November 22, 2015

Suspicious backpack found in #Molenbeek #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/kbUvVYtsSg — Parliamonster (@Parliamonster) November 22, 2015

Belgian police snipers at the #GrandPlace #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/CYsY3kxTWi — Idafe Martín Pérez (@IdafeMartin) November 22, 2015

Major police operation underway in #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/DUZwfi0lOO — Harry Boone (@towersight) November 22, 2015

#BrusselsLockdown supporting Belgian Police. We’re stronger than we think! #Brave pic.twitter.com/x5Lq7pKKb1 — Wendy Carrara (@wcarrara) November 22, 2015

https://t.co/w5LF7a5qNa  when searching for the latest news on  #BrusselsLockdown! pic.twitter.com/vy9etNyHmk — Ruta Ly (@rutaly) November 22, 2015

May the force be with us. #BrusselsLockdownpic.twitter.com/m9OuEVhfXS — TineEeckhout (@TineEeckhout) November 22, 2015

On Monday, Belgium’s police tweeted out a big bowl of cat food “for the cats who helped us yesterday” to show their gratitude for the trending hashtag.

Voor de katten die ons gisteren geholpen hebben… Alsjeblieft! #BrusselsLockdown pic.twitter.com/QlwY9EtzEZ

— Federale Politie (@FedPol_pers) November 23, 2015

But the search is not over. Brussels’ schools, universities, and subway system remain closed Monday as authorities continue to search for individuals suspected of planning Paris-like attacks on the city.

Let’s hope the kitties scared all the bad guys away.

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 Belgians Respond to Terror Lockdown By Flooding Twitter With Cat Photos appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top stories last week included a call to action when it comes to combatting the ISIS terror attacks, a look at the U.S. strategy to fight ISIS, and a homage to Bobby Jindal’s short and ineffectual presidential campaign. ICYMI, check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 By Reacting to Fear, We Let ISIS Win

Here we are, in the aftermath of a global tragedy, letting fear divide us. This statement could apply to any number of historical events in the history of the United States, going back as far as World War II and the internment of thousands of Japanese-American people.

It is not the mid-1900s, but yet again we find ourselves the victims of fear. Rather than fighting the source of our terror, we are fighting each other. Rather than helping the helpless, we are scapegoating them, judging them based on their appearance, their homeland, and their religion. For that reason, ISIS has already succeeded in a country it has yet to directly attack. Read the full story here.

#2 What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS?

In light of the recent tragedy in Paris, the fight against ISIS is likely to retake the spotlight. In a press conference on Monday, President Obama was forced to defend his current strategy for the Middle East, as his opponents argue that the United States needs to take a stronger approach to prevent future terrorist attacks on the western world. Read the full story here.

#3 The Top 7 Moments of Bobby Jindal’s (Brief) Campaign

Bobby Jindal announced on Tuesday that he is suspending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, leading many Americans to ask, “who?” The Louisiana governor had a tough time breaking into the crowded Republican field and on Tuesday remarked, “this is not my time.” He will be missed by about 0.4 percent of likely Republican voters. In remembrance of this fallen candidate, here are the top seven moments of Bobby Jindal’s campaign (10 moments are reserved for candidates who poll over 1 percent). Read the full story here.

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: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

On Halloween night, a Russian plane leaving the Egyptian town of Sharm al-Sheikh crashed mysteriously in the Sinai Peninsula. While the conversation quickly shifted to whether this was a result of a bomb or not, it is just one more in a series of events that depict the chaos on-going within Egypt. The start of this chaos coincided with the Arab Spring that upended a decades-old dictator only a few years ago.

Read on to see the political evolution in Egypt, beginning with the Arab Spring, through its messy post-revolution transition, to the current government under military leader Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. How have these events shaped the country, and what role do countries like the United States and groups like ISIS play in the shaping of Egypt’s recent political turmoil?

