American Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah has filed a defamation lawsuit against a white supremacist website, the Daily Stormer, after it published an article accusing him of being the mastermind behind the terror attack in Manchester.

The Daily Stormer was recently kicked off of its domain on GoDaddy and was denied service by Google and a Chinese webhost. After the controversial website published a hateful, demeaning article about Heather Heyer, who was killed in Charlottesville last weekend, the website has been even more ostracized than before.

But on Wednesday, the site was live again for a few hours through a Russian domain. In a new article, the writers praised President Trump and claimed his relationship to Russian President Vladimir Putin is responsible for the website’s new domain. But Roskomnadzor, Russia’s watchdog monitoring hateful content on the internet, requested the Russia Network Information Center to take it down, which it did.

Obeidallah filed his suit around the same time, alleging that the Daily Stormer caused him to receive death threats and suffer from emotional distress. The publication first started targeting him after he wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in 2015, in which he urged the Republican Party to speak out against the white nationalists who supported Donald Trump’s candidacy for president.

Today I filed a lawsuit against The Daily Stormer and Andrew Anglin for defamation – there are not two sides to white supremacy. pic.twitter.com/AZxysvqykt

— (((DeanObeidallah))) (@Deanofcomedy) August 16, 2017

In response, the Daily Stormer wrote an article calling Obeidallah a terrorist. Then in June of this year, Obeidallah wrote another article and questioned why Trump wouldn’t use the phrase “white supremacist terrorism.” In response, the Daily Stormer published a text with the headline, “Dean Obeidallah, Mastermind Behind Manchester Bombing, Calls on Trump to Declare Whites the Real Terrorists.”

After that article, some people actually believed Obeidallah was a terrorist, and he started receiving threats. The Daily Stormer even fabricated tweets to look like Obeidallah had written them, taking responsibility for the terror attack in Manchester in May. One of them praised Allah and another said he had fled to safety in Syria.

“Defendants took numerous steps, including mixing fact with falsehood, in an effort to create confusion and convince readers that the entirety of the Article is, in fact, true,” the lawsuit says. The Daily Stormer’s publisher, Andrew Anglin, and ten other people who republished the article are listed as defendants. None of them have responded.

“Right wing publications have come after me for years for everything from my progressive views to the fact I’m Muslim–that’s par for the course. But I had never, ever seen anything like this,” Obeidallah said.

The lawsuit also states that the Daily Stormer is among the 200 most frequented websites in America, with over 3 million monthly visitors. Though it claims to publish news stories, it intentionally spread false information, the lawsuit says. But maybe this suit can help other victims of defamation. “No one deserves to be defamed and threatened online by a racist neo-Nazi mob simply for expressing your ideas and beliefs,” Obeidallah said.

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 Comedian Sues the Daily Stormer for Accusing Him of Manchester Terror Attack appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

Overview: The Detention Center and Its Numbers

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

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

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

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

DNI Report on “Reengagement”

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

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

Case Study #1: Omar Khadr

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

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

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

Case Study #2: Jamal al-Harith

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

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

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

Case Study #3: Mustafa Ait Idir

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Delaney Cruickshank

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

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

The Senate held a hearing on Wednesday to consider the Taylor Force Act, legislation that seeks to end the Palestinian Authority’s support of violence against Israeli citizens. The bill proposes to cut U.S. funding to the PA, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, until it stops paying families of Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against Israelis and others.

Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham in February, the bill would “condition assistance to the West Bank and Gaza on steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to end violence and terrorism against Israeli citizens.” Funding would resume if the PA takes “credible steps to end acts of violence against United States and Israeli citizens that are perpetrated by individuals under its jurisdictional control,” the bill says.

After Taylor Force hearing, @AIPAC not ready to endorse: “Discussions continue to find a bipartisan path forward.” https://t.co/wPQIOTTCtB

— Michael Wilner (@mawilner) July 12, 2017

The State Department provides about $400 million annually to the PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, as the chief political body of the Palestinians. For years, Israel and the U.S. have criticized payments the PA provides to families of “martyrs,” or Palestinians who have killed Israelis and others in acts of terror. Stability in the West Bank is paramount to Israel’s security, however, so Israel has not conditioned its financial assistance on the PA’s practice of paying the families of jailed terrorists.

But Congress decided to act after the death of Taylor Force–for whom the act is named.

In March 2016, Taylor Force, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was visiting Tel Aviv with a delegation from Vanderbilt University Business School. The group had come to build connections with the Israeli tech sector. Force, 29 at the time, was stabbed to death by a 21-year-old Palestinian man while walking in Jaffa, the oldest section of Tel Aviv, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the Palestinian Authority that ‘Pay to Slay’ must end.

WATCH: https://t.co/vvWU3phT2c

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 12, 2017

If the bill passes–it has not been considered by either chamber yet–the only funds the U.S. would provide to the PA would be for security assistance. Bipartisan support for the legislation has slowly been building since its introduction. The bill was introduced by a Republican and, early on, championed by Republicans. But a number of high-ranking Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have recently signaled they would support the bill.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), featured testimony from men with decades of experience in both Washington and Israel. Elliott Abrams, a diplomat in the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations, said the PA’s payments to the families of imprisoned terrorists “reward and incentivize acts of terror.”

“There are cases of unemployed and desperate men who commit acts of terror in order to get these payments—which can amount to a permanent government salary,” he said. He added that “all the payments that give assistance to or directly benefit the PA itself should be stopped,” but the U.S. should continue funding NGOs and municipalities in the West Bank that do development work.

Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador for Israel from 2011 to 2017, also provided testimony. He called the payments an “abominable practice” that “must stop,” adding “there should be no extra bonuses for someone who attacks Israelis. It incentivizes the killing of innocents, and it is just wrong.”

But Shapiro said that the Taylor Force Act, in its current form, would tackle the problem with a hammer, effectively choking aid to the PA entirely. He would prefer to use a scalpel.

“Stability in the West Bank, both economic and political, serves Israel’s security interests by dampening the atmosphere in which more Palestinians might be drawn to extremism,” he said. Shapiro said he supports the bill’s intentions, but would like to see it address the problem “without cutting off aid that goes directly to the Palestinian people, provides humanitarian relief, or bolsters stability and security.”

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 The Taylor Force Act: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Terrorist Targets Muslims in London, Muslim Girl Killed in Virginia

Late last night, a van rammed into people leaving a mosque in Finsbury Park in North London. One person died and 10 were injured in what police are investigating as a terror attack, as it was “quite clearly an attack on Muslims.” A white, 48-year-old man has been arrested and is being investigated for attempted murder. According to eyewitness reports, the man who died collapsed after the van hit people–it’s not clear whether his death was a direct result of the attack. The attacker struck just as people were leaving the mosque after evening prayers and breaking their Ramadan fast. Eyewitnesses said the man got out of the van after hitting people and said, “I want to kill Muslims,” repeatedly. He tried to flee the scene, but several people held him to the ground until police arrived.

This quote at #FinsburyPark station by @TfL is a fitting reminder that in tragedy we become a more unified, stronger force always pic.twitter.com/1Htakvuy2p

— Yasmina (@animsche) June 19, 2017

Also yesterday, a 17-year-old Muslim girl was found beaten to death in a pond in Virginia. The girl, identified as Nabra Hassanen, was reported missing after leaving a mosque in the early morning hours. She was with her friends on their way to get food after prayers, when two men with baseball bats started attacking them. In the chaos that followed, Nabra disappeared. Her body was found later that afternoon. A 22-year-old man was arrested. Although police aren’t investigating this murder as a hate crime, there is evidence to suggest that there has been a surge in anti-Muslim hate crimes in the United States–according to CAIR, there was a 44 percent increase just from 2015 to 2016.

if you believe muslim women face less violence in the west, youve been blinded. nabra, 17, murdered with baseball bat last night in virginia pic.twitter.com/zlZJclJ3qT

— Amani (@xoamani) June 19, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The American University of Afghanistan has once again seen death at the hands of the Taliban, but it has no plans to stop providing education.

An adjunct professor and a graduate student were both killed on May 31 when 150 people were killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, by a truck bomb. Their deaths marked the third time in less than a year that members of the school, which is not affiliated with the American University located in Washington D.C., have been injured by the notorious terrorist organization.

The saga began on August 7, 2016, when Professors Kevin King and Timothy Weeks were abducted from their car. The pair then appeared in a hostage video which led officials to believe they are being held with other Westerners by the Haqqani sect of the Taliban. After this most recent attack, the university once again reiterated its request for the professors’ release.

Then, on August 24, 2016, suicide bombers set off a bomb outside the walls of the school and raided the compound. The attack left 15 people dead, including students, professors, and police officers.

Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, has once again erupted with violence in recent weeks, including an attack on a mosque and a bombing in rush hour that left hundreds of people injured. This violence has erupted during the holiest month of Islam, Ramadan.

Since American intervention in 2001, the city has been divided and on a perpetual edge of chaos. Still, the university reiterated its commitment to bringing Western education to the troubled nation.

“We haven’t closed, we haven’t stopped educating,” said David S. Sedney, who spent nine months as acting president of the school and revamped its security. “But we do watch things very carefully. But right now on balance, it’s the right thing to do to continue operations.”

Despite its fortification with 19-foot-high walls, the university remains on edge. Those walls are part of the new, supposedly safer, campus that reopened on March 25. While they enjoy the new facilities, students can be found debating how much safer the campus is, law student Samiullah Sharifi told the Washington Post.

The university, which opened in 2006, graduated its first class in 2011 as it sought to bring a liberal, Western education center to Afghanistan. It has lost a number of its professors and students in recent years, but is committed to their education no matter the costs. “In one attack we’re safe and in another we’re not,” Sharifi said. “We have accepted this as the reality of our lives.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American University in Kabul Faces Tragedy Again appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, militants in Marawi City, a Muslim enclave on the Philippines’ southernmost island, burned buildings down and clashed with government forces. Since the initial siege, Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law, and the military descended upon the city of 200,000. Islamic State-linked militant groups occupy parts of the city–about 10 percent, according to government officials.

Over 170 people, including 20 or so civilians, are believed to have perished in the conflict so far. Hundreds of residents are trapped in the city–180,000 have already fled. The remaining militants, ranging from 40 to 200, according to government authorities, are hiding underground, burrowed in tunnels and basements, stockpiling food and weapons. Led by the Maute group, also known as the Islamic State of Lanao, militants have reportedly destroyed churches and schools; they have also taken hostages, including a Catholic priest.

The conflict began on May 23: Government forces tried to arrest Isnilon Hapilon, a senior leader of Abu Sayyaf, a local extremist group that has declared allegiance to ISIS. Hapilon is also on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists; the agency has slapped a $5 million bounty on him. Marawi, located in the middle of the southern island of Mindanao, a Muslim-majority slice of the mostly Catholic country, has long been a staging ground for militants. None, however, have held on to this much territory for so long.

The center of Marawi City. Shots and explosions from many directions. Fires burn from end to end. Day 18. pic.twitter.com/3zwRYzVv9W

— Chiara Zambrano (@chiarazambrano) June 9, 2017

“If the situation in Marawi in the southern Philippines is allowed to escalate or entrench, it would pose decades of problems,” Singapore’s Defense Minister, Ng Eng Hen, said at a conference this week with other regional leaders. “All of us recognize that if not addressed adequately, it can prove a pulling ground for would-be jihadists.”

As for what the militants–a loosely-knit menagerie of fighters from the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Chechnya–desire, a recently captured video of them plotting the initial siege gives some clues.

Gen. Eduardo Ano, the Filipino military’s chief of staff, said the video, which was provided exclusively to the Associated Press, shows that the militants have “this intention of not only rebellion, but actually dismembering a portion of the Philippine territory by occupying the whole of Marawi city and establishing their own Islamic state or government.”

According to Filipino news outlet ABS-CBN, the military launched airstrikes on Maute rebels on Friday. At least three soldiers were killed, with dozens of others wounded. Earlier, a 15-year-old boy who was praying in a mosque was killed by sniper fire.

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 The Siege of Marawi, Philippines: What You Need to Know 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:

Comey Testifies in Front of the Senate

This morning at 10, the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing of former FBI Director James Comey began. The hearing is intended to address President Donald Trump’s interactions with Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 elections. Yesterday, Comey’s prepared testimony was released and many people said the content was troubling. It described, among other things, the president’s request for loyalty during a private dinner with Comey–followed by an “awkward silence” and a staring contest. Comey then spoke to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked to not be left alone with the president again, as the request made him uneasy.

At the entrance to the Comey hearing room, one of the cops tells me he’s never seen anything like this pic.twitter.com/GpZx8kJ3oZ

— Adam Khan (@Khanoisseur) June 8, 2017

This is a pretty big deal, so a lot of bars opened early to let people watch the hearing live. A D.C. bar served discounted Russian vodka with “FBI sandwiches” and wrote on Facebook, “Grab your friends, grab a drink and let’s COVFEFE!”

Only in DC would a restaurant/bar play the Comey Hearing live and feature themed food and drinks. If you haven’t heard it’s at Shaw’s Tavern pic.twitter.com/iIJzxUYsKN

— Samantha-Jo Roth (@SamanthaJoRoth) June 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May addressed activists on Tuesday about where human rights fall on her priorities following Saturday’s attack in London and the Manchester bombing in late May. “And if our human rights laws stop us from [tackling extremism and terrorism], we’ll change the law so we can do it.” she said to a crowd in Berkshire, England.

This statement follows her speech on Sunday in which she presented a four-point plan toward combatting terrorism, and comes only 36 hours before polls open for Britain’s snap election this coming Thursday. Polls show her lead continuously shrinking. May also added that she wants to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and monitor the movement of those suspects when there is a fear that they pose a threat but there’s not enough evidence to prosecute them.

While many are familiar with the human rights atrocities Britain has committed in its various roles as a colonial power, violations within its borders may come as a slight surprise to some. But May’s statements become less surprising with some context:

What “human rights laws” currently govern Britain?

There are two sets of laws that Britain currently abides by: the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act. The former was ratified in 1953 by the then-newly-formed Council of Europe after World War II to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again, protect human rights, and defend “the fundamental freedoms in Europe.” The latter was created so that the rights contained in the ECHR would be incorporated into British law, and human rights breaches could be challenged in domestic courts without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Wait, back up. Why do we care about the European Convention of Human Rights? Isn’t Britain leaving the EU?

The ECHR is separate from the EU so Britain doesn’t have to leave if it doesn’t want to. For the time being–it seems like the Conservatives, the current party in power, want to remain in it, according to their manifesto. The decision will be revisited after the next parliament’s term ends. Oddly enough, Conservatives are more concerned with replacing or amending the domestic Human Rights Act as they begin their Brexit.

Makes sense. But if there are two sets of human rights laws, wouldn’t that make it difficult to enact any change?

Despite May’s comments, precedent in the United Kingdom shows that the current “human rights laws” might not even need to be changed in order to accomplish the counter-terrorism policies she laid out (but we’ll get to that later).

Wait, so the UK can violate human rights?

Technically. Britain is allowed to “derogate”–or temporarily ignore–parts of the European Convention of Human Rights in a “time of emergency” that is “threatening the life of the nation” under Article 15 of the agreement. Their particular cup of tea is the suspension of habeas corpus. In 1979, for example, the European Court of Human Rights allowed them to use preventative detention without trial of PIRA terror suspects in Northern Ireland after a string of attacks killed British soldiers.

Today, terror suspects can be held for 14 days without a trial, a decision that was implemented with the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. May has stated that she is looking to revisit that number and seek derogation to extend that period to 28 days, a move that was attempted in 2011 when she was Home Secretary, the UK’s equivalent of a Director of Homeland Security, and when Conservative David Cameron was Prime Minister.

“When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days,” she said in an interview with The Sun. “We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

Even doubling the figure seems tame compared to previous attempts to extend the length of uncharged detention. In 2005, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to lengthen the period to 90 days following the July 7 attack on London. That time, however, civil rights groups stepped in out of protest and that provision was subsequently dropped.

And even with all of this wiggle room, May wants to change the laws?

Yes. As previously stated, Conservatives don’t really view the Human Rights Act too favorably. Not necessarily in a maniacal way, more in a “we want to make a better version” way. They have wanted to replace the law with a British Bill of Rights for a few years now, and this year is no exception.

May’s comments about changing human rights laws most likely also comes from her suggested plans to expand terrorism prevention and investigation measures, a two-year designation given to terrorism suspects considered to be enough of a threat. The measures currently include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation, and some limitations on use of mobile phones and the internet.

When you bundle expanding all of that with her Sunday promise to “make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need,” it’s clear why she wants to remove as many legal roadblocks as possible.

What are other people saying about this?

Former director of public prosecutions and Labour shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, believes that the laws should stay in place as they are because they have not gotten in the way of combatting terrorism and extremism before.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights… we are throwing away the very values at the heart of our democracy,” he said in a BBC Radio 4 Today interview.

Current Labour leader, and the closest political opponent to May in the election, Jeremy Corbyn, lambasted the Prime Minister’s comments and accused her of trying to “protect the public on the cheap,” referencing that fact that she cut nearly 20,000 police officers during her time as Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron took the accusation a step further and said May’s speech about being tough on terror was just a facade.

“In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut,” he said. “We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

Whether or not the British public believes May’s words will be tested in Thursday’s election. Polls show that Conservatives are still leading Labour by about six points, down from almost a double digit vote lead when both campaigns started.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May’s Challenge of Human Rights Laws is Unsurprising appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a man attacked a police officer outside of the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. The man reportedly swung a hammer at the officer, and also had knives on him. Another quick-thinking officer shot him in the chest and the first officer was not seriously injured. French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb later said the man shouted, “This is for Syria” as he attacked.

The man was taken to the hospital and the situation was quickly contained, but as it happened, many feared a larger terrorist attack was taking place, only days after the attack in London. People on social media said they were escorted inside the cathedral and asked to put their arms in the air. Nancy Soderberg, a former White House Deputy National Security Adviser under President Clinton, was among those in the cathedral.

Locked inside #notre dame cathedral in #paris while police investigate attack outside against a policeman. All calm pic.twitter.com/Z4B8wUzPTV

— Nancy Soderberg (@nancysoderberg) June 6, 2017

France has been in a state of emergency ever since the terror attacks that shook Paris in November 2015, and Tuesday’s incident caused panic on the streets of central Paris. However, thanks to the high-security alert, a lot of officers were patrolling the streets and the attacker was rendered harmless quickly. The 900 people inside the cathedral reportedly remained calm until they were allowed to exit again.

Notre-Dame: de nombreux effectifs se dirigent vers le lieu pic.twitter.com/FWWAGJzoW0

— David Perrotin (@davidperrotin) June 6, 2017

Authorities have not released the name of the suspect but said he was carrying identification that showed he is an Algerian student. His motives remain unclear but he seemed to be acting by himself and it didn’t seem like a very well planned attack. “One sees that we have gone from a very sophisticated terrorism to a terrorism where, in the end, any tool can be used to carry out attacks,” said Collomb, the Interior Minister. Prosecutors launched an anti-terrorism investigation into the incident.

France has seen several separate attacks recently, many of which targeted police officers or soldiers. A man stabbed two police officers, a couple, to death last June; a month later, another man drove a truck into a crowd in Nice killing more than 80 people; in March, a man attacked a soldier at the Orly airport; and a gunman fired shots at a police van on the Champs-Élysées in April.

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 Paris Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor Launches Probe into Hammer Attack appeared first on Law Street.

Sweeping changes are likely to come in Britain’s policy toward terrorism and extremism after Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “enough is enough” during a speech outside of 10 Downing Street on Sunday. The speech was prompted after another attack on Saturday night at the London Bridge where a white van struck pedestrians in a coordinated attack that killed seven and injured dozens that was later claimed by ISIS.

This is the third major attack that has occurred in Britain this year including a terror attack on Westminister Bridge that occurred in March and the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May.

In her speech, May responded with the introduction of a new four-point plan toward combating the “new trend” of ideological extremism. While the plan presented was broad and skimmed on policy specifics that might be introduced, it was indicative of the direction of counter-terrorism policy in Britain.

Defeating the Extremist Ideology

In her remarks, May recognized that while the attacks were not committed by the same organizations, they were all committed in the sense of a singular ideology. Her conclusion is that terrorism can only be defeated by changing the mindset of those vulnerable to violence, and to have them embrace British values.

This could mean that there could be a further expansion of the Prevent Strategy, a measure of the UK counter-terrorism system that aims to stop people from becoming or supporting terrorist and terror organizations.

Prevent was originally created in response to the London attacks in 2005 and aimed to support organizations that would improve integration of minority groups. But in 2011, under then-Home Secretary May, the program was revamped to focus on terrorism and training public officials to spot radicalism.

Prevent has shown success: data from 2015 shows the amount of people who travelled to Syria and Iraq from Britain has decreased. But the program has its critics who believe that it will naturally lead to more discrimination toward Islamic groups.

Crackdown on Online Extremism

May called upon both internet companies as well as democratic countries to form more international agreements to regulate extremism on the web.

Currently, the UK employs a counter-propaganda campaign where in 2015 social media snoopers were able to remove 55,000 pieces of radical propaganda. How this strategy could move beyond Britain and become an international agreement is still unknown.

“Too Much Tolerance of Extremism”

In perhaps the most controversial excerpt from her speech, the prime minister spoke candidly about the potential new powers that could come as a result of her new strategy, saying:

There is – to be frank – far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust in identifying it and stamping it out across the public sector and across society. That will require some difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations.

One suggestion that May made was to increase custodial sentences for terrorist-related offenses, one of the harshest possible forms of criminal punishment in the UK justice system.

New Powers to Security and Police Forces? 

The final part of her plan indicated that May is leaning toward giving an increase in new powers to the security and protective services. This could mean that May is planning to revamp her counter-extremism bill that was rejected by the government’s lawyers in January because it failed to adequately define “extremism” and “British values.”

Critics of the legislation argue that by broadening the definition of what extremism is, it could lead to infringement on basic rights such as free speech and religion. But with the recent attacks that have taken place and an election within a matter of days it is very possible that legislation and reforms are on the horizon.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What is the Future of British Counter-Terrorism Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

A handful of Gulf Arab nations severed ties with Qatar on Monday, citing its support for terror groups and accusing the oil-rich nation of working behind the scenes with Iran, a regional rival. Some analysts see the abrupt diplomatic freeze as the result of President Donald Trump’s warm embrace of Saudi Arabia during his first overseas visit last month. The countries–Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the Maldives–might have felt emboldened to spar with Qatar, some analysts said, because of Trump’s explicit support of Riyadh.