Background

The Arab Spring

Fresh on the heels of widespread protests in Tunisia, a similar uprising emerged in Egypt over the rule of Hosni Mubarak, which was characterized by oppression and poverty. After the protests grew, President Mubarak eventually offered to step down at the end of his term and appoint a vice president for the first time in his reign. However, these changes did little to placate Egyptians who continued the protests in Tahrir Square. After continued dissent and the government’s failed attempts to  violently end the protest, Mubarak ultimately resigned, leaving power in the hands of the military. The following video provides a good insight into the Arab Spring and aftermath in Egypt:

Hosni Mubarak

Egypt’s longtime ruler came to power during a time of chaos as the vice president succeeding Anwar Sadat, who was killed by Islamic extremists during a military parade. Upon ascending to the presidency, a role he would maintain for the next thirty years, Mubarak declared a state of emergency which was in effect until he stepped down in 2011. While Mubarak at points seemed untouchable, eventually even his time would come. After finally ceding power, the longtime ruler was also arrested and subsequently put on trial. Mubarak was charged with embezzlement, corruption, and complicity in the killing of protesters.

In 2012, he was convicted for being complicit in killing protesters and was sentenced to life in prison. He was later granted a retrial in 2013 and was acquitted in 2014. Then, he was convicted of the other two charges as well, granted a retrial for these in 2013, acquitted of corruption in 2014 but found guilty of embezzlement. Mubarak’s final retrial will take place in January 2016.

Post Revolution

Following Mubarak’s forced resignation, power passed to a military consortium known as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. This group vowed to draft a new constitution and eventually cede power to a democratically elected government. However, during the transition period, the military cracked down on protests and dissolved the previous government. The council also began gradually taking on greater powers, including the ability to pass new laws and regulate the budget. Concurrent to the presidential election, the council dissolved the recently elected parliament, which at the time was dominated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt eventually elected Mohamed Morsi president, setting up a power struggle between the elected government and the military.

The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood originated in 1928, combining political activism with charitable work based on Islamic principles. The brotherhood was initially banned in Egypt after trying to overthrow the government, but in the 1970s it renounced the use of violence. Instead, it sought to provide social services for Egyptians, which built up public trust and support. The group became so influential that President Mubarak banned the Brotherhood from competing in elections. However, after he left power, the Brotherhood won majorities in both Egypt’s lower and upper houses and eventually the presidency.

Mohamed Morsi

The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the presidency in 2012 to become the first democratically elected president in Egypt. Morsi campaigned on his desire to rule on behalf of all Egyptians, and not just Islamists who favor the Muslim brotherhood, but after his election much of the criticism claimed that he did just that. Critics argued that after his election Morsi consolidated power for himself and the Muslim Brotherhood and did little to spur economic growth. But Morsi argued that he had to take dramatic action in light of Egypt’s recent turbulence. Egyptians quickly became dissatisfied with Morsi’s rule and protests emerged. The dissenters intensified their efforts and eventually clashed with the government. After a period of large-scale uprisings, the military stepped in and ousted Morsi from power. His presidency lasted for just over a year.

After being forced out of office, Morsi was charged with a number of crimes, ranging from espionage to terrorism. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to death. After several legal battles, the court reaffirmed the sentence in June.

Abdul Fattah al-Sisi

Abdul Fattah al-Sisi came to power in the elections following Morsi’s ouster, in which he ran virtually unopposed. Upon al-Sisi’s election, Egyptians thought they were getting a strong nationalist leader who would rid the country of the Brotherhood’s radical Islamism and reinvigorate the economy. Instead, al-Sisi has unleashed a crackdown on dissent, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood. Under al-Sisi’s presidency, the economy continued to falter, only staying above water thanks to support from nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United States. Assessments of his presidency cite human rights violations and a crackdown on free expression and dissent.

The video below shows life in Egypt under al-Sisi:

Other Actors

The United States

Egypt has long been an important country to the United States because of its large population and the presence of the Suez Canal, one of the major avenues for world trade. The importance of this relationship can be quantified by the $76 billion in aid given to Egypt since 1948, including $1.3 billion annually for Egypt’s military.

Recently, however, this relationship has taken a different direction. In light of the forced removal of Mohamed Morsi’s government in 2013, the United States has been reevaluating its relationship with Egypt. The United States began withholding certain military equipment in 2013 to express dissatisfaction with the political trend in Egypt–although military cooperation continued.

As the Congressional Research Service notes, Egypt later signed arms deals with France and Russia and after terrorist attacks in the region earlier this year, the United States resumed its shipments. However, this aid is subject to continued evaluation and beginning in 2018 it will be directed for certain missions instead of being given as a blank check to the military. Egypt’s governing issues and changing U.S. policy priorities, like a nuclear deal with Iran, have reduced Egypt’s long-standing importance as an American ally.

The accompanying video gives a good look at Egypt-U.S. relations:

ISIS

Like other parts of the Arab world, Egypt has become a home for Islamic extremists loyal to the Islamic State. In Egypt, the group is based out of the Sinai, which has been loosely governed since it was returned to Egypt from Israel in 1979. This group has been responsible for a number of attacks and has claimed responsibility for the recent plane bombing that killed 224 people. Despite several military offensives, Egypt has been unable to rid itself of the terrorist group.

In addition to ISIS affiliates, other actors are also making a play in Egypt. Russia reached a preliminary agreement to provide Egypt with $3.5 billion in arms, a deal seen as filling the gap left by the United States. France also signed a major arms deal with Egypt that is valued at nearly $6 billion. Saudi Arabia and Iran are also competing for Egypt’s favor in their on-going proxy war. In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of Egypt’s largest supporters helping keep the al-Sisi regime in control.

Conclusion

Like many other countries that experienced a change in leadership following the Arab Spring, Egypt has found itself stuck in place and may possibly be reverting to its old ways. While the prospect for democracy in Egypt looked bright shortly after the uprising in 2011, the military has successfully managed to maintain control. Mohammed Morsi’s brief rule was quickly followed by the election of a military leader. The current president, Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, has continued the consolidation of power that led to Morsi’s ousting and will likely continue to do so, justifying it with the threat of terrorism.

While the United States may not approve of the recent governing issues in Egypt, other countries have stepped in to provide military aid to the al-Sisi government. Egypt now presents a challenge to both itself and its traditional allies. As the threat of terrorism grows in the region, a democratic Egypt is becoming less of a policy priority for the west. As a result, there is little pressure on President al-Sisi to uphold liberal principles. We’ll  have to see if that conundrum holds true in the new year.

Resources

Reuters: Russian Officials Believe Sinai Plane Brought Down by Bomb

Council on Foreign Relations: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Encyclopedia Britannica: Egypt Uprising of 2011

BBC: Hosni Mubarak

Frontline: What’s Happened since Egypt’s Revolution?

BBC: Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

BBC: What’s Become of Egypt’s Morsi?

Biography: Mohamed Morsi

Al Jazeera: President Sisi’s very bad year

CNN: ISIS beheading an ominous sign in struggling Egypt

Reuters: Russia, Egypt seal preliminary arms deal worth $3.5 billion

Al-Araby: Saudi Arabia and Egypt friends or foes?

Congressional Research Service: Egypt Background and U.S. Relations

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 How Has Egypt Changed After the Arab Spring? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s true–the Syrian refugee crisis is a tough situation to handle. There are a lot of questions, few answers, and overall there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. But there have also been some truly horrifying responses from Republicans on the issue (and a Democrat as well), from state level politicians, to governors, to current presidential contenders. Check out the top five most terrifying Republican responses to the Syrian refugee crisis below:

Senator Ted Cruz: Let’s Only Allow in Christian Refugees, No Muslims

Somewhat uniquely, Ted Cruz does say that he would let refugees in, but only if they are Christian. He backs up this startling show of intolerance by saying that it’s only Christians who are being persecuted by ISIS and in Syria.

Christians are being persecuted by ISIS, there’s no doubt about that. But so are Shiite Muslims, and so are Yazidis, and so are a whole bunch of other people. In fact, pretty much anyone who doesn’t agree with ISIS is being persecuted–and that includes a whole bunch of Muslims as well. There are a lot of other things wrong with Cruz’s plan when it comes to Syrian refugees as–including the fact that he’s used completely incorrect facts about the demographics of refugees in Europe–but blatantly mischaracterizing the situation in Syria is probably the worst.