According to statements from Saudi and Egyptian officials, the coordinated split with Qatar is not related to a recent, isolated event, but rather what they see as a longstanding support of terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which the current Egyptian leader ousted from power in 2013.

“[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, and al-Qaeda,” said a statement from a Saudi state news agency. An Egyptian official similarly said Qatar “threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation.”

Qatar, for its part, denies the claims of the Gulf countries, saying: “The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications.”

Despite its neighbors’ claims that it is conspiring with Iran, Qatar, one of the region’s wealthiest oil producers, backs groups in Yemen and Syria that are battling Iranian-backed proxies. In Yemen, Qatar supports the Saudi-led (and U.S.-backed) coalition against the Houthi group, which Iran aids. In Syria, Qatar provides support to some of the rebel factions that are fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who enjoys Iranian backing as well.

While Gulf Arab states have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar in the past, most recently in 2014, they have not taken as drastic steps as they did Monday: land, air, and sea routes were blocked, and Qatari diplomats and citizens expelled. The unprecedented steps could create problems for the U.S. effort to eradicate ISIS–the U.S. military, which partners with Gulf nations to combat ISIS, uses an air base in Qatar.

Whatever the future implications, some Gulf experts see the coordinated stiff-arming of Qatar to be, at least in part, bolstered by Trump’s strong rebuke of Iran last month in a speech in Riyadh.

“You have a shift in the balance of power in the Gulf now because of the new presidency: Trump is strongly opposed to political Islam and Iran,” Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global risk and resilience at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told Reuters. “He is totally aligned with Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, who also want no compromise with either Iran or the political Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson implored the feuding nations to work out their differences, though he remains confident the spat will not affect the fight against terrorism. “We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences,” he said, adding that he does not foresee the disagreements having “any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism in the region or globally.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post What Does the Diplomatic Standoff Between Gulf Countries and Qatar Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia gave President Donald Trump the royal treatment over the weekend, lavishing him with pomp and applause during the first stop in his inaugural overseas trip as president. In a 30-minute speech, Trump gave the Kingdom precisely what it wanted–a strong rebuke of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s enemy and its greatest threat to regional hegemony. Trump signaled a tighter embrace of Saudi Arabia and a more forceful rejection of Iran than his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

Iran provides terrorists “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment,” Trump said, adding it’s “a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region.” Trump piled on:

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region…It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.

By calling out Iran while delivering a message of “friendship and hope” to Saudi Arabia and leaders from other Gulf Arab nations like Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and the U.A.E., whose leaders were also in attendance on Sunday, Trump is pivoting to a more traditional U.S. approach to the region than Obama’s.

Obama angered Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations with a variety of decisions–or non-decisions–that they saw as deferring to Iran. For one, he negotiated the nuclear accord with Iran; the Trump Administration recently admitted to Iran’s compliance with the controversial agreement. Additionally, Obama’s inaction in the conflict in Syria–he never took direct military action against President Bashar al-Assad, and instead provided support to various rebel factions–upset the Saudis as well.

The Trump Administration, after the Syrian government dropped chemical bombs on its citizens in March, launched 59 cruise missiles at a government air strip. Since then, however, Trump has largely followed the Obama playbook by supporting proxy forces in the fight against the Islamic State. Still, the decisive action heartened the Saudi monarchy, which virulently opposes Iran and its various proxy projects, like its support for militias in Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq, and its support of Assad in Syria.

Trump was unreserved in his warm embrace for Saudi Arabia, saying the U.S. “is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture, and commerce” with the Kingdom. He announced that Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and other high-ranking officials pledged billions of dollars in investments for Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The U.S. recently provided the Saudis with over $100 billion worth of arms and other defense equipment.

He also used the speech to highlight two initiatives aimed at combating terrorism–the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, and the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center. Both will be built in Riyadh. “Today we begin a new chapter that will bring lasting benefits to our citizens,” Trump said.

In contrast to the traditional, largely bi-partisan U.S. approach to countries like Saudi Arabia, where personal freedom is heavily policed and human rights are consistently trampled upon, Trump made no mention of improving human rights in the country. In fact, he explicitly rejected calling out potential partners in how they choose to govern their countries.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all,” he said.

A safe, secure, and prosperous Middle East, Trump insisted, must be shaped with the help of Iran, which held a presidential election on Friday. Iranians re-elected Hassan Rouhani to a second term, rejecting the hard-line Islamic cleric Ebrahim Raisi. Still, in his speech on Sunday, Trump pointed to Iran as the primary font for extremist ideologies in the region, ignoring Saudi Arabia’s own agenda that critics say abets terrorism.

“Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve,” Trump 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 Trump Embraces Saudi Arabia and Rebukes Iran appeared first on Law Street.

Hamas, the militant group that governs the Gaza Strip, announced a new charter on Monday, aiming to bolster its appeal to the international community by adopting a slightly less militant stance against Israel. Many analysts see the document, a sort of sequel to its 1988 founding charter, as a way to stake its claim as a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people, and to recast its message in a more politically-oriented sheen in place of its traditional religious dogma.

Revealed in Doha, Qatar on Monday, two days before Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas is scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump in D.C., the document is the culmination of a decade-long attempt to retool the optics of a group that the West–and a number of Arab countries–considers a terrorist organization. Hamas’ new charter lightens the group’s tone on Israel, omitting calls for the Jewish State’s destruction–though it does call for an “armed struggle”–a stance it has espoused for decades. But it does reject “any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” adding:

However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.

The document envisions a provisional Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, known as the “Green Line.” During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and the West Bank and east Jerusalem–home of Judaism’s holiest sites–from Jordan. Hamas 1988 charter essentially called for the destruction of Israel, and a return to the pre-1948–the year Israel achieved statehood–reality.

Founded in 1987 as an offshoot of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas assumed control of Gaza in 2007, two years after Israel recalled its settlements in the tiny strip of land on the Mediterranean coast. Since then, Israel and Hamas have fought three wars. The group has launched hundreds of attacks on Israeli civilians, shooting rockets indiscriminately across the border, and sending assailants through tunnels that snake under the border. Hundreds of Israelis have been killed. A few thousand Palestinians have died in the fighting.

The new charter comes at a precarious time for Gaza’s leadership–and its citizens. Last week, Mahmoud Abbas–the internationally-recognized leader of the Palestinian people, and a thorn in Hamas’ side–decided to stop funding Gaza’s flow of electricity from Israel. Supplied by Israel and paid for by the Palestinian Authority, Gaza has historically relied on these two neighbors for its energy. Gaza residents already face frequent blackouts and now with Abbas’s decision to withhold the PA’s funding, access to electricity will be severely limited.

Israel, which celebrated its 69th Independence Day on Monday, is taking the new charter as the same product with new branding. A statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office called the document a “smokescreen,” adding: “We see Hamas continuing to invest all of its resources not just in preparing for war with Israel, but also in educating the children of Gaza to want to destroy Israel.”

A spokesman for Netanyahu, David Keyes, echoed that sentiment: “Hamas is attempting to fool the world but it will not succeed,” Keyes said. “They dig terror tunnels and have launched thousands upon thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians,” he said. “This is the real Hamas.”

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 New Hamas Policy Document Omits Calls for Israel’s Destruction appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the United States dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in wartime on an ISIS target in Afghanistan, says a Pentagon spokesman. The GBU-43/B, or Massive Ordnance Air Bomb, is often referred to as the “Mother of All Bombs,” likely due to its acronym. The name seems fitting considering it weighs about 21,600 pounds. The bomb’s target was a ISIS cave and tunnel complex in the Achin district of the Nangarhar province in the northeastern part of the country.

According to U.S. officials, the bomb was developed during the Iraq war but this is the first time it has ever been used on the battlefield. It was dropped from an airplane around 7 p.m. local time. The bomb is designed to explode in the air above its target and the overpressure crushes tunnels below it and everything in them. This could make it very difficult to determine if there was any civilian casualties.

Just dropped a MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan. Massive Ordnance Air Blast is a concussive bomb … the father of all bombs (nonnuclear). pic.twitter.com/fW5UE1r2QA

— Saman Arbabi (@SamanArbabi) April 13, 2017

The bomb focused on the underground tunnels that ISIS fighters use to move around freely in the area.

“The strike was designed to minimize the risk to Afghan and U.S. forces conducting clearing operations in the area while maximizing the destruction” to the militants, said a statement from Pentagon.

The bombing comes just five days after Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, a 37-year-old Green Beret from Maryland, was killed in combat with ISIS in the same province. He was the first American service member killed in combat this year in Afghanistan. President Donald Trump said on the campaign trail that he would “bomb the s**t” out of ISIS, and Thursday’s strike seems to have done exactly that. But many people were confused about why an 11-ton bomb was needed.

Was use strategically necessary? Most efficient and effective option? Did it accomplish objective? Was there collateral harm?

— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) April 13, 2017

Another U.S. airstrike Thursday targeting ISIS killed 18 Syrian rebel fighters allied with the United States. The strike marks the third time in just a month that U.S. forces have accidentally hit allies or civilians. The Pentagon is already investigating two earlier airstrikes that hit a mosque complex in Syria and a building in Mosul that both killed several civilians.

Now many people are questioning what the White House’s policy for the Middle East really is, and whether President Trump just wants to show off his powers and “play war.”

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 U.S. Drops One of the Largest Non-Nuclear Bombs in the World on ISIS Target appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. military struck a Syrian airfield with 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles late Thursday night, marking its first direct strike against the Syrian regime in the country’s six-year civil war. Authorizing the strike from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, on the first day of a two-day meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to signal the U.S.’s willingness to escalate its role in the conflict. He said it was a response to the chemical attack on Tuesday, which killed up to 100 civilians, and was believed to be carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Trump said in remarks at Mar-a-Lago. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” The strikes, which commenced at 8:40 p.m. EST and lasted three to four minutes, launched from two U.S. ships in the Mediterranean.

With the strike, Trump signaled to Syria, its allies Russia and Iran, and the rest of the world that the U.S. is changing its calculus in a region where it has long resisted direct action. Former President Barack Obama–whose “weakness and irresolution” was to blame for Tuesday’s chemical attack, the new administration said–was reluctant to directly strike the Syrian regime, afraid that deposing Assad would only make things worse.

As a result of Obama’s failure to stop Assad, Trump said on Thursday, “the refugee crisis continues to deepen, and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.” According to U.S. officials, in a meeting on Wednesday with military advisers, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Trump was presented with three options in responding to the chemical attack. He chose the “one-off” missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield, which advisers describe as the tamest option.

Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said an early review indicated the strike “severely damages or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment…reducing the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.” Trump’s decisiveness was welcome by a host of international and domestic actors–from Israel and Syrian activist groups to a bipartisan cohort of senators and some former Obama officials.

“Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in a joint-statement. “For that, he deserves the support of the American people.” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also applauded the decision to strike. “Making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do,” he said in a statement. Others said his decision was rushed and, if unaccompanied by a long-term vision, potentially dangerous and ineffectual. 

By directly striking Assad, Trump could jeopardize any further cooperation with Russia in fighting Islamic State, which has a substantive–yet shrinking–footprint in the country. A Russian spokesman said the strike “deals a significant blow” to U.S.-Russia relations, and “creates a serious obstacle” to fighting terrorism. Though its stated goal in joining the fight in Syria a few years ago was to combat terrorism, Russia has played a significant role in propping up the Assad regime. Russia, the Pentagon said, was notified of the strike beforehand; no Russians were killed in the attack.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is due to meet with Russian officials next week in Moscow. U.S. officials said Thursday’s strike was meant to provide leverage in the talks, and to show the Russians they can no longer act with impunity in Syria. “This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” Tillerson said. “The more we fail to respond to the use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post What You Need to Know About the Missile Strike in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

Update 2/23/2017: Despite earlier reports, Abu Izzadeen was not the attacker. Izzadeen is still in prison on unrelated matters. The identity of the attacker is still unknown. 

It’s unclear if it was the same car, but moments later, witnesses said a vehicle rammed the gates of Parliament. It was reported that the driver got out and stabbed a police officer. Witnesses said the officer was still moving when the assailant took off running, as other police officers shouted at him to stop. When he didn’t comply, several shots rang out and the attacker was killed.

Inside the building, the House of Commons was meeting; everyone was instructed to remain inside. Prime Minister Theresa May was quickly reported as unharmed. Witnesses outside described the situation as confused and panicked, with people running in all directions and officers giving contradictory orders.

Emergency services treat the injured outside Parliament in London.

Police are treating the Westminster attack as a “terrorist incident.” pic.twitter.com/XZ4Xioh8JK

— AJ+ (@ajplus) March 22, 2017

What made the incident even more haunting is that it occurred on the anniversary of the suicide bombings in Brussels that killed more than 30 people and injured at least 260. London has recently been spared from terror attacks–the last major attack in the city was the 2005 subway bombings that killed 52 people and injured more than 700. Now, London joins the list of European capitals that have recently been targets of terrorism. And there are similarities between some of the recent attacks–a vehicle was used as a weapon just like in France, Germany and Israel.

Eyewitnesses describe a chaotic scene after London terror attack: “I just can’t believe what I just saw.” https://t.co/EuQPjRFizI pic.twitter.com/SMzX6Gp9cf

— ABC News (@ABC) March 22, 2017

According to the Metropolitan Police in London, a “full counter terrorism investigation is already underway.” Police asked people to stay away from public areas in central London and to report any suspicious activities. Police also urged people to send in photos they took of the attacks. The head of counter terrorism, Mark Rowley, confirmed that four people are dead. “That includes the police officer that was protecting parliament and one man believed to be the attacker who was shot by a police firearms officer,” he said.

Four dead and at least 20 people injured in London terror attack, Metropolitan Police confirm pic.twitter.com/rXXqMU8Q36

— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 22, 2017

Some of the injured victims were a woman who either fell or jumped into the River Thames when the car crashed into the people on the bridge, and a group of visiting French students. Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood tried to revive the stabbed police officer outside of the parliament, but was unsuccessful. Lawmakers inside the House of Commons stayed on lockdown for two hours while police searched the whole building for any additional threats.

Andrew Bone was on a bus that was stopped on the bridge after the car had rammed into people and said, “I am of the generation who remembers I.R.A. bombs in London during The Troubles,” referring to the conflicts in Northern Ireland that lasted from 1968 to 1998. “We are not indifferent, but police have reacted with calm. I saw no panic.”

By Wednesday afternoon, police said the the attacker was Abu Izzadeen, who was born in London as Trevor Brooks. He was well known by authorities for his links to Islamic terrorism and had been to prison for funding, inciting, and praising terror acts. Reportedly he called for the killing of police officers and said he saw members of Parliament as infidels.

My thoughts are with the victims of the Westminster attack. Europe stands firm with the UK against terror and ready to help.

— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) March 22, 2017

World leaders expressed their solidarity with London on Twitter, although President Donald Trump has yet to make a statement. The NYPD increased security at some high-profile locations around New York City, like the British Consulate, United Nations Mission, and Grand Central Terminal.

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 London Terror Attack: Four Dead After Assailant Drives into Crowd appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

— Bloomberg (@business) March 21, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

— Bloomberg (@business) March 15, 2017

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Passengers on flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa will be barred from bringing electronics larger than a cell phone in their carry on baggage, according to the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration. The new directive came late Monday, after “evaluated intelligence” was presented to Trump Administration officials that terrorists seek to smuggle “explosive devices in various consumer items.”

Officials said the new travel restrictions are not based on any imminent or specific threats; but rather a broader threat, and general intelligence reports. Taking effect at 3 a.m. Tuesday (airlines have just 96 hours to comply) the new directive will bar passengers from 10 airports in eight countries–none of which are included in President Donald Trump’s recent travel ban–from bringing large electronics in their carry-on luggage. This includes laptops, cameras, tablets, games, and other large devices. Flight crews will not have to comply with the new restrictions, which only apply to foreign carriers.

Affected cities include: Amman, Jordan; Cairo, Egypt; Istanbul, Turkey; Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Casablanca, Morocco; Doha, Qatar; and Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Royal Jordanian, one of the carriers affected by the new measures, sent out a tweet early Monday that indicated the device restrictions. It later deleted the tweet, but it was preserved by other users:

@RoyalJordanian This Tweet appears to have been deleted , cannot find it back . Is it still valid #ElectronicsBan pic.twitter.com/PYZXwa76MP

— Caroline Kere (@carolinekere) March 21, 2017

It is unclear how long the restrictions will be in place; the DHS, in a briefing with reporters Monday night, said the procedures would “remain in place until the threat changes.” Some technology experts are flummoxed by the new restrictions, saying that people wishing to do harm via a large electronic device could still use their check-in luggage as a conduit for explosives.

“It’s weird, because it doesn’t match a conventional threat model,” Nicholas Weaver, researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley told the Guardian. “If you assume the attacker is interested in turning a laptop into a bomb, it would work just as well in the cargo hold.”

The U.S. is not the only country issuing more restrictive travel measures. Early Tuesday morning, British news outlet Sky News tweeted:

Passengers travelling to the UK from certain countries will be banned from carrying most electronic devices on flights, Sky News understands pic.twitter.com/aCq7mrBNaM

— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 21, 2017

The report said that Britain, like the U.S., is not basing its new procedures on a specific threat, but “rather a response to the ongoing general threat to aviation.” Paul Schwartz, an information technology professor at the University of California, Berkeley Law School, told the Guardian that the terrorist threat has transcended borders, and targeting travel from a handful of countries might not alleviate the threat entirely.

“One potential problem with this approach where you single out countries is that you ignore the extent to which the terrorist threat is kind of state-less,” Schwartz said. “The terrorists have cells throughout the entire world.”

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 Electronics Banned on U.S.-Bound Flights from 10 Airports in Muslim Countries appeared first on Law Street.

A Tuesday interview between CNN’s Jake Tapper and President Donald Trump’s right hand woman Kellyanne Conway turned into a heated discussion and continued the feud between the news organization and the White House. After the interview, Axios reported that a “source with direct knowledge” said that some in the Republican Party have been urging at least one conservative website to track down damaging information on Jake Tapper and publish “hit pieces” on him.

Trump and CNN have had a strained relationship for some time, and since Tapper is one of the channel’s top journalists, he is a pretty obvious target. But Tapper didn’t freak out about the threat. In fact, he seemed to take it pretty lightly.

So now we sit and wait to see which obedient attack dog follows orders. Arf arf!! https://t.co/GXBrHDblQp

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 8, 2017

He even posted some “compromising” information about himself to stall any coming attacks.

Cut a school assembly in May 1983 to see Return of the Jedi on its first day. #TapperDirtFile #JubJub pic.twitter.com/sbuXAzQBve

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 8, 2017

Maybe that wasn’t so bad, but what about this one?

@jaketapper how could you pic.twitter.com/sa9YpWlJAM

— Matthew D’Ambrosio™ (@drmattdambrosio) February 8, 2017

Other people soon followed and shared own their versions of a #TapperDirtFile.

I saw @jaketapper dump his fast food garbage ENTIRELY in the garbage bin, when he COULD have sorted SOME into recyclables! #tapperdirtfile

— Jacob M. (@RealLifeHoser) February 8, 2017

@jaketapper successfully lobbied against CNN’s 1 beard policy.

…Wolf Blitzer hasn’t spoken to him since #TapperDirtFile

— Jack Tweets (@jackTweets11) February 8, 2017

The interview that started this phenomenon had to do with Trump’s recent claim that the media doesn’t report on terror attacks. The White House released a list of 78 terrorist attacks that it believes the media didn’t cover enough. The list included some of the biggest terror attacks in recent years, which were obviously very well covered by the media.

“It’s offensive given the fact that CNN and other media organizations have reporters in danger right now in war zones covering ISIS,” Tapper said on Tuesday. “And I just don’t understand how the president can make an attack like that.” Conway replied that the list was just intended to increase awareness of the international threat of terrorism.

Tapper also questioned Conway about why the president hasn’t commented publicly or tweeted about the mosque attack by a white man in Quebec City that killed six people and wounded eight. The President had tweeted about the attack outside the Louvre in Paris, where no one was killed, but the attacker was Muslim. Conway replied that the president “doesn’t tweet about everything,” even though most of us think he could probably use a break from his smartphone.

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 Jake Tapper Tweets Dirt About Himself After Rumors that the GOP is Targeting Him appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that blocks people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. All refugees will be barred for 120 days, Syrian refugees are blocked indefinitely. Thousands of people have hit the nation’s airports and city centers to protest Trump’s order. Business and religious leaders have spoken out against the travel ban. Congressmen–Democrats and many Republicans–have decried the move. But still, there are many people in America who are frightened, and there are plenty who support the executive order.

According to a recent Reuters poll, nearly half (49 percent) of the country supports the order. It’s largely split by party lines. A majority of Republicans (over 75 percent) support the ban, while roughly 20 percent of Democrats do. The poll, which gathered responses from 453 Democrats and 478 Republicans, also found that 31 percent of respondents say the ban makes them feel “more safe.” About one quarter said it makes them feel “less safe.”

Cheryl Hoffman, a 46-year-old living in Sumerduck, Virginia, told Reuters that she understands America is a nation built on immigration. “But I’m worried that refugees are coming in and being supported by my tax dollars,” she said. For some, however, Trump’s order is more than a penny-saving decision. It’s about keeping Muslims out of the U.S.

“Every story about a Muslim immigrant is that they are as American as apple pie,” Sal Oliva, a hotel worker and Uber courier from Staten Island, New York told The New York Times. “But I’m sorry, Islam is no friend of L.G.B.T. people.” Oliva, who is gay, added: “When Islam meets gay people in Somalia or wherever, they get thrown off the roof. And you expect them to be different when they move here? You can’t expect people to absorb our values.”

The Reuters poll also found that most Americans (56 percent) do not support preferential treatment for persecuted Christian minorities who live in the seven countries affected by the order. Trump contends the order has nothing to do with religion, and is not a “Muslim ban,” as many critics have been calling it. “This is not about religion,” Trump said in a statement on Friday. “This is about terror and keeping our country safe.”

Michael Bower, a 35 year-old who lives in Seattle, thinks the outrage over the order is a bit much. “Let’s just take a breather,” Bower told The New York Times. “Take a little time out. Let’s get the smart people in here and formulate a plan.” According to polling, nearly half of the country agrees.

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 How Many Americans Support Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Evan McMullin (@Evan_McMullin) January 26, 2017

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

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

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) January 25, 2017

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

The Taliban has released a video of two professors from the American University of Afghanistan who were abducted in August, the first public evidence that the rebel group is holding the two men hostage. The group wants imprisoned insurgents to be set free in exchange for the two Westerners. In the video, American Kevin King and Australian Timothy Weeks ask the U.S. government to cooperate with the Taliban so that they can be released.