Senator David Vitter: Using Lies About a Missing Refugee for Cheap Political Points

David Vitter, who is currently running for governor of Louisiana (and losing) is now using total fear-mongering to attempt to get a bump in the polls. This week, the Louisiana Republican Party sent out an email and in support of Vitter, slamming Obama’s approach to dealing with the refugees, which Vitter tweeted about as well. The message was also posted on the LA GOP’s website. It read:

Just yesterday, David Vitter had to notify the Obama Administration that a Syrian refugee who had been living in Baton Rouge has gone missing. What kind of accountability is that? There is an unmonitored Syrian refugee who is walking around freely, and no one knows where he is.

Republicans also claimed that the refugee was “heading to Washington D.C.” Let’s just set the disgustingly xenophobic language aside, if only because it’s a common thread running through all of these examples, and point out that the Syrian refugee wasn’t actually ever “missing” or “unmonitored.” The Louisiana police knew exactly where the refugee was–he was moving to DC because his family lived there and had to fill out many, many forms in order to be able to do so, including filing paperwork with the federal government. Fantastic job, David Vitter.

Donald Trump: Creating a Muslim Registry

While this one is only tangentially related–Trump actually calls for a complete refusal of Syrian refugees–it’s been worked into the overall debate enough I had to include it. Donald Trump, a man who is leading some Republican polls, said that he would support the creation of a registry with which to keep track of our nation’s Muslims. Although there’s been some arguments over what exactly he did mean–in one of the most damning clips he at one point appears to think he’s talking about border security–he didn’t flat out deny the proposal when asked a question about it, and that’s scary in and of itself. He was given the opportunity to clear up any confusion (if there was any) when asked how a registry of America’s Muslims would be different than the registration of Jews under Nazi Germany. But as the New York Times pointed out:

Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, ‘You tell me,’ until he stopped responding to the question.

Here’s the full clip, if you want to watch for yourself:     Bonus points: Trump has also said that we have no choice but to close certain mosques earlier this week.

Ben Carson Compares Refugees to Dogs

   Ben Carson compared some refugees to “rabid dogs.” Do I even have to explain why this is offensive? Carson’s point–that we need good screening–is fine, but was there really a need to compare refugees to “mad dogs?” Not only is that dehumanizing, it implies that the refugees are diseased and have no autonomy over their own actions. But, what else can we expect from the man whose campaign is so messy that it actually misplaced New England earlier this week?

.@RealBenCarson‘s campaign redraws its map of the U.S. https://t.co/rGCSZDhG8c via @GregJKrieg pic.twitter.com/qCPzydrZCC — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 18, 2015

A Whole Bunch of People Suggesting Internment Camps

This is a fun one, because I get to highlight stupidity from multiple different people! Let’s start this with a history lesson: remember that time during World War II when we rounded up a bunch of Japanese-Americans and put them in internment camps? And if you paid attention in middle school, remember how we now view that a massive human rights failure and total usurpation of their Constitutional rights? Remember how in 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was signed, compensating those Japanese-Americans who were held in internment camps and offering a formal apology? Here’s what Ronald Reagan (the president who so rightfully signed that bill) said:

The legislation that I am about to sign provides for a restitution payment to each of the 60,000 surviving Japanese-Americans of the 120,000 who were relocated or detained. Yet no payment can make up for those lost years. So, what is most important in this bill has less to do with property than with honor. For here we admit a wrong; here we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice under the law.

Now, some people want to create similar camps for the Syrian refugees.

Let’s actually start with a Democrat–after all, ignorance and stupidity is certainly bipartisan: Roanoke Mayor David Bowers. After Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe said that Virginia is open to refugees, Bowers called for all local government agencies to stop assisting refugees. He stated:

I’m reminded that President Franklin D. Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then.

So Bowers apparently missed history class. Who else?

State Senator Elaine Morgan of Rhode Island made a similar suggestion, saying that if we have to take refugees in: “we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous.”

Great! Any more?

Sure–there’s also Tennessee GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada who suggested using the National Guard to round up any refugees allowed in Tennessee and sending them back to the ICE Detention Centers.

Great work all around–I’m super proud to be an American today.

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 Top Five Most Horrifying Republican Responses to the Syrian Refugee Crisis appeared first on Law Street.