The video clip portrays the two men as fragile and bearded, breaking down in tears and begging President-elect Donald Trump to lead negotiations. “Donald Trump sir, I ask you please. This is in your hands. I ask you please to negotiate with the Taliban. If you do not negotiate with them, we will be killed,” said Weeks.

Taliban video shows US and Australian hostages https://t.co/2tp1qEMWr6

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 12, 2017

The professors were abducted at gunpoint from their car on August 7, close to the university campus in Kabul. A team of Navy Seals and Army Rangers launched a rescue mission to free them, and the battle resulted in the death of several rebels. But the abducted men were not to be found–the U.S. troops were believed to have missed them by only a few hours.

A few weeks later the Taliban launched an armed attack on the university campus, killing 12 people and wounding many more. Classes have been suspended all fall and were just about to begin again when the video of King and Weeks was released. The school’s president, David Sedney, immediately issued a statement calling for the release of his colleagues:

We call on the Taliban to release immediately and safely Kevin and Tim and all other hostages. Kevin and Tim came to Afghanistan as teachers, to help Afghanistan. These innocent people have done nothing to harm anyone and need to be reunited with their family, friends and colleagues.

According to U.S. officials, the Haqqani wing of the Taliban is holding the men. That is the same group that also held U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed in 2014 and was featured in the podcast Serial last winter. The Haqquanis are also believed to be holding a Canadian-American couple hostage, who allegedly have had two babies since being captured.

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 Abducted Professors Beg U.S. Government to Negotiate With the Taliban appeared first on Law Street.

National Action is likely to be the first far-right group in Britain to be deemed a terrorist organization, which would effectively make joining and supporting the group a criminal offense. The group regularly invokes Nazi symbols at its rallies and online, and earlier this year, the group praised Thomas Mair for killing a member of Parliament, Jo Cox.

“I am determined that we challenge extremism in all its forms, including the evil of far right extremism,” Homes Secretary Amber Rudd said when Mair was convicted in November. On Monday, as Parliament signaled it will be proscribing, or banning, National Action, Rudd called the group “a racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic organization.”

Under Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000, groups can be classified as “terrorist organizations.” Seventy groups have been proscribed under the bill so far, most of which are Islamist groups. The act says a group classifies if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

While it’s unclear if National Action members have committed a violent act of terrorism, they have certainly incited violence, and proselytize hateful rhetoric. For instance, members once sent out a tweet referring to Jewish people by a derogatory term that was used during the holocaust: “Tykes gassin [K*kes] is our motto, #Yorkshire needs you #AntiCommunism #ProNationalSocialism #DefendBritain.” The group’s Twitter account was suspended. In the website’s November update, National Action, which brands itself as a “nationalist youth movement,” addressed the potential ban. “We neither sanction or endorse terrorism,” the group said.

Being added to the government’s official list of terrorist organizations is not necessarily the right approach, the Anti-Fascist Network tweeted on Monday. Saying they support “community and class action, not state bans,” the group added: “They can avoid charges by simply re-branding as a ‘different’ group, and it’ll lend them an aura of action and danger.” But Parliament is moving full steam ahead with the ban. They will be discussing the ban this week, and it is expected to go into effect on Friday.

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 British Parliament to Classify Neo-Nazi Group National Action as Terrorist Organization appeared first on Law Street.

In the years following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA broadened its torture toolkit. Detainees were stuffed in boxes. They were forced to spend hours holding uncomfortable positions, sometimes barred from sleeping for days at a time. And of course, there was waterboarding. In October 2015, two men who were subjected to the CIA’s interrogations at secret prisons in Afghanistan filed lawsuits against the two CIA contractors who sculpted the agency’s torture program.

The plaintiffs and their lawyers now question whether their quest for justice could be undermined by President-elect Trump, who has expressed support for torture techniques, and will have the power to unilaterally dismiss the suit if he chooses. No government official involved in a torture program has been held accountable, and this suit, backed by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, is the furthest former detainees have gotten.

Suleiman Abdullah Salim of Tanzania, and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud of Libya, along with representatives of a third man who died in the CIA’s secret prison, are the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants are James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, both psychologists and contractors who devised and helped implement the torture program.

If Trump, who recently hinted his position supporting torture might have shifted, decides to invoke the state secrets privilege, the case would be dismissed under the grounds of national security. The Department of Justice under President Obama has blocked civil cases against CIA contractors from proceeding under the same pretense.

But in April, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington, where the suit was filed, dismissed a motion that claimed the suit could reveal security-compromising secrets. Under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue in U.S. courts for human rights abuses, Judge Justin Quackenbush allowed the case to proceed. The trial is set for June 2017.

On Tuesday, Mitchell, one of the defendants, is set to release a book titled “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America.” According to The New York Times, which obtained an early copy, Mitchell defends his torture program, saying his “unpleasant” techniques “protected detainees from being subjected to unproven and perhaps harsher techniques made up on the fly that could have been much worse.”

The effectiveness of Mitchell and Jessen’s program was questioned in a 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report, however, which concluded the “inhumane physical or psychological techniques are counterproductive because they do not produce intelligence and will probably result in false answers.”

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 Could Dismiss Lawsuit by CIA Torture Victims appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

When a 22-year-old Syrian man at a train station in Leipzig, Germany posted a message on a social media site asking for a place to crash, two fellow Syrian refugees scooped him up and brought him to a third friend’s apartment. The man, Jaber Albakr, was on the lam after police raided his apartment, suspecting him of plotting a terrorist attack.

As Albakr slept on Sunday night, the three Syrian friends, realizing that he was the fugitive who had evaded the police, tied him up with electrical cords, and alerted the authorities. They arrested him Monday morning, and now, the three Syrians who tied him up are being hailed as “heroes.”

Anti-migrant sentiment has gripped Germany like it has the rest of Europe. Political groups running on nationalist, insular, platforms have sprung up from London to Leipzig. But on Tuesday, after three Syrian asylum seekers thwarted a fellow Syrian immigrant (who was granted asylum as one of the 890,000 migrants allowed into Germany last year), it was those least trusted by some Germans who perhaps saved the lives of many.

Leipzig is the largest city in the eastern state of Saxony, the base of a prominent anti-immigrant group, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA). Messages from groups like PEGIDA were overshadowed on Tuesday by the heroism of Syrian refugees. Leipzig Mayor Burkhard Jung called what the Syrians did a “very courageous act.” In the German newspaper Bild, one of the Syrian saviors voiced his appreciation for Germany: “I am so grateful to Germany for taking us in. We could not allow him to do something to Germans.”

The identities of the Syrian friends have not been released by authorities. Investigators in the case said Albakr seemed to be targeting a Berlin airport. They found over three pounds of explosives in his home, as well as evidence of ties to the Islamic State.

Franz Josef Wagner, a columnist for Bild, heralded the Syrians’ actions in an op-ed published on Tuesday. He began his piece with “Dear Heroes” and noted that they may come from a different culture, “But beyond language and tradition, you know what good and bad are. That makes you friends.”

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 Refugees Deemed ‘Heroes’ After Thwarting Leipzig Terror Suspect appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors charged Ahmad Khan Rahami with terror charges for planting explosives in New Jersey and a bomb in New York that injured 31 people. The charges include use of a weapon of mass destruction. By Wednesday he was still in the hospital recovering from the ten gunshot wounds he received when he was arrested in Linden, New Jersey, on Monday.

Federal agents wanted to question Rahami, but he was allegedly not cooperating. It is unclear if his lack of cooperation was simply due to his injuries. Investigators are examining his trip to Pakistan a couple of years ago, and whether he got any money or training from any extremist organizations.

Rahami was born in Afghanistan and came to the U.S. as a young child. He previously worked as an unarmed night guard at an AP administrative technology office, where he talked a lot about politics and expressed sympathy for the Taliban and contempt for the U.S. military.

‘The sound of bombs will be heard in your streets,’ New York attacker vowed in journal https://t.co/BxaNgD0nSr

— The Independent (@Independent) September 21, 2016

The complaints filed against him reveal that he bought bomb ingredients on eBay and tried them out in a backyard—as shown on a video on a relative’s cellphone only two days before the attack in New York. He also kept a journal in which he had written down messages including that he would rather die as a martyr than be caught and that bombs would resound in the streets.

1. Authorities have published photo showing an excerpt of Ahmad Khan Rahami’s notebook where he notes inspiration from both ISIS & Al Qaeda pic.twitter.com/sZQcsY8Izm

— Lisa Daftari (@LisaDaftari) September 21, 2016

There were also references to Osama bin Laden and other well-known terrorists such as Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical cleric who has incited acts of violence, and Nidal Hasan, the former Army officer who was behind the shooting in Fort Hood in 2009.

Rahami was investigated for terrorism as early as 2014, when his father notified the FBI that his son was “doing real bad” and had stabbed his brother and hit his mother. He didn’t want to accuse his son of terrorism, but said that he was hanging out with the wrong kinds of people. The federal agency investigated Rahami for two months but didn’t find anything serious enough to charge him.

Also on Tuesday, a New Jersey court granted Rahami’s ex-girlfriend Maria Mena full custody of their child, saying there was a risk for irreparable harm to the child in the case of continued contact with Rahami. He was prohibited from having any more contact with his child. It was also revealed that he owed Mena more than $3,000 in child support.

The FBI questioned Rahami’s current wife in the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday, who said she had no idea about her husband’s violent plans.

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 Federal Terror Charges Filed Against New York Bomber Ahmad Rahami 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:

Congressman Lee Zeldin Drags Kaepernick Into Terrorism Debate

People on Twitter are wondering why New York congressman Lee Zeldin thought it was appropriate to bring Colin Kaepernick into the whole New York, New Jersey bomber situation.

After the FBI apprehended Ahmad Khan Ramahi yesterday morning, Lee Zeldin posted this on Twitter:

Suspect in custody. You are welcome Colin Kaepernick.

— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) September 19, 2016

His tweet sparked some confused and disapproving responses:

@leezeldin If only Kaepernick had stood for the anthem these past two weeks, we could have caught the terrorist 3 hours sooner probably.

— Alex Katz (@Alex__Katz) September 19, 2016

1+1 = kumquat https://t.co/6psueTQz9r

— Shers (@aubrihshark) September 19, 2016

Just did my job that I get paid for. You’re welcome, Colin Kaepernick

— Margaret Don’t-@wood (@DavidUzumeri) September 19, 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: September 20, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, two bombs were detonated within 80 miles of each other: a pipe bomb exploded at a charity race in Seaside Park, New Jersey Saturday morning; later that night a homemade bomb packed into a pressure cooker detonated on 23rd Street in Manhattan, injuring 29 people. Nobody was hurt in New Jersey, and all 29 wounded individuals from the explosion in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan have been released from the hospital. The FBI said the attacks appear connected, and a prime suspect, Ahmad Khan Rahami of Elizabeth, New Jersey, was arrested and is in police custody after a shootout in Linden, New Jersey.

What do we Know So far?

In Seaside Park, a charity 5K–intended to raise funds for marines and sailors–was canceled because of a pipe bomb that exploded in the area Saturday morning. The bomb detonated in a garbage can near the starting line, but because the race was delayed, the area was empty when the bomb went off. Only one of three pipe bombs detonated, investigators said.

Later that evening, roughly 80 miles north of Seaside Park, near Manhattan’s westernmost edge, a homemade explosive went off. Blocks away, a second, undetonated device was found. The FBI said the devices appear to reflect advanced bomb-making techniques. On Sunday, a backpack full of five explosives was found at a train station in New Jersey. It is unclear if the backpack is connected to Saturday’s bombings.

The Prime Suspect

Just before noon on Monday, Ahmad Khan Rahami was arrested and captured by police in Linden, New Jersey after a shootout with police. A law enforcement official told the Associated Press that two officers were shot. Rahami is the prime suspect in the attacks in New Jersey and Manhattan.

A naturalized U.S. citizen born in Afghanistan, Rahami, 28, lives in Elizabeth, New Jersey. As of Monday afternoon, the FBI is combing his house for clues of a motive or any evidence directly linking him to the bombings.

Ahmad Khan Rahami, suspect in NY & NJ bombings, seen being loaded into an ambulance https://t.co/xQKQoLv7XQ https://t.co/MvXSlYgc6T

— CNN (@CNN) September 19, 2016

Rahami’s parents own First American Fried Chicken in Elizabeth, a restaurant that has drawn ire from some local residents because of its late-night, rowdy crowds. The Rahamis had previously refused to comply with city officials who ordered the restaurant to close at 10 PM.. Eventually, after confrontations with police officers and a lawsuit from Ahmad’s father, the restaurant and the city compromised: First American Fried Chicken remained opened, but had to close at 1 AM.

The family lives above the restaurant, and the FBI is searching their home for clues as of Monday afternoon.

Was this Terrorism?

When news of the explosion in New York City began trickling in on Saturday evening, Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo instantly denied any links to terrorism. The events surrounding the attacks were murky at the time, but it was still unusual for two prominent public figures to take such a definitive stance immediately following an attack.

On Monday morning, Cuomo shifted his stance: “I believe we will be targeting an individual, a person of interest, and it may very well turn out that there was a foreign connection to this incident,” Cuomo said in an interview with CBS. “Do I believe it’s possible you’re going to find one individual or one group behind all of these bombings? I think that’s a possibility.”

A few hours later, Rahami was captured by police, and as they search his house for clues and question him directly, answers regarding his motives or ties to international terrorist groups are sure to surface. De Blasio continued his measured approach: “To understand there were any specific motivations, political motivations, any connection to an organization — that’s what we don’t know,” he said.

November’s presidential hopefuls–Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton–took slightly different tacks in addressing the attacks. Trump released a flurry of tweets, offering his “warmest regards” to the families and victims of the attacks. Clinton released an official statement on her campaign website, appearing more forthcoming than de Blasio, a Clinton supporter, by labeling Saturday’s happenings as “apparent terrorist attacks.” Her statement said: “Americans have faced threats before, and our resilience in the face of them only makes us stronger. I am confident we will once again choose resolve over fear.”

Alec Siegel

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

The post What You Need to Know About Saturday’s Bombings in NYC and NJ appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— TOLOnews (@TOLOnews) August 24, 2016

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

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

Emma Von Zeipel

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

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

Armed police officers forced a Muslim woman to take off her burkini at the beach in Nice, France. In Cannes, another woman was fined for wearing a headscarf and leggings. These are some of the first known examples of enforcement of  a controversial ban on certain beachwear since the ban was implemented in several French towns earlier this month.

Cannes was the first town to impose the ban, which emerged after recent terrorist attacks in France. According to the rule, you cannot visit the beaches in Cannes if you are “wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism.” The prohibition is widely seen as a restriction of the freedom of religion and expression that is supposed to exist in France.

According to the Telegraph, at least four armed officers approached the burkini-wearing woman on the beach in Nice and didn’t leave until she took her burkini off.

Woman forced to remove burkini on Nice beach while another given fine in Cannes https://t.co/UhI7rpeJDPpic.twitter.com/2nTpXOfn9Q

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 24, 2016

The woman who was fined in Nice said she was wearing a tunic with leggings and a headscarf, sitting on the beach in Cannes with her family with no intention of going swimming. Another beach visitor who witnessed the incident, Mathilde Cousin, said, “The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home,’ some were applauding the police. Her daughter was crying.”

The town of Villeneuve-Loubet was one of the first of some 15 French towns to follow the example set in Cannes, imposing similar beach rules. On Monday, a lower court ruled that the ban is “necessary, appropriate, and proportionate” to uphold public order after recent terrorist attacks. The ruling went on to say that the burkini was “liable to offend the religious convictions or [religious] non-convictions of other users of the beach” as well as “be felt as a defiance or a provocation exacerbating tensions felt by” the community.

The French NGO Human Rights League appealed the decision, saying the ban is a “serious and illegal attack on numerous fundamental rights,” notably freedom of religion.

The controversial ban will come before the highest administrative court in France on Thursday. Meanwhile, the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, Lionnel Luca, had another explanation for why he wanted the rule in place. He told Sky News:

I was informed that there was a couple on one of our beaches where the wife was swimming fully dressed… I considered that unacceptable for hygienic reasons and that in general it was unwelcome.

The woman he saw was swimming in the ocean, not a swimming pool. Luca did also not specify whose hygiene he was concerned about.

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 Burkini Ban: Enforcement Starts in Nice and Cannes 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.

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.

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.

Facebook is being accused of providing “material support and resources” to Hamas in a new $1 billion lawsuit. Lawyers allege that the popular social network was used to plot attacks by the militant Palestinian group that killed four Americans and wounded one in Israel, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.

The lawsuit, which was filed on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York states:

Hamas has recognized the tremendous utility and value of Facebook as a tool to facilitate this terrorist group’s ability to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies. For years, Hamas, its leaders, spokesmen, and members have openly maintained and used official Facebook accounts with little or no interference.

Shurat Hadin, an Israeli legal advocacy group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of families whose relatives were killed in terror attacks. That same group is behind another lawsuit that is currently seeking an injunction to require prompt removal of posted content that may incite violence.

Plaintiffs in the most recent lawsuit include Stuart and Robbi Force, the parents of 29-year-old U.S. Army veteran and Vanderbilt University graduate student Taylor Force who was fatally stabbed in a Hamas attack while visiting Israel on a school trip. They are joined by the parents of 16-year-old Yaakov Naftali Fraenkel, who was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank in June 2014; the parents of three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun, who was killed in Jerusalem during a vehicular terrorist attack in October 2014; the son of 76-year-old Richard Lakin, who was killed in a shooting and stabbing attack in Jerusalem in October 2015; and Menachem Mendel Rivkin, who was seriously injured in a January 2016 stabbing attack in Jerusalem.

These families hope to prove that Facebook was being used as a tool for terrorism and operated in direct violation of the Antiterrorism Act, which bars U.S. businesses from providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. However, many experts believe Facebook will be legally protected under the  Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from content posted by third-party users.

Facebook responded to Bloomberg’s request for comment with a statement saying,

[We want] people to feel safe when using Facebook. There is no place for content encouraging violence, direct threats, terrorism or hate speech on Facebook. We have a set of Community Standards to help people understand what is allowed on Facebook, and we urge people to use our reporting tools if they find content that they believe violates our standards so we can investigate and take swift action.

It’s unclear if the lawsuit will succeed in holding Facebook legally responsible because anti-terrorism efforts and freedom of speech are both at play. It will be interesting to see how the case moves forward.

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 Facebook Accused of Supporting Hamas in $1 Billion Lawsuit 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.

A new survey released Thursday by the Public Religion Research Institution (PRRI), in collaboration with the Brookings Institute, offers a window into the divisions afflicting American society, the disaffection the 2016 election has exposed, and the similarities–and intense differences–among political, racial, and generational lines. But perhaps the survey’s most valuable insight, and the analysis that followed Thursday’s presentation of the results, is why Donald Trump is the leader America’s most anxious citizens are counting on this fall.

Across a number of topics–the economy, American culture, immigration–Trump supporters expressed more anxiety than Democrats, independents, and Republicans who do not support Trump. Though a slim majority of Americans feel threatened by terrorism–51 percent of those surveyed said they were worried that they or a family member would become a victim of a terrorist act–two-thirds of Trump supporters (or 65 percent) reported terrorism-related anxiety. White working class Americans–many of whom support Trump–registered similar numbers in regards to concerns about crime. So why is Trump the man to massage the fears of America’s most anxiety-riddled?

From the perspective of Trump supporters, “there are certain things the government ought to be doing, to ensure that they have a decent chance at a life of dignity, comfort, and security,” Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said at the Brookings presentation of the paper Thursday. “They don’t believe the government is doing those things.” Aside from security, Trump supporters reported higher proportions of economic and cultural anxiety in comparison to the rest of the country.

34 percent of Trump supporters said they would be bothered by a non-white majority America, compared to 21 percent of the country as a whole (Democrats surveyed paralleled that number.) Trump supporters also reported considerably higher anxieties in terms of what they see as growing discrimination against whites, as well as the incompatibility of Islam with American values. Expectedly, Trump supporters are the most avid backers of two of his campaign’s touchstone conceits: trade deals are mostly harmful, and the U.S. should do more to protect itself from outsiders–build a wall along the border with Mexico, ban Muslims, and prohibit Syrian refugees from resettling in America.

“There is a palpable sense among white working-class voters of just personal vulnerability, of being exposed,” said Robert Jones, one of the architects of the PRRI survey, at Brookings on Thursday. Trump is tapping into that sense vulnerability that the country’s current leaders have thus far been unable to corral. The survey asked 2,607 people from across all 50 states and D.C. whether they think America is in need of a “leader willing to break some rules if that’s what it takes to set things right.” Seventy-two percent of Trump supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of Republicans overall and 49 percent of America as a whole.

“If you think that the rules have been rewritten to your disfavor and that the rules have been rewritten to delegitimize you culturally, to take away from you,” explained Joy Reid, a host on MSNBC and a member on Thursday’s Brookings panel, “I think you would believe breaking the rules is completely legitimate because you don’t really believe in the rules.”

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 America’s Anxiety at Record High, Especially Among Trump Supporters appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. tends to follow an apathetic cycle when it comes to gun control; a mass shooting occurs, Republican politicians blame it on terrorism or mental illness, or anything other than gun control, and Democrats blame it on weak gun control. Gun control legislation is brought up, not passed, and another mass shooting happens.

A week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, with 49 people murdered at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando and days after Senator Chris Murphy’s (D-Connecticut) 15 hour gun control filibuster, the Senate will vote tonight on four gun control proposals. 

The Murphy amendment, proposed by Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut)

The Murphy amendment features the largest expansion of present gun control rules by closing the “gun show loophole” and requiring private gun show sales to enforce background checks. The amendment also seeks to expand The National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS), the background check database used for gun sales.

The Grassley amendment, proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)

The Grassley amendment seeks to improve the NICS to notify law enforcement if somebody who has been investigated for terrorism by the FBI within the last five years attempts to buy a gun. The amendment also seeks to clarify language and documentation on mental health that would bar some from obtaining guns.

The Feinstein amendment, proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

Also known as the “no fly, no buy” amendment, Feinstein’s proposal would allow the attorney general to deny gun sales with “reasonable belief” that the buyer is connected to terrorism. This lower standard than “probable cause” extends beyond the “no-fly” watch list.

The Cornyn amendment, proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas)

The Cornyn amendment allows up to a 72-hour wait period for individuals on terrorism watch lists who attempt to buy guns. This amendment is supported by the NRA.

The Democratic priority at this point is to close background check loopholes included in sales at gun shows, online sales, and more, the Cornyn and Grassley amendments have been chastised as not doing nearly enough. Further, the focus on barring individuals suspected of terrorism from buying guns is important but, frankly, does not address the problem behind the remarkably high number of mass shootings in the U.S.

In fact, of the 18 largest mass shootings in U.S. history (each having 10 or more fatalities), only 3  had expected terrorist connections: the Pulse Nightclub shooting, the Fort Hood shooting, and the San Bernardino shooting. These shooters were all self-radicalized and the FBI couldn’t find any connection between them and international terrorist regimes. Further, most recent American mass shooters obtained their guns legally with passed background checks, despite half of them having criminal histories or turbulent mental health backgrounds.

So far we have yet to see legislation that proposes a solution to the “typical” mass shooter in the U.S.: a person working independently due to feelings of anger, vengefulness, and unstable emotions or mental health reform on a larger scale.

The Grassley and Feinstein amendments are more or less misled in their focus on the “terrorism gap,” which hasn’t proven to be prevalent in the U.S. and essentially panders to public fears. The Cornyn amendment offers essentially no solution—does a 72 hour waiting period really work? The Murphy amendment offers imperative safeguards against people who shouldn’t be able to obtain a gun, but, with the NRA and gun rights playing such a pervasive role in Republican politics, will the GOP vote in the public interest?

The Senate vote for these four amendments is scheduled for 5:30 P.M. on Monday.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will U.S. Gun Control Strife End with Monday’s Senate Vote? 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.

Historically speaking, when a nation suffers a tragedy–a mass shooting, a terrible earthquake, a humanitarian disaster–world leaders offer condolences. They attempt, at the very least, to assuage fears, to pray, to be the sympathetic speak piece for their citizenry. In a time of calamity, presidents and prime ministers show solidarity with one another and with their respective peoples. Ironically, tragedies connect people, as people grieve for other people, no matter the flag they wave. Everyone recognizes loss.

Not so for Donald Trump. When disaster strikes a nation not named America, Trump preens his feathers–primarily on Twitter–asking rhetorical questions and subtly hinting that such things simply would not happen on his watch.

On Thursday morning an EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo went missing. Sixty-six people were on board the flight, which has been confirmed to have crashed in the Mediterranean Sea off the Greek island of Crete. And while signs are pointing to a terrorist attack, nothing concrete has been announced.

Trump–a man who waves off facts like they’re a bad business deal–saw this as an opportunity to present himself as the iron fisted leader that would apparently strike down insidious plots that even the world’s leading intelligence officials struggle with. Hours after the plane was announced missing, Trump took to his go-to megaphone, Twitter:

Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2016

No mention of prayer. No mention of shared suffering. No nod to the losses dealt to 66 families. No sign of humanity. No cautioned stance due to a lack of facts. Just a self-serving, speculative burst of nonsense. The only fact to be found: “Airplane departed from Paris.”

Some may argue that a 140-character shot of sympathy and solidarity is hardly the most genuine sign of love and oneness in the world. And they are correct, in a sense. But when Trump wakes up in his Mar-a-Lago mansion, scans Twitter and sees a plane that left Paris for Cairo is missing, his reaction is to deem it a terrorist attack and posture himself as the theoretical savior. It’s telling that it doesn’t even cross his mind to shoot out a tweet recognizing the victims or their families or their home countries. He just narrows his gaze, tightens his mouth, and puffs his chest.

This is not the first time Trump has responded to a tragedy in such a way.

Following the mass shooting in Paris in January 2015–when 17 people were murdered, including members of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo–Trump thrust the spotlight on gun control, using the episode as proof gun control doesn’t equal less violence:

Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2015

After 32 people were killed in Brussels in March, bombed in an airport terminal and a subway, Trump let this tweet go:

Do you all remember how beautiful and safe a place Brussels was. Not anymore, it is from a different world! U.S. must be vigilant and smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2016

While he did follow that up with an empathetic message to the victims (though not without his own stamp: “This madness must be stopped, and I will stop it.”), he again posited his own agenda ahead of any mention of non-American lives lost.

This is the man who could lead the most powerful country in the world. If elected president in November, he is the symbol of America’s well of empathy, of its heart. Does America’s heart bleed when another nation’s does? Does America shed a tear when another nation suffers? Trump is promising to make this country great again, but it can’t be great unless its supposed leader grieves with everyone else.

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 When the World Sees Grief, Trump Sees Gain 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Tamara Gitt (@tamaragitt) April 18, 2016

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

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

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

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

Mariam Jaffery

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

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

As people recovered from New Year’s Eve and went back to work, attention returned to the challenges facing the United States, from Russia to the Middle East. However, while Americans continue to fret over ISIS sleeper cells, an armed, anti-government group occupied a wildlife refuge in Oregon. While the group’s specific demands remain unclear, this type of armed insurrection is nothing new in the United States.  Starting with the nation’s inception to the present, with several high-profile cases in the 1990s, anti-government rhetoric and militia type groups have been and remain a major issue.  This article will look at the specifics of this incident, the history of these types of groups, similar organizations, and the impact all this has on the United States.

A Wildlife Refuge under Siege

The catalyst for this most recent incident was the conviction of father and son ranchers, the Hammonds, on charges of arson on government land. While they claimed to be merely clearing dangerously flammable brush and invasive species, the pair was convicted of starting the fire to cover up poaching activities in 2001. Although the two men turned themselves in and ended up receiving the minimum sentence for the crime they were convicted of, this was not enough to stem the controversy that has since ensued.

In response, a group led by Ammon Bundy, whose father led a similar stand-off against the government in 2014, held a rally and protest, then seized control of a federal building on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The group, now dubbing itself the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom, has remained in the buildings, which were unoccupied, since the night of January 2. While the group’s demands are still unclear, their complaints seem to center on people having greater access to federal land and the release of the convicted ranchers.

While their exact motivation also remains uncertain, what is clear is that Citizens for Constitutional Freedom is not the first group of its kind. While the group has had previous run-ins with the government, movements protesting federal control of land have roots that go back decades, even centuries. For much of that time, the debate has been between those who wish to conserve areas and those who wish to utilize the land for resources. In the 1970s and 80s the idea that the land should be controlled locally gathered steam and became what has been dubbed the Sagebrush Rebellion.

That movement’s primary complaint–and one of the complaints offered by the group in Oregon–is that the government controls too much land and is not using it appropriately. While the methods being used by the Bundy family are certainly illegal, the protesters may have a point. In total, the government owns roughly one-third of all land in the United States and 53.1 percent of the land in Oregon respectively. Regardless of the validity of these claims, the Oregon group’s inability to articulate its specific complaints have made dealing with it a challenge.  This challenge is only exacerbated by how the group is viewed and portrayed by different people and organizations.

What Do We Call Them?

Much of the debate over this group and why they are protesting concerns how they should be classified. More specifically, is this domestic terrorism?  While many people were quick to denounce the group’s tactics as unpatriotic, there was a noticeable lack of coverage and condemnation of their methods. In fact, many argue that the media coverage of the occupation–which some have even called a peaceful protest–is unfair and biased. Critics contrast the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom’s efforts with other protests, such as the ones in Baltimore and Ferguson, which were called riots and met with armed confrontation from authorities.

So what is this group, then? They are clearly protesters speaking out against something they view as unfair. But the presence of weapons and their vague demands over land use rights, freeing the Hammonds, and fighting against government intimidation appears to make them something more. In fact, the group’s actions do seem to fall more in line with the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism, which includes any action that is “calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” The key to identifying this group then ultimately appears to rest with their intent. Since their actions appear to be based on specific perceived injustices and are tied to specific demands, we can differentiate them from mere protesters.

For context, other examples of the importance of intent in defining an act as terrorism concern two of America’s most recent and deadly shootings. In the case of Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza’s actions were not technically domestic terrorism because there was no ideological intent aside from killing; whereas the shootings by Dylann Roof at a Charleston Church were an act of terrorism as the intent was racially and politically motivated. In other words, although the occupiers in Oregon have not yet used force, the threat of force remains and when you couple that with their intentions they appear to be domestic terrorists. For greater clarity the accompanying video gives another voice to the domestic terrorist debate:

Militia Groups in the United States

Historically, one of the primary perpetrators of domestic terrorism in the United States has been militia groups.  Like the definition of terrorism, the definition of a militia is also vague. The general consensus is that a militia is an irregular military force made up of citizens that are called upon only in the event of an emergency. Once again the protesters in Oregon do not fit neatly within this definition; however, many of them are members of a self-styled militia group known as the Patriot movement. This movement began back in the 1970s and was originally concerned with protecting the United States in the event of a foreign occupation. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the group has refocused its attention to standing up against perceived threats from the government, particularly fear of the government taking away their guns. While the protesters, or domestic terrorists, in Oregon are the latest example of this type of group, they are by no means the only one.

In fact, the number of anti-government groups has mushroomed since 2008, coinciding with the election of President Obama. The number of these groups went from 149 that year to an estimated 1,360 groups by 2012 according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Again, the extent of the threat that these groups actually pose is up for debate. Some counter that their numbers and danger are overblown by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who compiled the numbers as means of drumming up donations. However, others view them as a far more serious concern. The Southern Poverty Law Center also notes that during the 1990s only 858 such groups were identified, almost 500 less than 2012. Even with population growth factored in, that level of increase is concerning. It is especially troubling given the number of high-profile conflicts between the government and anti-government groups during the 1990s.

History of Discontent

The 1990s were a time of numerous conflicts between the government and anti-government groups.  The government standoffs and civilian deaths at Ruby Ridge and Waco raised the specter of government repression, especially among militia-type groups. This culminated with the Oklahoma City Bombing, which left 168 people dead when an anti-government sympathizer blew up a government building. While this attack greatly reduced support for militia groups, particularly for the Patriot movement, it was certainly not the end of the violence or domestic terrorism.

In fact, the American Prospect compiled a list of bombings from 1867 to the present. The list includes attacks from anti-war groups, anarchists, foreign separatists, lone wolfs, and the Boston Bombers to name just a few. In addition to bombings, mass shootings in the United States also involve an element of domestic terrorism, such as the recent San Bernardino shooting.

Currently, the protestors in Oregon have stated that they will only resort to violence if forced into a confrontation by authorities. So far, the authorities have aired on the side of caution, letting the group be in an effort to wait for the occupation out.

Even if the protesters in Oregon leave peacefully, the threat of right-wing militias remains. In fact, in a survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum last year, the number one threat identified was these militia-style groups, even relative to the threat of foreign terrorism from groups like Al-Qaeda. The protesters’ biggest impact may come in the form of shedding greater light on these groups. The following video gives a look at the militia movement in the United States:

Conclusion

As of right now, much of what is going on in Oregon remains unclear. Even how the group should be classified is debated; are they protesters, terrorists, a militia, or something else? About the only thing that is clear is that what they are doing is unpopular. Already the town has come together and asked them to leave. The Paiute Indian Tribe, which can trace its lineage to the area back 9,000 years, believes they have no legitimate complaint and they should leave. Even the Hammonds–the two men convicted of the crime that supposedly sparked the protest–have distanced themselves from the protesters.

While the debate rages over how to treat them, the specter of FBI assaults on seemingly similar groups in the 1990s lingers. Additionally, figuring out how to deal with groups like these takes on ever-increasing importance as their numbers swell and they become increasingly well-armed.

As of right now, it is too early to know exactly how the events will ultimately unfold in Oregon. In all likelihood the protesters will run out of steam, most will likely leave and the masterminds, such as Ammon Bundy, will be held accountable. It could also go the other way if cooler heads do not prevail.

Resources

CNN: Armed Protesters Refuse to Leave Federal Building in Oregon

Al Jazeera: Double Standards Cited Amid Armed Protest in Oregon

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 2332b – Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

Merriam-Webster: Militia

USA Today: Record Number of Anti-government Militias in the USA

The American Prospect: A History of Terrorism on U.S. Soil

Time: This Is What It Takes for Mass Murder to Be ‘Terrorism’

National Geographic: Why Federal Lands Are So Wildly Controversial in the West

The Blaze: Ammon Bundy Says There’s Only One Scenario in Which Armed Protesters Would Resort to Violence Against Authorities

The New York Times: The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat

CNN: Native Tribe Blasts Oregon Takeover

Politico: What Do the Oregon Ranchers Really Believe?

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 What’s Going on in Oregon? Domestic Terrorism in the Beaver State 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.

It may be the happiest place on earth, but it’s also one that needs serious security. Officials at Disney World just announced that it’s upping both visible and behind-the-scenes security measures, and other theme parks nationwide are taking similar actions.

One of the most visible new measures added to the Disney World parks located in Orlando, Florida will be metal detectors. Guests won’t be allowed to bring toy guns, including squirt guns, inside, and Disney is also stopping the sale of such products. For example, the Pirates of the Caribbean theme shop used to sell plastic guns–those will be removed from the shelves. The parks will also no longer allow anyone over the age of 14 to walk around in costumes or masks (besides, of course, employees.) Disney World has also beefed up security overall–placing additional law enforcement officials within the parks, and using dogs on patrol. Disneyland, located in California, is also upping its security. 

Disney isn’t alone in instituting new security measures. SeaWorld has also begun using metal detectors to screen entering guests, and Universal Studios is testing wand detectors. Officials at Disney and Universal have said that the new security features weren’t sparked by the actions of the San Bernardino shooters, or any other threat of terror. In fact, Universal spokesman Tom Schroder told the Orland Sentinal:

We want our guests to feel safe when they come here. We’ve long used metal detection for special events, such as Halloween Horror Nights. This test is a natural progression for us as we study best practices for security in today’s world.

Disney and Sea World spokespeople echoed similar sentiments.

However, these announcements do come right after a statement from the Department of Homeland Security that instructed Americans to expect more security and police presence at big gathering locations, stating it was: “especially concerned that terrorist-inspired individuals and homegrown violent extremists may be encouraged or inspired to target public events or places.”

It makes sense that Disney World, SeaWorld, and Universal are instituting more robust security features, and it doesn’t look like any of these new features will really affect guests’ experiences. But if anything they’re a sad reminder of the violence–particularly gun violence–that has become increasingly commonplace in the United States.

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 Disney World Announces an Increase in Security Features 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.

Caught up in the whirlwind of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris was an interesting little footnote: American FBI agents headed to France to assist in the investigation. The FBI going to Paris or anywhere else outside the United States may, on its face, seem like the agency is overstepping its jurisdiction. When it comes to matters outside the borders of the country most assume that the Central Intelligence Agency would be the organization involved, not the FBI, whose mandate is more domestically focused. However, as this recent example and others have shown, the FBI does, in fact, operate abroad. Read on to see what the FBI does around the globe, how its role has changed over the years, and how all this activity is perceived internationally.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation Abroad

The beginning of the FBI’s work abroad can be traced back to World War II. In 1940, as the war intensified and the prospect of the United States joining in the fight grew, President Roosevelt assigned the Federal Bureau of Investigation to handle intelligence responsibilities for the Western Hemisphere. In an era before internationally-focused agencies like the CIA existed, the FBI was given the task. This initial step centered on finding and exposing Nazi spies who were attempting to sneak into the United States from South America.

The FBI realized early on that in order to maximize its effectiveness it needed to coordinate with local authorities in other countries. Starting in Bogata, Columbia, the FBI began assigning special agents to positions that would eventually be known as Legal Attachés or “Legats.” When WWII ended, the CIA took over much of the foreign intelligence work and the FBI shifted its international focus to training and developing working relationships abroad. Since then the program has continued to expand. According to the FBI’s Legal Attaché website:

Today, we have Legal Attaché offices—commonly known as Legats—and smaller sub-offices in 75 key cities around the globe, providing coverage for more than 200 countries, territories, and islands. Each office is established through mutual agreement with the host country and is situated in the U.S. embassy or consulate in that nation.

In addition to Legat offices in foreign countries, the FBI coordinates with similar organizations overseas like Europol. The following video looks at what the FBI does abroad with a focus, in this case, on investigation:

What the FBI Does

So what does the FBI do with all these agents and other personnel stationed abroad? A major focus of the FBI’s effort abroad is training. Among other things, the FBI’s training focuses on providing information on kidnapping, fingerprinting, and corruption. As part of this exchange, the FBI also welcomes a growing number of foreign nationals to its training facility in Quantico, Virginia.

In addition to training, the FBI assists with investigations in other countries. In the most recent example, the terrorist attacks in Paris, the FBI sent agents with particular expertise. According to the New York Times, the agents sent by the FBI have skills that focus on recovering data from electronic devices. The agents will help assist French police recover intelligence about the attackers and provide any information about U.S. security interests back to the United States. The FBI conducted a similar operation in Uganda in 2010. In that investigation, a large contingent of FBI agents were sent to the African nation to investigate the terrorist attacks and aid in identifying potential suspects.

In order to understand the FBI’s role abroad, it is important to look at how the bureau changed in the wake of the September 11 attacks in 2001. After the attacks, the FBI moved away from its traditional role of investigating domestic crime to a new focus on counterterrorism and intelligence gathering. This transition has been widely documented and is openly accepted by the bureau itself. According to an FBI report on its counterterrorism program after 9/11,

Since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have implemented a comprehensive plan that fundamentally transforms the organization to enhance our ability to predict and prevent terrorism. We overhauled our counterterrorism operations, expanded our intelligence capabilities, modernized our business practices and technology, and improved coordination with our partners.

A major driver behind the FBI’s international cooperation is enabling other countries to handle terrorism within their own borders so the FBI does not have to bring a suspect back to the United States to faces charges.

Abuse Abroad?

While the FBI’s methods are targeted to prevent terrorism and assist organizations abroad, the bureau has faced a lot of scrutiny for its actions in other countries. There are several examples of people, often American nationals abroad, alleging that improper techniques were used to extract information or force compliance.

One example is of an American national, Gulet Mohamed, who was detained in Kuwait on suspicion of being connected with known terrorist Anwar Al-Awalaki. Gulet, who had traveled in Yemen and Somalia, was detained and aggressively interrogated. He was then placed on the no-fly list. Amir Meshal, another American national, fleeing Somalia and headed to Kenya, shared a similar fate. Meshal was detained in Kenya and claims that he was tortured in order to force a confession. Another instance is the case of Raymond Azar. Azar, a Lebanese citizen, was captured, stripped, and taken from Lebanon then flown to the United States to be charged with bribery.

Yonas Fikre is yet another example. Fikre was arrested in the UAE at the behest of the FBI. He claims that he was detained after he refused to be an FBI informant. According to Fikre, he was then subsequently tortured and added to the FBI’s no-fly list. Fikre is one of nine members of his mosque who he claims have been added to the FBI’s no-fly list for refusing to become informants. In Uganda, four men from Kenya and Tanzania claim that they were illegally detained and abused by FBI agents. They claim that they were tortured in relation to a bombing in Kampala that killed 76 people, a crime which they were suspected of committing. A spokesperson for the FBI said that all agents act within FBI guidelines and the laws of the country where they operate.

These methods have not gone unchallenged. Both Fikre and Gulet challenged their place on the no-fly list and the methods employed by the FBI during their detentions. Meshal also took issue with his capture and actually attempted to file a lawsuit against the FBI. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied him the opportunity because his case dealt with national security. The suspects allegedly tortured in Uganda took issues with the conduct of the FBI as well. Their allegations of abuse led to an internal investigation by the FBI. Ultimately, though, following the investigation, no charges were filed. In all cases, the FBI has maintained that its agents acted appropriately.

The video below details the specifics of the case:

Conclusion

Unbeknownst to many citizens, the FBI has had a large and increasing presence abroad since the early days of World War II. This presence generally takes the form of agents, known as legal attachés, who are stationed at American embassies all over the world. The agents are primarily concerned with acquiring information and disseminating it to local law enforcement and counterterrorism agencies in the United States. This system helps empower countries to effectively combat terrorism and domestic threats as well as further U.S. security interests abroad.

Aside from information gathering and training, FBI Legal Attachés are often called on for assistance in investigating crimes and terror threats. There are numerous examples of this, from the recent attack in Paris to earlier attacks in Africa; the FBI also has its own list of selected accomplishments. In these cases, the FBI offered expertise in analyzing a crime scene or technical skills that the local government did not have.

Nevertheless, the FBI’s efforts abroad are not universally acclaimed. In the course of its investigations, the agency has repeatedly faced criticism for abuse and punishments for not cooperating, such as adding suspects names to the no-fly list without probable cause. Despite criticism, the FBI often maintains that its agents acted properly and internal investigations rarely find wrongdoing.

The FBI’s shift from focusing on domestic investigations to gathering counterterrorism intelligence has led many to criticize the agency. But the FBI maintains that it must change in order to be “a global organization for a global age.” The FBI has continued to grow its international presence in the form of Legal Attachés and several counterterrorism task forces after the 9/11 attacks. While some may criticize this trend, most evidence suggests that it will continue.

Resources

New York Times: F.B.I. Sending Agents to Assist in Paris Investigation

San Diego Union-Tribune: Al-Shabab Leader Threatens More Ugandan Attacks

New York Times: In 2008 Mumbai Attacks, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted Puzzle

New York Times: Detained American Says F.B.I. pressed him

CBS News: American Can’t Sue FBI Over Abuse Claims, Federal Appeals Court Says

Los Angeles Times: Lebanese Man is Target of the First Rendition Under Obama

Open Society Foundation: FBI Responds to Kampala Abuse Allegations Cited in Open Society Justice Initiative

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 What Does the FBI Do Abroad? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. was taken into custody after attacking a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three people–two civilians and one police officer–were killed and nine others were wounded. News outlets are reporting that Dear told the police who arrested him “no more baby parts,” presumably in reference to the heavily edited videos about Planned Parenthood released this summer by the Center for Medical Progress, but there are still a lot of questions about his exact motives. But despite the fact that there’s still plenty of questions, that shouldn’t stop us from labeling Dear’s actions for what they were: domestic terrorism.

That’s not to say that plenty of writers, journalists, commentators, and politicians haven’t called it domestic terrorism. Many have turned to the FBI’s definition of domestic terrorism to make their case, which is compelling. It reads:

‘Domestic terrorism’ means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;

Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and

Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

But many others have stopped short of that designation, referring to Dear’s crimes as murder, or as Attorney General Loretta Lynch called it a, “crime against women receiving healthcare services at Planned Parenthood.” While “murder” and “crime” are correct, they whitewash the fact that Dear does appear to have had a political motive.