Here we are, in the aftermath of a global tragedy, letting fear divide us. This statement could apply to any number of historical events in the history of the United States, going back as far as World War II and the internment of thousands of Japanese-American people.

It is not the mid-1900s, but yet again we find ourselves the victims of fear. Rather than fighting the source of our terror, we are fighting each other. Rather than helping the helpless, we are scapegoating them, judging them based on their appearance, their homeland, and their religion. For that reason, ISIS has already succeeded in a country it has yet to directly attack.

It is entirely hypocritical of the United States to deny assistance to a group of people who are fleeing not only an organization we have vowed to take down, but also an area that we as a country have helped to unhinge. Some of the unrest in the Middle East is directly related to American involvement in that region over the past decade, and to say otherwise is fallacy. We are fighting a “war on terror” and in fact, records show that residents of Middle Eastern countries, and more specifically Muslims, are the group most affected by terrorism.

But what do we do when the terrorists are claiming the same religion as their victims? That is simple: ISIS and all its associated monikers are not true representations of Islam, and we should not judge the millions of people who practice Islam by ISIS’ actions. It calls itself the “Islamic State,” but the only word that should be associated with its members is “terrorists.” Arguments that Islam as a religion actually promotes such terrorism are not based in fact, but rather false stereotypes that have circulated for years. Just watch Professor Reza Aslan skillfully defend Islam in this interview with CNN last year, which has resurfaced since the Paris attacks:

Blatant facts are usually not enough to curb the rising panic of American Islamophobia, though, especially when a Syrian passport was allegedly found near one of the Paris suicide bombers. The facts and origins of this passport are hazy, and it calls into question not only the motives behind the suicide bomber carrying such a passport, but also the security of European countries, not America.

Why would a jihadist who expressly rejects all notions of modern citizenship take his passport on a suicide mission? So it gets found.

— Charlie Winter (@charliewinter) November 15, 2015

ISIS has blatantly stated that its goals are to fan Islamophobia throughout the West, proving to itself and to Muslim people that the West is a land of corruption and ISIS holds the key to eternal happiness. On his website, Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow Aaron Zelin has collected ISIS videos explaining its motivations. Their latest video is entitled “Would You Exchange What Is Better for What Is Less?” and warns Muslims against fleeing to Christian lands where they will be persecuted. Zelin explains along with the video:

The reality is, The Islamic State (IS) loathes that individuals are fleeing Syria for Europe. It undermines IS’ message that its self-styled Caliphate is a refuge, because if it was, individuals would actually go there in droves since it’s so close instead of 100,000s of people risking their lives through arduous journeys that could lead to death en route to Europe.

And we are falling right into ISIS’ trap.

Since the Obama administration has announced that the United States still plans on accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees, something we have been planning to do for months, several governors have written statements that they will not allow refugees access to their state. However, according to the Refugee Act of 1980, they don’t have the power to do so. The federal government will still resettle hundreds of refugees in each state, regardless of what these governors say. The federal government cannot, however, dictate the welcome these refugees will receive, and since so many Americans are giving into the fear of ISIS-incited Islamophobia, that welcome–or lack-thereof–could be terrifying in itself.

And it isn’t just American citizens who are letting fear dictate their actions. Politicians are joining in the frenzy as well. Sen. Rand Paul even went so far as to introduce a bill that would immediately halt refugee visas.

Cecillia Wang of the American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement on Monday:

Making policy based on this fear mongering is wrong for two reasons. It is factually wrong for blaming refugees for the very terror they are fleeing, and it is legally wrong because it violates our laws and the values on which our country was founded.

Those values are written plainly on the Statue of Liberty. We say “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.” But as John F. Kennedy sardonically wrote in his 1958 book “A Nation of Immigrants,” America has taken to adding: “as long as they come from Northern Europe, are not too tired or too poor or slightly ill, never stole a loaf of bread, never joined any questionable organization, and can document their activities for the past two years.”

We should be outraged that those words are as true today as they were in 1958. Yet our outrage is currently misdirected at refugees, rather than at the terror they are seeking refuge from. What adds to the irony is the argument coming from conservatives and conservative leadership that we should take care of the homeless, especially the homeless veterans, on U.S. soil before offering to help foreigners. The reality is that the past seven bills introduced in Congress that would have assisted those homeless vets were blocked by Republicans.