Because even if Dear does have serious mental health problems, he clearly went in with the intent of coercing either the government or Planned Parenthood in some way. I’m having a hard time buying the argument that he was just a crazy guy who randomly chose Planned Parenthood; that he wasn’t convinced by some political, social, or moral reason that his attack was justified. Perpetrators of attacks on this level, such as mass shooters, are rarely totally mentally stable, but that doesn’t keep them from being held accountable for their actions. Dear’s defense team could, of course, argue the insanity defense, but that is a very difficult burden to meet. In short, just because Dear may not have been all there doesn’t preclude him from being charged with domestic terrorism.

The DOJ is still looking into Dear’s actions and it looks likely that the agency will designate it as domestic terrorism. But the state of Colorado will be trying Dear first, and there’s no indication right now that it’s going to charge him with domestic terrorism. That’s a shame, and it’s wrong.

Now, some have called Dear a domestic terrorist, including presidential hopeful Governor Mike Huckabee. He stated:

What he did is domestic terrorism, and what he did is absolutely abominable, especially to us in the pro-life movement, because there’s nothing about any of us that would condone or in any way look the other way on something like this.

That’s a good first step, and recognizes that disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and condemning Dear’s actions for what they were aren’t mutually exclusive. Hopefully more presidential hopefuls will join Huckabee in correctly pinning Dear’s crime as domestic terrorism.

So, why is it so important that Dear’s crime be labeled as domestic terrorism? There’s a lot of reasons, including the double standard that happens in our society when we attribute terrorism almost exclusively to those of Middle Eastern descent, yet often focus on the “mental illnesses” of white perpetrators of terror. Additionally, as Huckabee implies, it’s possible to view Dear’s attack as domestic terrorism, while still disagreeing with Planned Parenthood and abortion. But if nothing else, this needs to be labeled as domestic terrorism, because Dear deserves to be indicted and tried for the crimes he committed, and absolutely nothing less.

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 Let’s Call the Planned Parenthood Attack What it Was: Domestic Terrorism 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.

This weekend, vigils were held all over the country in honor of the victims of last week’s ISIS attacks. There were hundreds of remembrance events held across the world: flags flew at half-mast, monuments were lit up with the image of the French flag, flowers were laid outside of French embassies, and candles burned through the night. These moments let us stand in solidarity with the populations of Paris, Beirut, and Baghdad but they also represent a global commitment to peace. Yet this commitment is already dissolving as the 24-hour news cycle spins onward and our attention is diverted by new issues. Read on to explore the fleeting nature of solidarity in the wake of tragedy, and what can be done to carry that solidarity forwards after the fact.

 What Solidarity Looks Like

In the aftermath of many tragic events, informal memorials spring up across the globe.  We are all familiar with the images of teddy bears, flowers, and posters stacked at the scenes of mass shootings and natural disasters. A vigil, or any form of remembrance event, takes these memorials a step farther by requiring the prolonged presence of activists and onlookers. Vigils–which commonly involve lighting candles and holding moments of silence–mark a unified act that includes an entire community. There is no membership requirement for participating in a remembrance event, all are welcome to grieve collectively–whether or not they lost a friend or family member during the event.

Remembrance events let us engage in collective empathy outside of our personal social circles. The word empathy evolved from the German einfühlung which describes observers projecting themselves “into” that which they observe–essentially, the experience of putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes. Empathy is considered a deliberate cognitive process, in which we take an active role, striving to share the emotions of another person in order to better understand them. This week, people around the world have sung the French anthem, painted the French flag on their faces and carried signs bearing the peace symbol through the streets of their respective cities. They sought to adopt the mentality of the victims of last week’s attacks, turning the mourning process into a global moment of empathy. But how do we transform this moment into a more lasting commitment?

From Empathy to Commitment

James Hawdon and John Ryan have studied the processes behind generating and sustaining solidarity in the wake of mass tragedy, using web-based surveys to study public sentiment in the wake of the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech. They argue that:

Event-specific parochial and event-specific public activities generate solidarity after heinous crimes. However, general parochial activities, such as attending local organizational meetings and frequenting local businesses, sustain solidarity…displays of communal bereavement are collective acts that increase the ritual intensity of social interaction and therefore promote solidarity. They are collective displays of the community’s resiliency, and the emotional intensity of these solidarity-producing rituals likely helps the collective. Yet, general parochial relations, such as participating in neighborhood clubs, religious organizations, civic organizations and even eating at local restaurants, also appear to promote social solidarity. Participating in these parochial activities shortly after a tragedy also has lasting benefits for the community.

Hawdon and Ryan raise an obstacle to international sustained solidarity. The Virginia case focused on a relatively small community, in which it was easier to sustain solidarity. Anyone from the Virginia area can probably attest to the powerful bond that survivors of the attack feel for one and other, even eight years after the shooting. When we look at a global case–for example, ISIS attacks–it is much more difficult to sustain interest in the crisis and solidarity with the victims. It is admirable to hold a march or a vigil that represents support for the bereaved, but we don’t organize them on a daily basis. There are simply too many of us and it would take up too large a time commitment. How do we sustain solidarity, if it was not our community that was attacked, but multiple cities around the world?

Can Solidarity Be Sustained?: Selma as a Case Study

In the modern era, we are accustomed to remembrance events being beautiful but fleeting. A town square may be filled with candles and banners the night after a tragic event, but within a matter of days, it returns to its original state–a functional space devoid of political activism. But there have been some exceptions in which solidarity has been transformed into mass protest and action.

On February 18, 1965, a young activist named Jimmie Lee Jackson, was shot to death by a state trooper during a peaceful protest march organized in Selma, Alabama by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at Jackson’s funeral, mourning the man lost but also calling for an end to the systemic racial violence that had led to his death. Jackson’s death sparked the organization of another march on March 7, 1965–which has gone down in American history as “Bloody Sunday.” Images of civil rights protesters in Selma being beaten with excessive force by police officers were broadcast worldwide. Instead of momentarily grieving for the violence in Selma and then moving on, activists across the nation got off of their living room couches and came to Selma. The initial group of 600 marchers on March 7 swelled to 2,000 by March 21. When the marchers reached Montgomery, they found a crowd of 50,000 supporters waiting for them. Those supporters continued to march and advocate for civil rights throughout 1965, achieving success with the passage of the Voting Rights Act in August.

The Selma to Montgomery march could have been a blip in the Civil Rights movement–a story that made the cover of the newspaper for a single day and then disappeared into a historical void. Yet, the images of violence in Selma inspired action–they recruited Americans to become members of a movement, rather than passive observers. The Selma march is a unique case, in that it elicited immediate action and it secured legislation in alignment with its goals within a year. Yet the lesson from Selma can seemingly be applied to any violent scenario that plays across our television screen: our solidarity can have teeth. It is important to remember the victims but those who remember can also strive to change the conditions that led to their deaths.

In the case of last week’s ISIS attacks, those who wish to help are presented with a complex challenge. They cannot march to end their bombings, they cannot hold a rally or a vigil that will turn back the tide of violence that they embrace. Instead, supporters have to think on how we can actively improve the lives of those living in cities destroyed by the attacks. These populations will need us over the coming weeks: Parisians will need blood donations in the coming weeks, aid organizations in Beirut and Baghdad need staff and support, and police forces will be relying on civilians to report suspicious activity in their neighborhoods. The greatest demonstration of solidarity will be committing to the victims in the coming months and years, not just for the week after the violence.

Conclusion

Solidarity can sometimes just be a fleeting after-effect of a tragic event. The moment of silence, the vigil, the lit candle–all of these symbols are an important starting point. However, in order for solidarity to be transformed into action–eliminating the forces that attacked, and promoting peace and acceptance in the coming months and years–it will take effort, patience, and hard work.

Resources

James Howdon and John Ryan: Social Relations That Generate and Sustain Solidarity After a Mass Tragedy

Mark. H. Davis: Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach 

History: Selma to Montgomery March

Civil Rights Museum: Who Mourns for Jimmie Lee Jackson?

The New York Times: After Paris Attacks, Vilifying Refugees

Mashable: Here’s How You Can Help Victims of the Paris Terror Attacks

New York Times: At Virginia Tech: Remembering While Moving On 

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Sustaining Global Solidarity: Can Vigils Incite Activism? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday night, as the throngs of terrified Parisians sprinting through the streets scrambled to find safe haven in the midst of the attacks, #PorteOuverte  (“Open Door”) erupted across Parisian Twitter and Facebook accounts. Parisians tweeted out their neighborhood, their phone numbers, which languages they speak, and the number of free beds they could spare for the night. Some even tweeted out their exact addresses, aiming to get victims off of the streets as quickly as possible (although there was a rapid shift toward using direct messages  for address information to ensure that terrorists could not track the whereabouts of those fleeing them). Messages were sent out in multiple languages, and within hours, the hashtag was being promoted internationally. Twitter users across the world promoted #PorteOuverte, encouraging friends and family in Paris to use the feed to find safety. The hashtag was also used to circulate the phone numbers of foreign embassies, so that tourists could connect to their representatives and locate friends and family in the midst of the chaos.

As the hashtag spread, Twitter users Janyk Steenbeek and Pascal Schwientek used it to create a city-wide interactive map of the homes marked as #PorteOuverte. The hashtag was quickly followed by the creation of a Twitter handle, @PortOuverteFRA, which tweeted important phone numbers and news updates during the attacks. In collaboration with the individual homeowners who opened their doors, Sikh temples functioned as temporary shelters and the infamous bookstore Shakespeare and Company sheltered approximately 20 customers during the attack. On the other side of the globe, #PorteOuverte was used by Americans in the vicinity of international airports, who offered to take in travelers bound for Paris whose flights were grounded on Friday. French citizens were encouraged to use the #strandedinUS, which connected them to Americans who volunteered to house them while the French borders remained closed. It has been said that the desperate look for any port in a storm, but it certainly helps if that port is equipped with beds, food, and comfort in the face of brutality.

On Saturday morning, Parisians returned to social media, this time using the French #dondusang and the English #donateblood to ask for blood donations for the victims of the attacks. Hundreds of Parisians left their homes (despite government advice to stay indoors) and queued in front of hospitals and donation centers for hours to donate. In fact, many donors were asked to go home and return to donate in the coming weeks–blood has a relatively short shelf life, so continual blood donations must be made over the coming weeks and months in order to meet the blood banks’ needs. The lines of Parisians waiting to give blood in a virtually empty city lent a note of optimism to the surreal photos of the city on Saturday.

#PorteOuverte is being hailed as a shining example of humanity and kindness in the midst of unthinkable violence but I would take it a step further: #PorteOuverte is one of the most impressive, albeit short-lived, protest movements of the past several years. It united people across socioeconomic and national divides, across neighborhoods and languages. It grew organically and rapidly, without formal organization or development, but it restored a basic right to the Parisian population within a matter of hours: the right to safety, to peace of mind, to breathing without fear within their own city. The murder of civilians is designed to make a populace feel weak and insecure, to throw them into a panic wherein their terror engulfs their rationality and compassion. When terror reigns, we are expected to lose our will to think and resist. We are expected to capitulate to the architects of violence. Yet, on Friday night, Parisians stood together. Those who opened their homes to strangers denied the terrorists of the satisfaction of seeing Parisians terrified and friendless in the streets. Fear feeds on intolerance and paranoia, but it cannot survive when we are sensible and selfless in moments of crisis. #PorteOuverte is a protest against the violence that tore through Paris, but it is also a protest against fear itself.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post #PorteOuverte: Fighting Fear in the Heart of Paris appeared first on Law Street.

Wayne Simmons, a Fox News guest, was just indicted after it was discovered that he was lying about his qualifications. Despite repeatedly appearing as a guest on Fox News programs and proclaiming to be a former CIA agent, it turns out he never worked for the CIA.

Right-wing media’s Benghazi “expert” arrested for falsely claiming he worked for the CIA: http://t.co/UmFjR3T62zpic.twitter.com/VTeVaG6MDu

— Media Matters (@mmfa) October 15, 2015

While Fox News spokesperson Irena Briganti has emphasized that Simmons was never paid, he has appeared as a guest commentator on various Fox News programs, including “Fox & Friends,” and has been interviewed by Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto. It’s unclear how many times he appeared on the network; his website lists dozens of appearances on various programs. While he technically portrayed himself to Fox as an “outside paramilitary special operations officer” with 23 years of experience, the title he was often given on various shows was “former CIA operative,” most likely for the sake of brevity.

A grand jury just indicted Simmons on a number of different charges, including major fraud against the United States, wire fraud, making false statements to the government, and the fact that he used those fake claims in order to gain security clearances and confidential information. Bizarrely, the indictment also included charges that he was involved in a real estate scheme that scammed an unnamed individual out of $125,000. According to the indictment, he used his fake CIA credentials to bolster his credibility to conduct that endeavor. Federal prosecutors claim that this indictment didn’t come out of the blue, as he allegedly has a:

Significant criminal history, including convictions for a crime of violence and firearms offenses, and is believed to have had an ongoing association with firearms notwithstanding those felony convictions.

It was also noted that he “has a history of acting in an aggressive manner, and is likely aware of the imminent nature of the charges in this case.”

During his varied appearances, Simmons said some pretty incendiary thing–here’s an example of an appearance he made on “Fox and Friends,” in which he was listed as a “former CIA operative”:

In that particular appearance he called Obama “the boy king.” This January he claimed that there were “at least 19 paramilitary Muslim training facilities in the United States.” He also at one point claimed that waterboarding was not torture.

Despite the fact that Fox News apparently never paid the commenter, and he wasn’t officially sanctioned by the network in any way, this still doesn’t look very good. By having him on the show, the network tacitly said that he did have something worth hearing. Just because he wasn’t paid doesn’t mean that his microphone was any less real.

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 Fox News Guest Indicted on Fraud Charges appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

A Complicated History

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

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

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

What does the Resolution do?

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

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

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

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

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

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

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

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

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

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

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

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

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

Mike Stankiewicz

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

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

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

The Origins of the Taliban

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

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

Help From Abroad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

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

Partners in power?

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

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

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

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

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

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

The Transportation Security Administration agents recently failed 67 out of 70 total tests, missing 95 percent of the of mock explosives and weapons that were smuggled into airports by undercover Homeland Security Red Teams, ABC News Reported.

Since the administration’s last review in 2009, the Department of Homeland Security spent $540 million on checked baggage screening and $11 million to train Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. Despite these expenditures, ABC news notes that the TSA has “failed to make any noticeable improvements in that time.” Professors John Mueller and Mark Stewart further reviewed homeland security expenditures using a cost-benefit analysis. They conclude, based on the costs of security and the financial damages of potential attacks, American spending has not produced the necessary results.

The failed airport security tests come at the worst possible time for the TSA. In the past couple months, we have witnessed multiple breaches in airport security. In April, a teenager snuck into a wheel well on an airplane leaving from the West Coast and flew all the way to Hawaii. In late May, a man was able to bypass airport security at LAX, only to be subdued by a TSA officer with a taser as he reached gate 66.

Last August, a woman was able to board a plane in San Jose without a ticket. The woman made it all the way to her destination before being arrested by police, who later determined that the she suffered from a mental illness.

After news of the recent Red Team tests emerged, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said,

Changes will be made in response to the identification of the vulnerable aspects by these tests.

According to the ABC News report, one undercover agent was actually stopped after setting off the alarm at the magnetometer, but after a pat down, TSA agents failed to find fake explosives taped to the undercover agent’s back.

The question now becomes, what new security measures will be enacted by the TSA, and will these new measures be any more effective?  The TSA recently started testing electronic devices traveling to and from overseas cities at many U.S. airports with direct international flights. The new rule will require passengers to power on their devices when arriving at security checkpoints for overseas flights. If the device will not power on, it will not be allowed past airport security checkpoints.

Many passengers feel this does not adequately address all the security concerns as it is only being implemented in select airports and does not address the problem of passengers smuggling bombs and weapons on their bodies, which TSA agents failed to detect in the mock testing. In 2014, the TSA  confiscated 2,212 firearms at 24 airports after screening nearly 653 million passengers, a 22 percent increase from 2013 where only 1,813 firearms were confiscated.

With external security threats remaining high according to terrorism experts, it is imperative to keep internal security at its best. Homeland Security has used Red Teams for the last 13 years to detect security flaws; however, the changes never seem to address the problems accurately. NBC News notes that since 2002, TSA agents failed similar Red Team tests on several occasions, indicating that there are many existing security flaws yet to be addressed.

NBC recently learned that 270 TSA security badges went missing at the San Diego International Airport over the last two years. These missing badges would allow non-Homeland Security personnel to gain access to restricted locations within the airport. As of March 2015, the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta saw more than 1,400 badges go missing over a similar time period.

How are we supposed to trust TSA agents with our lives when they can not be trusted with their own badges? Unless the TSA is able to completely restructure the airport security system, it is unlikely that new changes will make a large enough difference to deal with existing security threats.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the TSA Really Keep You Safe? appeared first on Law Street.

A man who was under terror surveillance in Boston was shot and killed by a police officer and an FBI agent earlier this afternoon. This man was a part of a broader terrorism investigation involving suspected Islamist extremists. This man was identified as Usaama Rahim by a spokesperson for the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

The justification for the officials’ actions resulting in this man’s death focuses on their perceptions that Rahim was a threat to public safety, since he allegedly wielded a large, black knife at the time of the incident. According to CNN, Rahim was asked numerous times to drop his weapon but because he refused to do so both the police officer and FBI agent opened fire.

Police Commissioner William Evans claimed that “he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life.”

This statement begs the question, both to Evans and to police departments everywhere, what type of situation justifies any police officers actions’ that result in the death of a man who hasn’t been proven guilty? This man was under terror surveillance, but considering the United States’ disputable track record on finding evidence regarding terrorist efforts, these actions could still be unconstitutional.

The Model Penal Code is normally used to guide the actions of police officers in assessing whether or not resorting to deadly force is the appropriate response in dangerous circumstances. According to the code, officers should only use force when the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in the arrest may harm other people. Deadly force is considered acceptable when it is believed to be the only solution to resolving a dangerous situation that could harm innocent bystanders.

In this particular shooting, killing Rahim could be justified by the police because he was wielding a large, black knife, forcing the officers to open fire. But is waving a knife, with no hostages and no bystanders in the immediate vicinity, a valid enough rationale to take someone’s life? Commissioner Evans claimed that Rahim came “within the proximity” for the officers to use deadly force. But what distance is considered within the proximity to kill? These are all questions that demand answers.

In addition to these questionable circumstances, Rahim was a suspected Islamic extremist under terror surveillance. The FBI agent who participated in the shooting was surely aware of this fact, but the same cannot be said for the Boston police officer. Rahim’s identity as a Muslim cannot be ignored when evaluating the police officer and FBI agent’s justifications for their actions. The lethal combination of Rahim’s Muslim faith and questionable terrorist ties could easily work in the police department’s favor. At the time of his death, Rahim had not been convicted of any terrorist actions, so his death at the hands of Boston and federal officials should not be considered constitutional.

Racial or ethnic profiling may have been a factor in this shooting as well. It is also noteworthy that this case occurred just over two years after the Boston Bombing, which has had a lasting (and justified) impact on perceptions of terrorist attacks throughout the U.S. Although news sources have not yet revealed why Rahim was under surveillance, a mere suspicion that he was involved with terrorist activity does not legitimize his death.

One of the most prevalent issues in holding the police officer and FBI agent accountable in this situation is the complex relationship between the police department and judicial court system. In the 1930 Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, a sheriff faced a lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. His defense was that he had used deadly force “to defend himself.” The court ruled in his favor. This case set precedent for lax rulings in favor of police officers, despite the officer’s controversial actions.

This storyline coincides with other court cases of police officers claiming self defense after having killed a subject of an arrest, such as Tamir Rice and Michael Brown. All of these incidents speak to the larger problem of police officers abusing their position of authority and power at the expense of civilians.

Police departments need to undergo reformation, especially regarding their veracious use of deadly force. Regardless of whether or not Rahim was guilty of the things he was suspected of doing, there were presumably ways to detain him without taking his life. Whether it be using a gun, rough rides, or chokeholds, police departments must develop new tactics that put deadly force at the bottom of the totem pole, thereby protecting citizens instead of victimizing them.

Emily Dalgo also contributed to this story.

Sarina Neote

Sarina Neote is a member of the American University Class of 2017. Contact Sarina at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Boston Police Shooting of Usaama Rahim: Protection or Victimization? appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

Nigeria recently elected a new president, Muhammadu Buhari, in a prolonged fight for victory against current President Goodluck Jonathan. The election was postponed six weeks due to the instability caused by terrorist group Boko Haram.

Read More: Transition of Power in Nigeria Could Mean Global Change

To assist with stabilizing the region and achieving safety for civilians, Nigeria employed hundreds of South African and former Soviet Union mercenaries to fight Boko Haram. Initially, this was only rumored after pictures and allegations surfaced on social media.

President Jonathan was quoted as saying that two companies provided “trainers and technicians” to help Nigerian forces fight Boko Haram, though he was not specific in names, sources, or firms.

Eeben Barlow, the head of one of the private military companies working in Nigeria, confirmed that South African Defence Forces have aided in the training, equipment, and strategy for Nigerian forces against Boko Haram, as well as camping out in Northern Nigeria to forcibly take back territories.

Read More: Boko Haram: How Can Nigeria Stop the Terror?

Barlow’s South African private military firm, Executive Outcomes, has been influential in conflicts in Uganda, Botswana, Zambia, Ethiopia, Namibia, Lesotho, and South Africa.

Unfortunately there may be an issue here: this is illegal. The 1998 South African Act of Military Assistance Abroad bans its citizens from directly participating in wars in other countries for private gain. They must act in an official capacity under the authority of the government in Pretoria.

The Act is explicit: “Regulate the rendering of foreign military assistance by South African juristic persons, citizens, persons permanently resident within the Republic, and foreign citizens rendering such assistance from within the borders of the Republic…”

South Africa is not alone. Georgia, which is a also a source of the mercenaries, has laws criminalizing participation in foreign military activities. South African Defense Minister Mapisa-Nqakula has even said that the country should charge the men under the regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act.

Laws, policies, and guidelines are drafted and implemented in the name of justice; so would it really be bad if some foreign nationals were paid to fight terrorists? The lack of action or fuss from the international community proves that we’re willing to look the other way in the name of combating terrorism. For now, no action has been taken by or against the foreign mercenaries.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post South African Mercenaries Fight Boko Haram in Nigeria appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re like me flying can be kind of scary. Yes, I am well aware of the fact that I am significantly more likely to die in a car accident than in a horrific plane crash. Unfortunately that morbid statistic does nothing to quell my intense phobia of heights combined with a general distaste for spaces that I can’t escape. It makes me nervous, playing with my hands and fidgeting more than unusual. According to The Intercept, I should stop doing all of these things because they are all quirks that TSA agents look for and classify as suspicious behavior via a designated point system detailed in a newly acquired TSA document.

This checklist is part of a controversial TSA program to identify potential terrorists based on behaviors that “indicate stress or deception.” The program is known as the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT. SPOT is operated by trained individuals known as ‘Behavior Detection Officers’ who observe and interact with passengers during screenings.

Nerves aren’t the only thing that can apparently make someone look suspicious to a TSA behavior agent. In the “Spot Referral Report,” a number of behaviors are divided into two categories: one point for “stress” factors and two points for “fear” factors.

Here are a few signs that TSA thinks might make you a terrorist:

• Exaggerated yawning
• Excessive throat clearing
• Widely open staring eyes
• Wearing improper attire for location
• Gazing down
• Exaggerated or repetitive grooming gestures
• Face pale from recent shaving of beard
• Rubbing or wringing of hands
• Arriving late for a flight
• Bulging adams apple

Now some of the behaviors listed make sense–like bulges under clothes–but others like excessive yawning and arriving late for a flight are hardly out of the ordinary or threatening for that matter. There were also some that are just outright weird, i.e. “bulging adams apples.” Why?

Apparently this document was not classified, but rather closely guarded by the TSA. The Intercept only received a copy after a concerned source questioned the quality of the program.

I can understand why. Behavioral science has been critiqued as not being an actual science, and therefore unreliable. According to the article, the Government Accountability Office found that there was no evidence to support the idea that “behavioral indicators” can be used to determine if someone is a threat to aviation. GAO concluded that:

The human ability to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral indicators is the same as or slightly better than chance.

According to The Intercept, the ACLU sued TSA last week to obtain records related to its behavior detection programs, alleging that they lead to racial profiling. They could have a point. Using a checklist that makes almost any passenger susceptible to suspicion has the potential to be used as a catchall to interrogate or search any individual who is supposedly threatening. When racial stereotypes begin to come into play it is only a recipe for disaster. While airport security is a serious concern for Americans, programs like SPOT that depend solely on contrived behavioral factors is hardly reliable. In the mean time I’ll be mindful to keep my nerves to a minimum while going through airport security.

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 TSA Has Secret Checklist to Spot Terrorists. Hint: Don’t Yawn at Security appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What purpose does this serve?

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

Jennifer Polish

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

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

Nearly everyone knows what the Islamic State is doing–treacherous acts and the consolidation of control in territories throughout Iraq and Syria–but few realize exactly what the group’s goals are. ISIS is a unique manifestation of radical Islam that is bent on establishing a religious government that enforces what it believes is to be the purest form of Islam. Supporting that vision is its supporters’ closely held belief that ISIS is bringing about the apocalypse. Yes, deeply rooted in its ideology is the idea that establishing an “Islamic State” will eventually lead to a final battle between good and evil near the small town of Dabiq in northern Syria.

Read More: Is ISIS Actually Islamic?

Graeme Wood, a contributing editor for The Atlantic, recently wrote one of the most comprehensive articles available about ISIS and its ideology. In the article Wood says,

Much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

Much of ISIS’ ideology comes from its interpretation of statements attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith, a foundational text of Islam. The Brookings Institution notes that a prophecy predicts the judgment day will come after a final battle in Dabiq. While interpretations of this prophecy and ISIS’ portrayal of it vary, the group’s general plan is to take over Istanbul (referred to as Constantinople, the former capital of the Roman Empire). After defeating the Romans, they will then defeat the Dajjal (a version of the antichrist) in Dabiq with the help of Jesus who will join Islam.

The first issue of ISIS’ propaganda magazine featured a quote from the group’s founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who said, “The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify–by Allah’s permission–until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.” It goes on to say that according to the Hadith, a collection of sayings and teachings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, that town will be important to the group’s “conquests of Constantinople, then Rome.” Musa Cerantonio, one of the Islamic State’s spiritual authorities who was interviewed in Wood’s article, believes that they will expand to Istanbul then face the army of the antichrist–known as the Dajjal in Islamic scripture.

Dabiq, a small rural town in northern Syria, is crucial to the Islamic State’s ideology and recruiting efforts, though militarily it holds very little importance in terms of their expansion in the Middle East. William McCants at the Brookings Institution explained the importance of Dabiq to the Islamic State in a recent article. According to McCants, conquering Dabiq was extremely important to the organization, so much so that they named their English propaganda magazine after it. ISIS explains the name in its first issue saying, “This place was mentioned in a hadith describing some of the events of the Malahim (what is sometimes referred to as Armageddon in English). One of the greatest battles between the Muslims and the crusaders will take place near Dabiq.”

The Islamic State frequently refers to the town in its publications and videos, and after beheading Peter Kassig a spokesperson for the group said, “Here we are, burying the first American Crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive.” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the group’s leader (pictured above), is considered the eighth true caliph–according to the prophecy there will be 12 legitimate caliphs in total.

ISIS’ end-of-days vision is also essential to understanding the group and its desire to form a caliphate. Its belief that its work is bringing the world closer to the judgment day is also very important to recruitment, as its goal may seem much more real and imminent when compared to other radical groups. Since al-Baghdadi declared a caliphate last summer, ISIS has recruited more than 20,000 people from countries all over the world, including over 4,000 from the western world.

While ISIS’ underlying vision is quite chilling, it reveals important details about the group and has important implications for policymakers. One major takeaway is that in many ways ISIS is predictable and its violence is not completely random. The group has clearly stated goals and has set out to pursue them using terror and fear as its methods. ISIS is not random, and to its supporters it is more than just an organization, it is an idea.

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS has been at the center of media attention since the group began taking over and controlling large portions of land in Iraq last summer, but amid this coverage, several important misconceptions about the organization and its goals have emerged.

The Atlantic recently published an article titled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which discusses the group’s underlying ideology and the misconceptions about it in the western world. Writer Graeme Wood carefully researched the organization by studying nearly every available source of information about it. Central to Wood’s article is the idea that the Islamic State adheres to established Islamic texts and principles and is not simply a group of crazy people twisting religion to support their blood lust.

While the claim that the Islamic State is Islamic may not be surprising–most radical extremist groups tie their goals to religion one way or another–Wood takes ISIS’ connection to Islam a step further. He says,

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

This argument is important to understanding ISIS–religion clearly plays a vital role in its actions and recruiting strategy–but this quote and the implicit argument throughout his article has dangerous implications for the religion of Islam. While Wood does not make the outright claim that Islam is a violent religion, many readers have interpreted it that way. As a result, some variation of this logic arises: ISIS is the purest manifestation of Islam, and peaceful Muslims are somehow less faithful to their religion.

That argument, however, is a dramatic mischaracterization of the Islamic State and is a serious insult to the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.

I am not an expert on Islam, and determining the proper way to interpret the Quran and its foundational texts should be left to Islamic clerics and individual Muslims. Historically, there have been many different interpretations of Islam, and while ISIS’ ideology represents one interpretation that does not mean it is right or even valid. Not only do clerics believe ISIS misinterprets many of Islam’s sacred texts, they also note that the group’s “literal” interpretation is very exclusive. The passages that the Islamic State chooses to justify its actions are very specific, and the group ignores those that may conflict with its actions.

Nearly all of the world’s Muslims reject the Islamic State and its abhorrent actions that are reportedly done in the name of Islam. In addition to aggressively denouncing the cruel actions of ISIS and the misinterpretation of Islamic texts that supposedly justify them, most Muslims object to ISIS’ refusal to acknowledge the peaceful and compassionate teachings that clerics commonly accept.

Wood’s article ignited a debate over ISIS and its beliefs, so much so that its reception prompted him to write a short follow up summarizing the responses he received. Many respondents acknowledged the importance of ideology to ISIS, but argued that other factors–like group identity and the current circumstances in Iraq–are equally important to understanding ISIS. Some went even further, challenging Wood’s assertion of “the Islamic State’s medieval nature.” John Terry, writing for Slate, argued that the Islamic State selectively remembers the medieval times to fit its modern goals.

ISIS’ ideology is a variant of Salafist-Jihadism, which calls for a return to the “pure” practice of Islam that was established during the early days of the religion using outward violence. The first issue of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine includes a section titled “The World Has Divided Into Two Camps.” ISIS believes that it is the true manifestation of Islam and that all others are in a state of disbelief, which makes them enemies. One aspect of ISIS that makes it unique in the context of radical Islam is its use of takfir, or the practice of excommunicating another Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of its violence is directed toward Muslims and has led its recent rift with al Qaeda.

The nature of the organization and the stated commitment to its apocalyptic goal presents unique challenges for the United States and the coalition against it. The Clarion Project summarizes this issue in a recent article,

“The fundamental problem of Islamists seeking to trigger these end-of-times events will remain. The Islamic State could be crushed, but others with similar beliefs will arise. This entire mindset of fulfilling prophecy through war needs to be challenged by peace-seeking Muslims.”

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Is ISIS Actually Islamic? appeared first on Law Street.

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

What is the Department of Homeland Security?

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

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

The DHS states its mission as follows:

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

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

Why did 9/11 spark the creation of DHS?

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

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

What is the Homeland Security Act?

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

(A) Prevent terrorist attacks within the United States;

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

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

Who runs DHS?

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

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

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

What does the Department of Homeland Security do?

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

First Responders Group

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

Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency

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

Cyber Security Division

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

Research and Development Partnerships Group

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

SAFECOM

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

The Blue Campaign

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

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

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

Crisis Averted?

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

Resources

Primary

Department of Homeland Security: Blue Campaign

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

Department of Homeland Security: DHS Budget

Department of Homeland Security: First Responders

Department of Homeland Security: Homeland Security Act of 2002

Department of Homeland Security: RDP

Department of Homeland Security: SAFECOM

Department of Homeland Security: Secretary Jeh Johnson

Additional

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

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

MSNBC: A DHS Shutdown by Any Other Name

CNBC: Congress Pursues Funding to Avert DHS Shutdown

Politico: GOP Leaders Set to Swerve DHS Off the Cliff

Chris Schultz

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

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

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

History of the Philippines

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

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

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

Relationship With the United States

Philippines: An American Colony

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

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

Philippines: After Independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

What issues are the Philippines facing now?

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

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

Terrorism

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

Abu Sayyaf Group

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

Jemaah Islamiyah

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

New People’s Army 

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

Other Actors

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

Militant Groups

Moro National Liberation Front 

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

Moro Islamic National Front 

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

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

Current Outlook

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

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

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

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

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

Resources

Primary

Council of Foreign Relations: Terrorism Havens: Philippines

Additional

Anti-Defamation League: The Philippines and Terrorism

Nations Online: History of the Philippines

Foreign Policy: Old Frenemies

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

Global Security: Moro Islamic Liberation Front

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

Reuters: Typhoon Haiyan

IRIN: Philippines Steep Rise in Gender Based Violence

International Business Times: China-Philippines Territorial Dispute

Michael Sliwinski

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

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

A new video supposedly released by the militant Islamist group al-Shabaab has mall-goers in the United States, Canada, and U.K. on alert.

In the six-minute video, a disguised member of the Somali terror group affiliated with al-Qaeda called for attacks on the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, West Edmonton Mall in Canada, and the Oxford Street shopping area in London. Most sources have taken down the video, but you can see a still from it in the tweet below.

Mall of America increases security after al-Shabaab threat: http://t.co/pWu6sX374y – @PierreTABC pic.twitter.com/y1bwB7J3e1

— ABC News (@ABC) February 23, 2015

This is the same organization that claimed responsibility for the horrific four-day-long attack on Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, that killed at least 67 civilians in 2013. The speaker in the video allegedly celebrates this attack, showing graphic images while accusing Kenyan troops in Somalia of committing abuses against Somali Muslims. He also claims al-Shabaab was responsible for the Friday attack on a hotel in Somalia’s capital.

Using Westgate as a warning for other malls, an image of the Mall of America is shown in the video alongside its GPS coordinates, sparking a swift response from mall officials. They have already begun to beef up security and are asking shoppers to stay vigilant telling CNN:

We take any potential threat seriously and respond appropriately. We have implemented extra security precautions; some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be.

In light of the Westgate attack, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI should be taking this video seriously. However, they initially downplayed the threat, releasing a joint statement Sunday saying that they were not “aware of any specific, credible plot against the Mall of America or any other domestic commercial shopping center.” They went on to say in the statement:

In recent months, the FBI and DHS have worked closely with our state and local public safety counterparts and members of the private sector, to include mall owners and operators, to prevent and mitigate these types of threats.

DHS Chief Jeh Johnson appeared on several Sunday news shows to address questions on the potential terror threat and reassure the American public that it’s “still ok to shop.” With each of his messages on vigilance, he ended with explaining why now, more than ever, DHS needs its $40 billion funding approved before the February 27 deadline. If gridlocked lawmakers fail to agree in the next three days, the department will be left with no funding while hundreds of thousands of employees are forced to report to work without pay. Congress’ unwillingness to agree is the same kind of embarrassing display that led to the 16-day-long federal government shutdown in October 2013.

So far, no mall attacks have been reported since the release of the video, but shoppers are still being urged to be careful and keep an eye out for suspicious behavior. Unfortunately, judging the legitimacy of terror threats sent through videos has become even harder when some, like those from ISIS, prove to be far too real.

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 Mall of America Threatened in Al-Shabaab Terrorist Video appeared first on Law Street.

Airline security is a huge pain for most of us. From having to walk shoe-less across the airport floor, to anxiously checking whether or not that small lotion bottle is under three ounces, it’s an annoying but understandable reality of a post-9/11 world. But for Roger Vanderklok, an architect and runner, it turned into more than just an annoying step to get from point A to point B. He was arrested and detained for 20 hours in the Philadelphia International Airport in 2013 and is now suing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), as well as the Philadelphia Police Department, and Department of Homeland Security, alleging that his civil liberties were violated.

Vanderklok, a Philadelphia resident, was attempting to fly to Miami to participate in a half marathon on January 26, 2013. In his luggage he had a watch and energy bars, and they were in a PVC pipe to make sure they were protected during his travel. Technically, electronics, organic materials, and a PVC pipe could be used to make a pipe bomb, but not necessarily watches or PowerBars.

After the PVC pipe and its contents showed up on the bag scanners, his bag was searched and he was questioned about the contents. According to his suit, he was asked if his bag contained any organic matter. Given that PowerBars aren’t organic matter in the traditional sense, like fruit or vegetables, he said no. The agents however thought he was lying, because they defined organic matter as any kind of food.

What exactly happened next is unclear. Vanderklok claims that he was arrested after he questioned what was happening to him, and asked to file some sort of complaint. He was then taken to a cell where he wasn’t given the opportunity to call anyone or be questioned. He was then released after being charged with “threatening the placement of a bomb” and making “terrorist threats.” His wife, who understandably panicked and called 911 after not hearing from him, had to bail him out. Those charges were later dismissed by a judge after hearing more information.

The TSA supervisor in question, Charles Kieser, disagrees with Vanderklok’s story. He testified at the hearing that Vanderklok threatened him. According to WPXI News:

Kieser testified an agitated Vanderklok raised his hands and repeatedly pointed a finger at his face.

‘The passenger made a bomb threat to me,’ Kieser testified, according to a transcript. “‘He said) I’ll bring a bomb through here any day that I want … and you’ll never find it.’

However, the video surveillance from the scene seems to contradict Kieser’s story, if only because Vanderklok’s body movements never show him raising his hands or pointing a finger.

Based on the way he was treated, and the fact that he believes Kieser lied, Vanderklok filed the lawsuit.

There have been plenty of stories of TSA taking really strange actions in recent years. In 2009, college student Nicholas George was detained, also in the Philly airport, after it was discovered he was carrying Arabic flashcards. They contained words like “terrorist” and “bomb” on them, but George explained he was studying Middle Eastern studies at Pomona College in California. He was detained for five hours.

On a less serious and more commonplace note, I’ve seen many silly stories about babies being put on no-fly lists, or people with licenses from Washington, D.C. being turned away from their flights because D.C. isn’t technically a state. The agents involved are, at face value, following policies. But the ways in which the polices are being enacted transcend common sense.

The dissemination of those policies at the ground level sometimes leads to noticeable problems. If Vanderklok is truthful about what happened to him, the actions taken by those particular agents were unacceptable. The policies that are supposed to guarantee our freedom shouldn’t have to infringe on said freedom to do so.

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 Philly Man Sues TSA After Being Detained for 20 Hours appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the world reacted on Tuesday, horrified, as ISIS released a video of a Jordanian pilot burned alive. The pilot was named Lieutenant Moath al-Kasasbeh, a member of the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and only 27 years old. He went missing in December in a mission against ISIS, and was captured by the terrorist organization.

Do not share the monstrous pics of Moath Al-Kasasbeh’s death, let’s remember the pilot for his smile.. #IAmMoathpic.twitter.com/FqekJBfhdz

— Waleed Abu Nada (@waleedabunada) February 3, 2015

ISIS had threatened his death in a supposed sort-of ransom letter to Jordan: the country could either bring terrorist Sajida al-Rishawi to a given place by January 29, or al-Kasasbeh would be killed. Jordan didn’t give in to the demands, saying that it couldn’t release the terrorist unless it was sure that al-Kasasbeh was alive, although Jordanian officials talked openly about releasing al-Rishawi under the right conditions. There was a lot of back and forth, and for a time it looked like Jordan’s negotiations might be effective. Unfortunately, the terms were never met, and the video of al-Kasasbeh’s death was released Tuesday night.

Just a few days before al-Kasasbeh was killed, ISIS killed Japanese journalist Kenji Goto. Like al-Kasasbeh, news of Goto’s kiling was released online in video form; however, unlike al-Kasasbeh, Goto was beheaded.

In response to al-Kasasbeh’s killing, Jordan killed two prisoners that it held. One was al-Rishawi, the woman whose release ISIS had demanded. She was a would-be suicide bomber who was involved in an attack on a wedding on November 9, 2005. The group she was with killed 58 people, but her vest failed to detonate. The other prisoner was Ziad Karbouli, who used to be an aide to the top al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.

My heart goes out to the families of al-Kasasbeh and Goto–they were sad, horrific casualties of a bloody and terrifying war. But my brain is left with an overwhelming question: what’s next? Jordan’s attempt at negotiations with ISIS didn’t work out, but what does that mean for other nations?

I was relatively young when 9/11 happened–at least young enough that most of my formal education as it relates to international affairs and politics occurred in a post-9/11 world. Since the War on Terrorism began, one of the most fundamental principles has been that we absolutely, under no circumstances, negotiate with terrorists. In the wake of the horrific killings of al-Kasasbeh and Goto, as well as the killing of Americans such as James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the question of what nations should do when their people are taken hostage by ISIS, or organizations like ISIS, is cloudier than it has ever been.

It’s by no means simple. First of all, the idea of negotiating with belligerents–not terrorists, necessarily, but state actors, isn’t similarly reviled. Wars can end in a few ways, one of which is by reaching an agreement or peace treaty. That seems straightforward enough–we may negotiate with recognized foreign governments, but not with terrorist groups. But remember the fact that until about 100 years ago, nations and their borders weren’t as concrete as they are now, and it becomes more complicated–the difference between the leader of a nation and of a group aren’t very black and white. Take, for example, the Taliban. When it ruled Afghanistan, was it a terror group, or a government? Or a little bit of both?

The truth is, we’ve been negotiating with, or at least attempting to negotiate with, terrorist groups for years–remember all the intricacies of the Iran-Contra affair? So, why are we so adamant about the fact that we don’t negotiate with terrorists? The Bowe Bergdahl scandal this summer, and the willingness of both sides to slam President Obama over his trade, showed that much of America still staunchly believes in that principle.

I want to be clear here, I’m not saying we should negotiate with terrorists. But I think that the question of how to deal with ISIS is more nuanced than a political buzz-phrase. The negotiations between Jordan and ISIS show just how complicated it really is, and how while the “war on terror” is not necessarily over, a look at our tactics may be in order.

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 Jordan’s Negotiations With ISIS Fail: What Does it Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

The 72-hour deadline for Japan to pay Islamic terror organization ISIS $200 million in exchange for two Japanese hostages has come and passed. The impending fate of the two men is unknown.

The video below was posted Tuesday on militant websites showing a masked man with a knife threatening to execute kneeling freelance journalist Kenji Goto and security contractor Haruna Yukawa, if Japan refused to pay their hefty ransom in time. This hostage situation comes in response to ISIS allegations that the Japanese government is financially supporting U.S.-led air strikes on ISIS installations in Syria and Iraq, even though they have vehemently denied these claims.

While the world waits to see what will happen to the two captives, some experts are questioning the validity of the video itself. Evidence suggests that the ISIS video may have been filmed indoors using a green screen. The video is said to have been filmed in the same location as videos showing American hostages James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig, and British captives David Haines and Alan Henning.

Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, told the Associated Press that the light source on the men in the latest videos appears to be coming from two different directions as opposed to one bright sun. If the video was made outdoors in natural light, the shadows behind them should be going in one direction. Instead, they converge. Khan goes on to say that “the hostages are visibly bothered by the bright light.”

So how do we explain the noticeable breeze in the video blowing around both hostages’ orange jumpsuits? According to Khan it’s the result of a fan:

Wind in the desert would be noisy and affect the sound quality of the statements being made by the knife-wielding man. It would also kick up dust, and none seems apparent.

Many are wondering why the captors chose to use the green screen in the video. Some believe it is indicative of ISIS captors being less able to move around the Islamic State than initially believed, the green screen tactic being more for intimidation and concealment purposes than production value.

While the condemnation of two captors is almost certain, Japanese citizens are responding to the video with their own visual manipulation. A mocking hashtag translating loosely to “ISIS Crappy Photoshop Grand Prix” has been mentioned more than 75,000 times on Twitter. It features extravagant yet insensitive memes of the hostages and their masked captor. The memes may come in poor taste due to the likely fate of the hostages, but for some humor is their weapon against terror.

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 ISIS Video Validity Questioned After Ransom Deadline Passes appeared first on Law Street.

Update: Europe responds to Fox News’ Fictional Facts

We all know that Fox News interprets the second part of its name very loosely, but it hit a new low this weekend when it allowed guest Steven Emerson to blatantly make stuff up.

This is a clip from “Justice with Judge Jeanine” (A+ alliteration skills, Fox) with Jeanine Pirro, a former New York District Attorney and former Republican nominee for New York Attorney General.