Which brings me back to this: American people and politicians are fighting each other rather than facing the problem as one unified force. We are giving into the fear that has historically produced some of the ugliest eras in our country’s history. In this pivotal moment, we must prove ISIS wrong. We must not persecute or blame the refugees, but lead the charge against the enemy we share.

We must remember that united we stand, and divided we fall.

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 By Reacting to Fear, We Let ISIS Win appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of last week’s gruesome Paris attacks, Muslims have reignited the #NotInMyName campaign on social media to combat growing Islamaphobia perpetuated by ISIS’ extremism. The campaign allows Muslims to not only condemn the terrorism, but inform others that ISIS does not reflect Islam’s beliefs.

Here are some of the messages being shared using the hashtag:

Islam has taught me to show peace and goodwill to all. Terrorism has no religion. Thoughts are with those affected in Paris #notinmyname

— Hasan Ansari (@iamhasanansari) November 17, 2015

Most Muslims do not follow & aren’t aware of the violence in their scripture. Muslims ≠ Islam. Fight ideologies, not people. #NotInMyName — Ali A. Rizvi (@aliamjadrizvi) November 17, 2015

Another act of terrorism for Muslims to condemn. Another burden. #NotIslam #Paris #NotInMyName #NotAllMuslims pic.twitter.com/mbTsdX5fry

— Philistine Ayad (@Cre8tvlyLicnsd) November 14, 2015

“Whoever kills an innocent person, it is as though he has killed all of mankind” (Quran 5:32) #TerrorismHasNoReligion #NotInMyName — Shehnaz Khan (@shehnazkhan) November 14, 2015

Each time a bomb explodes I find myself pleading to God: “Please don’t let the culprit be Muslim” #NotInMyName

— Salina N. (@salinanas) November 13, 2015

For anyone confused about what we, as Muslims, believe. Remember, terrorism is #NotInMyName. pic.twitter.com/rJ1Zn57RVe — Noor Al-Khaled (@a_view_so_cruel) November 14, 2015

ISIS doesn’t represent Islam ISIS doesn’t represent Islam ISIS doesn’t represent Islam ISIS doesn’t represent Islam #NotInMyName @BDUTT — Syed Salman Chishty (@sufimusafir) November 17, 2015

A muslim can never be a terrorist and a terrorist can never be a muslim #NotInMyName — Awais Satti (@awasssatti) November 15, 2015

I don’t need another reason for the world to hate my religion once again #NotInMyName — Siti Arbaiya (@sitiarbaiya) November 14, 2015

For every terror attack claimed in the name of Islam: #notinmyname . Monsters do not represent my faith. — Ligwina Hananto (@mrshananto) November 14, 2015

A great campaign, spread this link & get involved! https://t.co/1h6J3l9fH8 #NotInMyName pic.twitter.com/LJcjcOmQav — Shekin D. (@Shxkin) November 16, 2015

Even though the campaign has been praised by many as an opportunity to combat religious and cultural stereotypes, some believe it actually does the opposite. In an oped for ABC News, Griffith University Associate Professor Mohamad Abdalla proclaimed that Muslims shouldn’t apologize for the murders in Paris and Lebanon writing,

While I’m required to stand for justice and condemn all acts of evil, I refuse to apologise for the actions of evil people, ISIS or anyone else. But this is exactly what seems to be expected of all Muslims. When a criminal act is committed by a Muslim in Paris, Lebanon or Australia, we are expected to apologise and take ownership of the crime. The same standard is not expected of anyone else.

He makes a valid point. When devout Christian  Dylann Roof attempted to incite a “race war” by shooting up a black church,  Christians weren’t expected to apologize for Roof’s warped religious beliefs. Nevertheless the #NotInMyName movement is empowering many Muslims to reclaim their beliefs and speak out against Islamic misconceptions.

Check out the hashtag to learn more about this movement.

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 Muslims Use #NotInMyName to Condemn Paris ISIS Attacks appeared first on Law Street.