The man in the clip is Steve Emerson and he’s a “terrorism expert.” By that he means he’s an author, writer, and pundit who’s been slammed in the past for his fear-mongering and ability to spread misinformation. He’s well known for repeatedly crying wolf by blaming acts of terror on Islamic extremists, most notably after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He said that that attack had a “Middle East trait” of being “done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible.”

So this piece is apparently on “no-go zones.” Fox News and other conservative publications have begun using the moniker to describe fictional places where apparently Muslims have taken over and created their own societies within other countries. According to Fox News these areas are “off-limits to non-Muslims.” Also “many of these areas are governed by Islamic Sharia law, and the state is unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire, and ambulance services.”

This alleged breakdown of civil society has apparently gone unnoticed by anyone except Fox News contributors. In fact, I was startled to learn from the clip above that Birmingham, UK, also known as the second largest city in the UK, has apparently been turned into one of these “no-go zones.” According to Emerson it’s “totally Muslim.”

This has come as a complete surprise to everyone, including the city of Birmingham. After all, its own website quotes its religious demographics as follows:

46.1% of Birmingham residents said they were Christian, 21.8% Muslim and 19.3% had no religion.

Exactly what Emerson thinks happened to that almost 80 percent of the population that identifies as something other than Muslim is unclear–did they convert? Have they been run out of town? How has no one noticed? In addition, Emerson basically accuses the French government at the very least, and the British and Swedish governments at large of a) not caring about these supposed “no-go zones” and b) not telling anyone about them.

Pretty much everyone has now called Emerson a complete imbecile, because that’s what happens to you when you make shit up on TV and try to pass it off as fact. British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Emerson is “clearly an idiot.”

It’s also important to recognize that Jeanine Pirro sits idly by practicing her shocked-Muslims-are-out-to-get-us face that I am pretty sure they much teach a class on at Fox News. It’s clear that she doesn’t know enough–or care-to try to ask any real follow-up questions on Emerson’s points, many of which could have been debunked by a simple google search.

As soon as the clip made its way to the internet, the hashtag #FoxNewsFacts started trending. It’s a lot of fun to scroll through, but here are some of my favorites:

All students at @unibirmingham have to wear black burqas to receive their degrees. #foxnewsfacts #Birmingham pic.twitter.com/4GdEODHpfq

— Matthew Ward (@HistoryNeedsYou) January 12, 2015

The Queen is now being forced to wear a hijab by ‘Moslems’ due to the sharia law enforcement in the UK #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/PygydYLBGE

— immortal (@omfgitszoya_) January 12, 2015

 

The Flintstones is a documentary that directly refutes evolution. #foxnewsfacts pic.twitter.com/5Hu1pF8rCD — Kathryn Brusco (@KathrynBruscoBk) January 12, 2015

King Joffrey was a noble and just peacemaker. #FoxNewsFacts

— OhNoSheTwitnt (@OhNoSheTwitnt) January 12, 2015

Emerson, has, of course, had to release an apology for his claims about Birmingham. Here’s his apology in full:

You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.

So there you have it, Emerson admitted that he was “totally in error.” But something about this apology doesn’t actually sit that well with me. First of all, his apology only appears to address the facts he made up about Birmingham, not the fact that he makes claims that these “no-go zones” exist all over Europe. That’s misinformation too, even though it’s less visibly egregious, it’s just as dangerous in its own way. The way that Emerson’s apology comes across is that he just got it wrong about Birmingham, not overall.

This kind of fear-mongering is disgusting. Emerson came on that show for one reason only: to sensationalize an inaccurate theory and scare people into listening to him. It’s what Fox News, and in the spirit of fairness, any openly partisan “news” source does on a regular basis. After all, remember the Ebola coverage from earlier this year?

Honestly, Emerson will probably be back on Fox spewing his made-up facts before we know it. Or they’ll find someone else to do the exact same thing, because this is what the network does on a regular basis without seeing consequences. In the exact same show, Pirro claimed that President Obama is going to limit our First Amendment Rights. From Pirro’s earlier “Opening Statement“:

I’m surprised the president hasn’t signed a new executive order that simply says, ‘Don’t offend Muslims.’ And make no mistake. As sure as I’m talking to you, there will be efforts to limit our First Amendment, our free speech, to comply with Sharia blasphemy laws, which call for death to those who slander the prophet Mohammed.

I’m an incredibly strong supporter of the First Amendment. Jeanine Pirro and Steven Emerson should be able to say whatever noxious shit they want. But the fact that they get to do so on TV is terrifying.

Europe responds to Fox News’ fictional facts: After Fox News started to receive a lot of flack for its fictional story about “no-go zones” in parts of Europe, Europe is responding. Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, is planning to sue Fox News over the story. She told Christine Amanpour: “When we’re insulted, and when we’ve had an image, then I think we’ll have to sue, I think we’ll have to go to court, in order to have these words removed.” Hopefully this will provide a wake up call for Fox News–as much as it makes its money off of sensationalizing fear for the American people, not everyone will play as nice when it comes to made up facts.

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 No Surprise: Fox News Just Makes Up Facts Now appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.

Less than a week after the attack at magazine Charlie Hebdo, France is still dealing with the aftermath, but Paris has showed that its people are nothing if not resilient. As an act of memorial for the slain Charlie Hebdo staff, as well as the hostages killed at a Kosher market in Paris on Friday, there was a gigantic march in the city yesterday. The rally also served as a show of unity against terrorism. It was a huge, notable world event with a ton of support from around the world. But where was the United States?

Chanting & applause in Paris as huge crowds begin unity march against terror attacks http://t.co/VeXcJu1QK6pic.twitter.com/gC9Ca8HGR0

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) January 11, 2015

It’s estimated that about 1.6 million people took part. To us Americans, that doesn’t sound like that much, but you have to remember that France is roughly one-fifth of the size of the United States. So, comparably, that would mean around 8 million people marching here. That’s massive, and incredibly moving.

It wasn’t just Paris either. Marches took place around the world. In the French city of Lyon, roughly one-fourth of the population marched.

Of course, not everyone involved in the march was French either. Other word leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, EU President Donald Tusk, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, came as well.

Photo shows a very different perspective on world leaders at the #ParisMarchhttp://t.co/pxZoV21ZKCpic.twitter.com/VyJk1iOrxN

— The Independent (@Independent) January 12, 2015

But there was one thing notably missing from the rally: the presence of a high profile official from the United States.

There was no President Barack Obama. No Vice President Joe Biden. No Secretary of State John Kerry. The U.S. was represented by Jane Hartley, the American Ambassador to France, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. No offense to Ambassador Hartley or Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, but they’re both a noticeable pay grade below the 40-plus heads of state who attended. Merkel and Cameron are two of the most prominent figures in the Western world. For god’s sake, the respective leaders of Israel and Palestine both showed up in a mini-act of solidarity in their own right, despite reports that they were asked not to. But the United States sent mostly unrecognizable figures, one of whom who was probably there anyway.

If you’re looking for a truly insipid study into the way that conspiracy theorists’ minds work, a look at the hashtag #ReasonsObamaMissedFranceRally might be in order. Theories range from Obama secretly being racist to Obama being Muslim (seriously, we’re still on that?). These are stupid theories.

But the hashtag does get one teeny, tiny thing right. The absence was not only noticeable, it was incredibly embarrassing. The White House is scrambling to come up with reasons why Obama didn’t attend, including citing his participation in a few interviews yesterday, and mentioning concerns that the security at the event would be difficult to manage. Obama has put out statements showing his support for France, but his absence from the event still looks pretty bad. Now there’s news that Secretary of State Kerry will be visiting France this week, possibly in an attempt to placate critics.

Honestly, I highly doubt there was some weird alternative motive here, but mostly just an incredibly bad PR move. Maybe the White House thought that Americans are self-absorbed enough to not really care what was happening in Paris. Or maybe Obama didn’t want to take such an overtly political stance. Or maybe Obama didn’t attend out of fear of drawing attention from ISIS, which still holds some Western hostages like John Cantlie, after all.

I honestly don’t know what it was that motivated not only President Obama to skip the rally, but also not to send a high profile emissary in his place. Sure, he’s made some heartening statements in support of France in the last few days, but he should know by now that actions speak louder than words. His actions yesterday signaled a massive underestimation of the power of solidarity, and a complete lack of foresight.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.: The White House clarified Obama’s absence from the rally on Sunday during a press conference this afternoon. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted, “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” He also cited security concerns as the reason that Obama himself didn’t attend.

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 Obama’s Absence From France Unity Rally Was a Massive PR Failure appeared first on Law Street.

Just over 24 hours after the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the search for the attackers wages on. The two main suspects are brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi, both in their early thirties. They are French citizens who visited Syria this summer, although whether they had any connections to terrorist groups while there is unclear.

UPDATE: Two Charlie Hebdo Suspects Last Seen In Northern French Town #ParisShootings – http://t.co/sE6VO1lIQV pic.twitter.com/tXl0ulo6ZA

— MV Ortega (@MVOrtega1) January 8, 2015

Cherif Kouachi has had legal problems before; he was convicted of helping funnel fighters to Iraq.  There was originally thought to be a third man, an 18 year old, working with them, but he has since turned himself in, and reports say that he’s the brother-in-law of one of the main suspects. French media is now questioning his involvement.

After fleeing Paris, the Kouachi brothers are believed to have held up a gas station, stealing food and fuel. They may have also shot a police officer in a Parisian suburb, but that’s unconfirmed at this point. 

The manhunt has now turned to the areas north of Paris. A town called Crépy-en-Valois, to the northeast of Paris, has become the focus, as reports speculate that the Kouachi brothers are holed up in some sort of home or other building. While it appears that police are narrowing in, the search is by no means over. 

Meanwhile, acts of support and defiance have been seen all over the city, the country, and the world at large. Other journalists, cartoonists, and members of the media reacted in solidarity yesterday, for example: 

Cartoonists draw in solidarity with #CharlieHebdo: http://t.co/uWJgT9BUQG pic.twitter.com/EXixSDAHnx — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 8, 2015

RT @Beltrew: A few of the best cartoons drawn & shared in solidarity with #CharlieHebdo after yesterday’s massacre pic.twitter.com/4Dq68GL9mT — Anton La Guardia (@AntonLaGuardia) January 8, 2015

12 powerful political cartoons responding to the Charlie Hebdo attack http://t.co/neUlubZmW9pic.twitter.com/Pb8fErXv5t

— Vox (@voxdotcom) January 8, 2015

Amazingly, Charlie Hebdo has announced that it is going to go to print next week as planned, according to one of its columnists, Dr. Patrick Pelloux. Despite the fact that eight of the staff members were killed, including editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier, those who survived plan to honor their memory by showing that those who attacked did not win.

And not only will the publication print, it will print even more than usual. The normal Charlie Hebdo circulation is around 60,000–it plans on printing one million copies for this issue. It will, however, be half the length of a regular issue.

Google and French newspaper publishers are donating money to help print the issue. The distributors are not planning on charging Charlie Hebdo for their services. Pelloux said the following about the decision to move forward:

It’s very hard. We are all suffering, with grief, with fear, but we will do it anyway because stupidity will not win.

These acts of bravery, of solidarity, and of support prove that.

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 Day Two: Manhunt for Shooters in Charlie Hebdo Tragedy appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

She also stated that her branch:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Derrick Clifton (@DerrickClifton) January 7, 2015

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

— Eric Wolfson (@EricWolfson) January 7, 2015

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

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

Anneliese Mahoney

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

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

A judge, a few attorneys, and more than a thousand potential jurors are facing a tricky situation in a Boston court. How do you select jury members to try a crime that caught the whole nation off guard and drew international attention for days on end? Starting Monday, lawyers began to screen 1,200 Bostonians to serve on the jury of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial.

Tsarnaev is the 21-year-old suspect in the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three people and injured more than 260. Despite the fact that the death penalty was declared unconstitutional in Massachusetts in 1982, Tsarnaev faces capital punishment if he is convicted, given that the charges against him are federal.

That is what makes the selection process so tricky. Tsarnaev is almost definitely going to be convicted, considering the amount of incriminating evidence authorities have—including footage of him dropping what looks like a bag filled with explosives near the race’s finish line, an inscription he supposedly wrote inside the boat where he was captured, and bomb-making instructions that he allegedly downloaded. His defense is expected to focus on trying to save him from the death penalty by picking the right jury members. For the prosecution, it’s the opposite.

The Associated Press explains that the prosecution will want to look for jurors who see things in black and white (or guilty or not guilty) and are likely to favor the death penalty. Meanwhile, the defense will want to look for people who, despite knowing that Tsarnaev is responsible, want to understand what forces pushed him to kill.

CNN reported that Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys have suggested that his older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed in a police chase that ended in a firefight a few days after the marathon, was the mastermind behind the bombing. Dzhokhar, they’ll argue, was influenced and coerced by Tamerlan.

The defense is even trying to bring in the Tsarnaev family history as evidence, citing the psychological impact that Tsarnaev’s father, a refugee from Chechnya, had on him and his brother. The defense has said that the brothers grew up in an environment of “suspicion and fear.” On the other hand, the prosecutors are expected to use the evidence they have to show that Tsarnaev carried out the attack knowingly and willingly.

Tsarnaev is facing 30 federal charges, 17 of which are punishable by death or life in prison. If convicted of any of those, he’ll have a second trial with the same jury to determine sentencing. In the jury selection process, this presents another criterion for which the jurors need to be screened: they have to be willing to impose capital punishment if that is the way that justice is to be legally served.

This is all happening in a state that did away with the death penalty more than three decades ago. In a 2013 Boston Globe poll, 57 percent of respondents said they favored life without parole for Tsarnaev over capital punishment. In contrast, 33 percent said they favored death, and the rest said they didn’t know. Experts told the Globe the results reinforce the notion that most Massachusetts citizens oppose the death penalty. In Boston, a relatively liberal city, the court will have to choose jurors who don’t harbor any strong feelings about it. Anyone who does cannot be a member of the jury. The defense actually tried to move the trial away from Boston several times because of the obvious emotional toll the attacks had on the city, but U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. refused.

The jury selection process is expected to take about three weeks. The trial is set to start in late January and take three to four months.

Zaid Shoorbajee

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

The post Jury Selection Begins in Boston Marathon Bomber Trial appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, Guantanamo Bay conjures horrific thoughts of terrorists, torture, and inhumane treatment. Many are surprised to hear that this dark stain in American history still exists and holds more than 100 detainees. While President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay during his first campaign for the presidency, the process has been far from easy. Where can the United States send detainees to be released, and who will accept those deemed simply too dangerous to be set free?

What is Guantanamo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a U.S. military prison located at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Southeastern Cuba. Since 1903, the United States has been leasing the 45 square miles the base sits on from Cuba in an arrangement that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, existing detention facilities at the base were temporarily repurposed in order to hold detainees and prosecute them for war crimes in the “War on Terror.”

Since 2001, Guantanamo Bay has housed nearly 800 detainees. As of the beginning of 2015, there are 127 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. During President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States claimed that since the detainees were not on American soil they were thus not protected by the U.S. constitution. Their status as “enemy combatants” meant they could be denied U.S. legal protections and even protections from the Geneva Conventions. Many detainees endured cruel, inhumane treatment and various forms of torture while being held indefinitely without charges. The Supreme Court later ruled in various cases that procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated military law and the Geneva Conventions.

President Obama signed an executive order following his 2009 inauguration ordering the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this order, various obstacles have required that the facilities remain open.

Why haven’t the detention facilities closed?

The difficulty in closing the facilities at Guantanamo Bay comes in finding an appropriate place for the detainees to go. Many countries do not wish to take in detainees, and Congress objects to holding trials in the United States for any of the detainees who may have to serve longer sentences.

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed the annual defense policy bill, titled the National Defense Authorization Act, into law. The Act prohibits him from closing Guantanamo Bay or transferring the detainees to U.S. soil. Negotiators even rejected a change that would have allowed detainees to come to the United States for emergency medical care rather than fly doctors and equipment to them. Despite signing, the frustrated President Obama hinted that he may claim constitutional powers to transfer some detainees against Congress’ wishes. According to the Washington Times, President Obama stated that since the law “violates constitutional separation of powers principles, (the) administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.” Watch the video below for more of President Obama’s sentiments.

At this point, the best way to whittle down the number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to transfer them elsewhere. Fifty-nine detainees have been approved for transfer but still remain at the facility. President Obama is allowed to transfer detainees to other countries willing to take them; however, the transfers can only take place after the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are not likely to join terrorist organizations. Frustrations linger between President Obama’s National Security staff and outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. While the staff has approved transfers, sign-off delays from Hagel and the Pentagon slow the process.

Has progress been made?

After a virtual halt in transfers between 2011 and 2013, a quickened pace for detainee releases was seen in 2014. Last year the Obama administration was able to transfer 28 detainees. Most recently they have been accepted by Kazakhstan, Uruguay, and Afghanistan, and they are not likely to face further detainment.

Transfers

Another 59 detainees have been approved for transfer but remain at Guantanamo Bay; 51 of those approved are from Yemen. The United States is not willing to send the detainees back to Yemen due to instability and prevalent militant activity. Concerns that the government there cannot ensure that the men will not join a terrorist organization rule out any chance they would be sent back to the country. The United States is instead looking to countries in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East to take some of the detainees. Countries must assure the United States the detainees will not return to the battlefield and will be treated humanely.

Detainees in Limbo

If the United States can find places to send all of the 59 detainees approved for transfer, officials can begin the more difficult task of deciding what to do with the remaining prisoners. An additional 58 detainees are expected to remain in limbo. They are considered too difficult to try in court due to insufficient evidence, but they are still too dangerous to release. Ten detainees, including five alleged to have helped plot the 9/11 attacks, are in the military trial stage and have been for months. Administration officials say that the detention center cannot be closed without sending at least some of the remaining inmates to the United States to be held for longer sentences.

Cost Issue

The hope is to decrease the population down to the low 120s within the next month, making it half of what is was when President Obama took office in 2009; however, this still leaves President Obama far from his goal of closing the prison. The White House has continually argued that Guantanamo is a propaganda symbol used by terrorists to fuel anger at the United States and so it should be eliminated; however, the Obama administration has increasingly made the argument for Guantanamo Bay closure from a financial standpoint. According to the Wall Street Journal, the cost to operate the prison is between $400 and $500 million annually. The annual cost per inmate at Guantanamo Bay is well above $2 million, while officials say the cost to hold an inmate at a U.S. supermax prison would be only around $78,000. As more inmates are transferred from Guantanamo Bay, the cost per inmate continues to rise. The hope is to reduce political opposition to the ban on transferring detainees to the United States by shrinking the number held at Guantanamo until maintaining the separate facility seems far too expensive.

Watch the video below for more information on the difficulty of closing Guantanamo Bay.

Does releasing detainees pose security risks?

It depends on who you ask. A 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated that 17 percent of the more than 600 Guantanamo detainees released or transferred since 2002 returned to militant activity. An additional 12 percent were suspected of doing so. In order to cut down on this recidivism the DNI recommended avoiding transfers to countries enduring conflict, instability, or active recruitment by terrorist organizations. President Obama noted, however, that over 90 percent of Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred during his administration are not confirmed or suspected of having reengaged in terrorist activity. Still, many critics contend that the increased pace of prison transfers raises national security concerns.

The risk of future terrorism  is not limited to released Guantanamo Bay detainees. For instance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, was once a prisoner at a U.S. detention center in Iraq before being released. Others note that recidivism in the U.S. legal system is higher than 60 percent, which is much worse than recidivism rates from Guantanamo Bay. While there are risks in releasing detainees, there are similar risks in releasing any prisoner.

With the goal of shutting down Guantanamo Bay, there are few other options than releasing detainees to other countries. Americans remain fearful of detainees being held on U.S. soil. A Gallup poll released in June 2014 said 29 percent of Americans support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. Sixty-six percent oppose the idea. While Americans may agree in theory that the prison should close, they do not want the detainees to ever be held on U.S. soil.

Watch the video below for more of the potential risks of moving prisoners to the United States.

Conclusion

Guantanamo Bay will not be closing anytime in the immediate future. Ultimately President Obama may have to threaten executive action if he cannot overcome congressional opposition to moving the detainees more quickly and shutting down the facility. With no place to put many of the remaining prisoners who are stuck in limbo, it is likely some would have to be sent to the United States for the prison to close anytime soon. At this time, that seems unlikely to happen; however, given fewer detainees and extremely high costs of running the facility, the American public may eventually warm to the idea of housing certain prisoners in the United States.

Resources

Primary

White House: Executive Order: Closure of Guantanamo Bay

Director of National Intelligence: Summary of Reengagement of Detainees

Additional

Washington Post: U.S. Prepare to Accelerate Detainee Transfers

CNN: Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Fast Facts

Politifact: Obama: ‘We’re Spending Millions for Each Individual’

The New York Times: Four Afghans Released From Guantanamo Bay

Washington Times: Obama Signs Defense Bill That Keeps Gitmo Open

CNN: U.S. Hopes to Transfer Dozens From Gitmo

CNN: What Happens When Detainees Get Out?

USA Today: Obama Faces Challenges in Closing Gitmo

Fox News: U.S. Releases Fives More Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Wall Street Journal: Obama Weighs Options to Close Guantanamo

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will it Take to Finally Close Guantanamo Bay? appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday, the city of Sydney–and the entire world–watched as a lone gunman with likely terroristic motives took over a cafe in the city and held hostages. It’s believed that approximately 17 customers and employees were held captive. It happened in Lindt cafe in the financial district. Details are still uncertain, but it seems like the incident ended with the gunman and two of the hostages dead and others injured. The stand-off lasted for over sixteen hours before police stormed the cafe and got out the hostages. Some had escaped earlier, others were there the full sixteen hours.

The shooter is believed to be one man, acting alone, named Man Haron Monis. He was an Iranian immigrant, and had been in trouble with the law before. He was involved in the murder of his ex-wife, and he had gotten caught writing offensive letters to the families of soldiers who had died in Afghanistan.

While it’s being called a “terrorist” attack by many, it’s hard to determine if that’s actually true. At one point, the hostages were forced to hold up a banner with writing in Arabic on it. It’s called the Shahada, and it’s described by The New York Post as follows:

The Shahada translates as “There is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger.” It is considered the first of Islam’s five pillars of faith, and is similar to the Lord’s Prayer in Christianity. It is pervasive throughout Islamic culture, including the green flag of Saudi Arabia. Jihadis have used the Shahada in their own black flag.

Unfortunately, it’s been misappropriated and used by some terrorist groups, including an Al-Qaeda linked group in Syria. However, it seems that this was just the act of one crazy man, and not necessarily linked to a wider group of any sort. Australia has purportedly had some issues with Islamist extremism recently, and it’s estimated that at least 70 Australians are fighting for ISIS.

Luckily, many members of Australian society have been admirably non-reactionary. In order to combat prejudice and anger today, the hashtag #illridewithyou was born out of reports that some Muslims were experiencing harassment on public transportation today. The hashtag has now gone viral, as an attempt to show support for the Muslim community in Australia. Here are, presumably, the tweets that started it:

If you reg take the #373 bus b/w Coogee/MartinPl, wear religious attire, & don’t feel safe alone: I’ll ride with you. @ me for schedule.

— Sir Tessa (@sirtessa) December 15, 2014

Maybe start a hashtag? What’s in #illridewithyou?

— Sir Tessa (@sirtessa) December 15, 2014

There have been remarkable examples of a community coming together through this hashtag.

This is not about religion. This is about a madman who should've been locked up years ago. Please be good to each other. #illridewithyou

— Evalicious (@deliciouslybad) December 15, 2014

#illridewithyou is a beautiful reminder that our compassion should precede our prejudice. Religions do not kill people. People kill people.

— Kushaan Shah (@kushaanshah) December 15, 2014

#illridewithyou is one of the most humane reactions to terrorism ever. Way to go #Australia

— Marcel LeJeune (@MarcelLeJeune) December 15, 2014

It’s heartening to see that Australia, despite reeling from yesterday’s tragedy, is still coming together as a country. Many other nations, the United States included, could do well to learn from our friend down under.

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 Australian Hostage Situation Ends: A Community Stands Together appeared first on Law Street.

Ottawa, Canada, is on high alert after reports of multiple shooters near the National War Memorial and the Canadian Parliament building early today. Details are still largely unknown, but what is almost certain at this point is that there were at least two active shooters in Ottawa today. It is believed that they were together.

One Canadian soldier has been killed while standing guard in front of the War Memorial. Although bystanders attempted to save him, his gunshot wounds were too much to overcome. The shooter from the War Memorial is believed to still be on the loose.

A second shooter, inside the Canadian Parliament building, may have been shot and killed by the police. Eyewitness Marc-Andre Viau told i24 news — a Canadian site — that he saw a shooter run into a caucus room while police pursued. Then he heard a number of shots, estimating the number to be between ten and 20. Other estimates put the number of shots in the Parliament building from 30-50.

Large parts of the surrounding area have been put under lockdown until more details are known. Here’s a visual of the situation:

https://twitter.com/CNNJason/status/524955622765494272/photo/1

Overall, the reaction from Canadians seems understandably horrified and upset. Canada does not often see such levels of violence.

This stuff doesn't happen in Canada. I'm shocked, angered, sad. Let's keep this country safe.

— Brian G  (@brimau5) October 22, 2014

And some are concerned that this is terrorist action, especially after an accused jihadist in Canada ran over a soldier and then was shot.

Others believe that while this unprecedented shooting may change things for Canada, it’s important to focus on endurance right now:

While access to Parliament may change, we won't change as a people. We are Canada. We are some tough Canucks. Our way of life will endure.

— Jason Carlin (@the2scoops) October 22, 2014

Further details and motives are still obviously unknown, but our thoughts go to those in Ottawa right now. Hopefully the second shooter will be detained soon.

Check back here for more details as the story develops.

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 Developing: Active Shooters in Ottawa, One Soldier Dead appeared first on Law Street.

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

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

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allison Dawson

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

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

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly referred to as ISIS, has been making some interesting moves lately. Namely it’s gotten into the movie business.

Last night, ISIS released a video “warning” the United States about what would happen if we send troops to Iraq to combat its growing influence. The graphic video is below, should you be inclined to watch it.

For those of you who choose to skip over the video, here’s a brief summary. The beginning features a lot of gratuitous explosions, eventually it shows American soldiers struggling, then we get treated to some fuzzy shots of the White House. Eventually, the “title” of the movie flashes on the screen: “Flames of War: The Fight Has Just Begun” and then the words “Coming Soon.”

This is, of course, just a few weeks after ISIS released videos depicting the slaughters of American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

Terrorism is a very difficult thing to define — there are still academic arguments over how exactly to delineate terrorist groups from other actors. But at its most basic form, terrorism does have to include some kind of “terror” — that’s the whole point. It often targets non-combatants, such as civilians. It’s often, but not always, aimed at democracies where the members of the democracy have the ability to appeal to their government. ISIS did not kill James Foley because it wanted him to die, it killed James Foley in an attempt to incite “terror” in the American public. That’s all the intent it needed right there. Again, this is not meant to serve by any means as any sort of dispositive definition, but more as context for my next statement: the video released last night by ISIS was downright brilliant.

The whole point of terror is to scare, intimidate, and coerce. And with that trailer, ISIS was able to do just that, at minimal cost. It didn’t break any laws, it didn’t kill anyone, it didn’t have to go on a violent campaign. ISIS literally had a couple guys with decent computer skills sit there and do that, and then leaked it to the internet. While one could argue that it wasn’t a terroristic act in the strictest sense, it was certainly a facet of a larger campaign. ISIS has figured out how to reach as many people in its goal audience as possible. It’s literally creating clickbait for social media. Not to be glib about the fact that ISIS is one of the largest terrorist threats to the U.S. right now, but it’s literally employing Buzzfeed-like tactics to scare the American populace. And, the scariest part is that it seems to be working.

ISIS hasn’t just mastered social media when it comes to releasing creepy videos, it’s also using it in other ways. It’s created message boards and chat rooms for recruiting purposes, including in the United States. Given that a handful of western-born fighters are known to be among ISIS’ ranks, the kind of access it has is scary. It’s also dipped into other tactics that seem to be more out of a business/PR handbook than a terrorist group’s goals, including an online store that sells clothing and memorabilia.

ISIS knows what it has to work with, and its tactics are scarily modern. The group sort of flies in the face of what I think many people think of when they think of “terrorist.” Many in the U.S. see terrorists as radical, backward people. And don’t get me wrong, ISIS is beyond radicalized. But much more concerning than its radicalization is that it’s alarming modern. As the United States continues to develop its plan to work against ISIS, we need to keep that in mind.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Nile Livesey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Coming Soon to Theaters Near You: ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

The world is reeling after the very public slaughter of an American journalist named James Foley.

Although details are still unclear, here’s what we know right now: Foley was taken hostage by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group. According to ISIS, it also has some other American and British hostages — the exact number is unknown, but American officials believe there are at least three other American hostages. Some demands were made, but the United States obviously does not negotiate with terrorists. An unsuccessful rescue attempt was made earlier this summer. Now the news has surfaced that Foley was guarded by a specific group of ISIS militants, British-born, who call themselves “the Beatles.” According to reports, the British jihadists were especially brutal and worthless. A New Hampshire native, Foley was in Syria reporting for the Agence France-Presse and the GlobalPost. He’s been held since November 2012. Earlier this week, he tragically lost his life.

I want to start by saying how tragic and horrible this was — Foley, an innocent bystander, lost his life because he was used as a powerful political pawn. ISIS is expanding its influence and becoming an incredibly powerful and terrifying group in Iraq and Syria — the Foley execution is just another example of that power it now wields.

But it’s important to remember that the move by ISIS was relatively unsurprising. Hostages have been powerful bargaining tools since the beginning of time. As tragic and horrific as Foley’s death was, and I want to emphasize that this is not an attempt in any way to diminish that, it was unremarkable in a historical sense.

The way it’s been handled, however, has been remarkable in every sense of the word. The video of Foley’s execution was uploaded to YouTube. Since then, it has made the rounds of pretty much every corner of the internet. It’s gory, it’s horrifying, and the fact that anyone with an internet connection can now access it pretty easily is a public travesty. Social networks have started banning users who share the video, and various media publications are under fire for their choices to provide either the video or still shots from it.

The New York Post especially received a lot of ire for its decision to show a still from the video on its front page, in print. Where anyone could see it, even if they didn’t want to. I’m no stranger to blood and gore — I have distinct memories of watching that video of Saddam Hussein being executed when I was a freshman in high school. But that doesn’t mean it’s right to force that kind of stuff on people. I follow the news every day, but that’s my choice. I have friends and family who avoid the news — and until this week I have to be honest that I didn’t fully understand why. But when it’s that easy to accidentally see something that disturbing, I get it. Anyone who published this video or pictures is very close to being over the line.

Then there’s the fact that by sharing this video, the power that groups like ISIS can have has been magnified. ISIS claims that it killed James Foley because its demands were not met, and while that may be true, there’s another motive here. ISIS is an organization that relies heavily on terroristic tactics. The thing about terrorism though is it works really, really well if people know about it. Every time that video is shared or a screengrab is published, ISIS gains more power in the form of fear to wield.

I know I’m in the qualification for a hypocritical lifetime achievement award now that I’ve just spent the last 600-odd words writing about the very people I’m encouraging you not to give attention to, but I’ll leave you with this: my condolences go out to Foley’s loved ones. That’s where our minds should be, not watching the perverse and horrifying circumstances of his death, for so many different reasons.

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 Don’t Watch the Foley Video appeared first on Law Street.

Extremist groups twisting religious ideologies to justify their violent acts are still active in the United States today. This infographic provides a glimpse into the basic facts about the most prominent religious extremist groups currently operating in the United States.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [McBeth via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

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

The post Infographic: Religious Extremism in the United States Today appeared first on Law Street.

Lynching, torture, and deliberately planned hate crimes bring to mind antiquated racist and religious extremist groups like the infamous Ku Klux Klan. Tragically, these groups are not things of the past. In fact, many of them remain at large in the United States. The radical religious ideologies of these groups drive their members to commit and justify heinous crimes. Most sources agree on a loose definition of religious extremism as people who commit, promote, or support purposely hurtful, violent, or destructive acts against others for what they deem to be religious reasons. A substantial number of these Christian, Islamic, and Jewish groups still operate via bases in the United States.

Recently, a Florida police department shockingly discovered a former officer’s connection to the notorious KKK. Though the number of Klan members has dwindled to about 500, they still exist in the form of smaller sects throughout the states.

Determining which of the modern Christian extremist groups contains the most members is almost unfeasible due to the shroud of secrecy under which they conduct their operations. For example, the activities of the Christian terrorist group, the Phineas Priesthood are often impossible to attribute to its members. Phineas Priests, who desire a North America that is entirely Christian and white, differ from other white supremacist groups in that they hold no meetings. To become a member, one must commit ‘Phineas acts,’ which are violent acts against non-whites.

Click here to see our infographic on religious extremist groups

Another extremist group identifying itself as Christian is the Sheriff’s Posse Comitatus. Specifically, this group targets employees of the IRS and FBI, claiming that they violate the rights of Americans. Posse members were much more active during the 70s and 80s than they are today. During those years, the group’s membership was estimated somewhere between 12 and 15 thousand. In the late 1980s, the popularity of the Posse’s ideology declined dramatically. One of its leaders, James Wickstrom, attempted to bring the Posse back to life in the 1990s, though he emphasized the racist aspects of the Posse’s ideology to the near-exclusion of the rest of the group’s principles.

Islamist extremist groups today receive arguably the most media attention. Many of these groups have bases in the Middle East as well as a myriad of countries around the globe. For example, both Al-Fuqra and Al-Qaeda operate in the United States as well as abroad. Al-Qaeda, possibly the most notorious terrorist group, devastated the world with its 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. Recently, however, some argue that the newly formed ISIS in Iraq will usurp the position of most prominent religious extremist group, although it does not currently operate in the United States.

The Jewish extremist group the Jewish Defense League flourished until recently. Now, the only prominent Jewish terrorist group operating in the United States is Nation of Yaweh, though its activities diminished significantly following the death of its founder and leader in 2007.

Aum Shinrikyo, also known as Aleph, is a group primarily based in Japan that cannot be associated with one single religion. Members adhere to Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic ideals among others. Despite its presence in the United States, the group has performed no notable attacks in North America; however, members have committed multiple heinous acts in Japan, including the sarin attack of a Tokyo subway in 2005.

The United States and its allies are not standing idly by as the threat of extreme terrorism driven by religious ideologies grows, yet combating these groups can be difficult due to the important role of religious freedom in America. As stated by journalist Neil J. Kressel, “many political leaders, for example, have argued that religiously motivated evil always represents a corruption of true religion…We should…start with the assumption that ethical and reasonable people – whether religious, agnostic, or atheistic – will typically disdain and reject destructive violence and intolerance perpetrated in the name of religious faith or other ideologies.”

Various countries worldwide devote significant time and resources to CVE, or countering violent terrorism. CVE efforts began in the United States as a response to the growing threat on its turf of Muslim extremist groups. One of the main ways the U.S. tries to combat religious extremism is to reduce sympathy and support for its causes.

The FBI’s website extensively explains the core goal of the new U.S. strategy as outlined in a 2011 White House document, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” The goal of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies is “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from inspiring, radicalizing, financing, or recruiting individuals or groups in the United States to commit acts of violence.” The document emphasizes the plans of the United States to focus on combating extremism in three areas. First, the government plans to provide support and education to local communities that may be targeted by violent extremists. It also plans to build up “government and law enforcement expertise for preventing violent extremism” and counter extremist propaganda.

With continued efforts from world leaders and citizens, perhaps someday the world can be free of these acts of extreme violence in the name of religion.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Ras67 via wikipedia.org]

Marisa Mostek

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

The post Violence in the Name Of Religion appeared first on Law Street.

Violence between Israel and Palestine has surged over the last month following a chain of antagonistic murders in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. On June 12, three Israeli students— Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel— were killed. Their bound and partially burned bodies were found in a field northwest of Hebron two weeks later. In retaliation, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy, Muhammed Abu Khdeir, was abducted, bound, and burned alive one day after the burial of the three Israeli students. Khdeir’s cousin, 15-year-old Tariq Abu Khdeir, a Palestinian-American vacationing in East Jerusalem was arrested by Israeli police and beaten while in custody; videos of the boy’s bloody face circulating in social media have only magnified the emotional force behind the escalating tensions between the two countries, engendering missile exchanges between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. On Monday July 7, Israel authorized the mobilization of 40,000 reserve soldiers in preparation for an invasion of Gaza, which according to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon “will not end within a few days.”

Amid the gruesome murders and savage beatings should it be surprising that graffiti has played a critical role in the escalating violence between Israel and Palestine? Since 2008, Price Tag attacks have been a growing phenomena in Israel, though primarily in the West Bank and East Jerusalem; they originated from the “Hilltop Youth” of the West Bank, illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land — 100 small outposts scattered on strategic hilltops. “A ‘price tag’ means that when the government of Israel decides to evict a settlement, an outpost, even the smallest wooden shack in the land of Israel — it has a price,” according to Moriah Goldberg, a 20-year-old Price Tagger. “Maybe it will make them think twice before they do it again.”

Attacks involve destruction of property perpetrated by Israeli extremists against Arabs —desecrating cemeteries, burning Korans, chopping down olive trees — as well as anti-Arab and anti-Christian defamatory graffiti slogans including the phrase “Price Tag.” “Price tag, King David is for the Jews, Jesus is garbage;” “Jesus is a son of bitch,” spray painted on the entrance of a church; “A good Arab is a dead Arab, Price Tag,” spray painted on a mosque; “Death to Arabs;”  “Enough Assimilation,” “Arab Labor = assimilation;” “Non-Jews in the area = enemies.”

Recently, however, Price Tag attacks have increased in frequency and grown more violent. Attacks have surged from a handful in 2008 to 23 already in 2014; along with slashing tires, Price Tag attackers have firebombed empty vehicles, leaving their signature graffiti marks in the wake of their destruction. In response to the arrest of Israeli suspects for the murder of Abu Khdeir, Price Taggers destroyed a light-rail station in East Jerusalem, leaving Hebrew graffiti reading”Death to Israel” across the burned-out edifice. Price Tag is a “shadowy network of clandestine cells,” according to a recent profile of the guerrilla graffiti group in Foreign Policy, posing a “danger to Israeli security. Future acts of vandalism against Palestinians could escalate tension beyond their current, already dangers levels.”

In 2012, the U.S. State Department began listing Price Tag attacks as acts of terrorism in the Global Terror Report, though Israel falls short of this judgement; on July 1, Israeli Defense Minister Ya’alon defined the attacks a “illegal organizing,” stipulating more severe sentences for the Jewish perpetrators. “[T]errorism is a suicide bomber in a crowded mall or someone who shoots people,” said Dani Dayan, the former director of the Yesha Council, an umbrella organization of municipal councils of Jewish settlements. Price Tag attacks should be treated as “extreme vandalism” or even “hate crime…There’s no comparison between this and real Palestinian terrorism[.]”

Whether or not Israel defines Price Tag as ‘terroristic,’ victims still consider the attacks state-condoned violence against non-Jews due to Israel’s apparent failure to prosecute. Historically, more than 90 percent of investigations into settler violence fail to lead to an indictment. According to Slate, while Israel has condemned the recent rise in Price Tag attacks, the response by authorities has been “charitably described as sluggish.” Between 2005 and 2013, 992 investigations of complaints of Israeli violence against Palestinians were conducted, yet only 7.8 percent led to indictments.

There have been quite a few arrests of Price Tag attackers, in fact; the most recent was July 1, when a 22-year-old Israeli was detained in connection with a Price Tag attack in which assailants torched a christian monastery, spray painting “Jesus is a monkey.” “It is unbelievable to us that Israel can catch enemies, very sophisticated enemies, overseas, but they can’t catch a bunch of punks who live here,” said Jawdat Ibrahim, the owner of a local restaurant. “These attacks happen in an atmosphere, maybe an atmosphere that says, ‘Hey, it’s okay, you’re never gonna get caught.’ ” In a poll released last week by Israel’s Channel 10 News, almost 60 percent of those surveyed agreed that the government “didn’t really want to catch” Price Tag attackers, indicating that Israel condones this violence, or at least allows it to happen.

“There’s no doubt that the Price Tag phenomenon is very influenced by political processes,” said Hebrew University political sociology lecturer Eitan Alum. “They’re violent acts with logical and political goals.” Yet Price Tag is is also an expression of hate, inciting violence among and between Palestinian and Israeli communities.

“‘Price Tag’ and ‘Hilltop Youth’ are sweet, sugary nicknames, and the time has come to call this monster by its name,” famed Israeli author Amos Oz publicly declared on May 14th, 2014, his 75th birthday. “Hebrew neo-Nazis. The only difference between European neo-Nazi groups and Price Tag in Israel,” Oz continued, “lies in the fact that our neo-Nazi groups enjoy the tailwind of quite a few lawmakers who are nationalists, and possibly even racists, and also a number of rabbis who provide them with a basis that, in my opinion, is pseudo-religious.”

Oz’s sobering, if however startling, remarks point to pressing issues regarding the difference between Price Tag and other instances of political graffiti, globally. While graffiti artists like Ganzeer in Egypt, and Captain Borderline in Brazil have used their graffiti to critique oppressive government apparatuses, Price Tag specifically targets elements of the Israeli people based on race, ethnicity, and religion; the group’s intent is malicious, a vindictive visual assault on non-Jews who are otherwise victims of an apartheid Israel, or are continually subject to military violence, as is the case in Gaza.

It is important to differentiate these two strains of political graffiti: while graffiti can promote equality and liberty, it can also counter these values. Once a haven for the oppressed, founded on socialist values, Israel has become an oppressor. Price Tag is a plague of hate, radicalized by twisted Zionism, and ruthless settler politics. “Faithless Jews who don’t fear God can call me a terrorist if they want,” said Price Tagger Moriah Goldberg. “I don’t care what they say about me. I only care what God thinks. I act for him and him alone.”

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Adrian Fine via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Graffiti as a Catalyst for Escalating Israeli-Palestinian Violence appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday night, this puzzling exchange happened on American Airlines’ Twitter account: 

American Airlines Twitter via USA Today.

The tweeter in question is a 14-year-old girl named Sarah. She has since told the press that the tweet was a joke — because apparently Sarah has no idea what a joke is.

After American Airlines tweeted that they were sending her information to the FBI, she tweeted about how scared she was, and that she was “just a fangirl pls I don’t have evil thoughts and plus I’m a white girl.”  It really does seem like a ploy for attention though, given that she also tweeted to the world her number of followers and pretty much her entire experience with the fallout. She has since been arrested, and American Airlines released a statement saying, “At American, the safety of our passengers and crew is our number one priority. We take security matters very seriously and work with authorities on a case by case basis.”

Well, clearly Sarah isn’t very bright. But most people should know that tweeting terror threats at a major airline is an incredibly bad idea, right?

In actuality, since this story broke, about a dozen different people have sent similar threats to American Airlines, as well as a few have to Southwest Airlines, a completely unrelated company. And there were other inflammatory tweets sent out in support of “Plus I’m a white girl” Sarah. I can’t get over this, really. Why in the world would anyone ever think it’s a good idea to say these things. I cannot imagine that young people who are savvy enough to use Twitter don’t understand how IP addresses work. It’s really pretty easy for law enforcement to find pretty much anyone.

And this Sarah girl is by no means the only person her age to say something exceptionally stupid on the internet. There have been countless similar incidents. For example, last February, a teen from Texas got into an argument with a friend on Facebook over a video game. He ended up commenting something to the effect of “Oh yeah, I’m real messed up in the head, I’m going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts. LOL. JK.” That young man, Justin Carter, ended up getting arrested for the comment, which was charged as a terror threat. 

And in one of my favorite cases, a few weeks ago, a particularly oblivious teenager lost her parents about $80,000. Her father, Patrick Snay, won a lawsuit against his former employer, a private school in Miami, in which he alleged age discrimination. Part of the settlement included a confidentiality clause — Snay and his wife weren’t supposed to share the information with anyone other than their attorneys and other pertinent professional advisers. But just a few days later, their daughter posted this message to her 1,200 Facebook friends: “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.” And of course, that breaks the confidentiality agreement, and cost the family the $80,000 settlement.

There are plenty of incidents of young people getting in trouble because of the incredibly stupid stuff they put up on social media. I don’t know why that is. Maybe we don’t treat social media platforms as the fully public forum that they are. Sometimes when you’re sitting on your couch in pajamas and getting into a debate with your friends on Facebook about something stupid, it’s easy to forget that everyone can see it. Or maybe teenagers have been very stupid for years, and it’s only now that they have a microphone for that stupidity, and thus we get things like Twitter threats to airlines. Either way, let this serve as a reminder to watch what you say on the Internet. It may come back to haunt you, big time.

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Sandy via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

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

The post Newsflash: Tweeting Terror Threats is a Terrible Idea appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

[Reuters]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Orlygur Hnefill via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

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

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