Source: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Courses/nat-sec/2017/index.htm
Timestamp: 2018-12-13 11:30:35
Document Index: 161385688

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2331', '§ 249', 'art. 2', '§ 1801', '§ 1802', '§ 1803', '§ 1804', '§ 1805', '§ 1806', '§ 1807', '§ 1808', '§ 1809', '§ 1810', '§ 1811', '§ 1812', '§ 1813', '§ 1881', '§ 1881', '§331', '§382']

Cybersecurity and Counterterrorism - LSU Law (5461) – Richards – Fall 2017
LSU Law (5461) – Richards – Fall 2017
Cybersecurity and Counterterrorism – Course Information and First Day Assignment (Fall 2017 – Richards)
Posted on June 5, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Dycus S, Banks WC, Raven-Hansen P, Vladeck SI. Counterterrorism law. Wolters Kluwer law & business; 2016
You have to have the current – 3rd – edition. Things move fast in this field. Check back for information about supplements.
Can you fight a war against something if you cannot define it?
This case was just cleared for trial on Sept 5.
Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15-1358, 2017 WL 2621317 (U.S. June 19, 2017)
Do domestically detained illegal aliens picked up after 9/11 have a remedy for abuse by federal jailers and policy makers?
Counterterrorism and National Security Resources
Posted on August 14, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Images for IRA Bombings
18 U.S. Code § 2331 – Definitions (Terrorism)
18 USC § 249 – Hate crime acts
2011 Louisiana Laws Revised Statutes TITLE 14 — Criminal law RS 14:40.1 — Terrorizing
Posted on August 15, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Charlottesville – Civil Tort Terrorism Complaint
We will look at these cases later in the course.
More on the attempt by DOJ to identify all the visitors to an anti-Trump site, including subpoena and the brief in opposition.
The USSC vacated Hernadez – Hernandez v Mesa – USSC 2017 – for reconsideration under Ziglar v. Abbasi.
The Supreme Court seems to be telling the lower court that it cannot expand Bivens, which makes the rest of its analysis unneeded.
Article III, Section 2 – trials outside the states
Short Intro to Bivens
Original intent for ATS (par 76 et seq)
P61 – THE EXTRATERRITORIAL REACH OF U.S. LAW: SUMMARY OF BASIC PRINCIPLES
¦ The Constitution applies abroad to protect citizens, and also to protect aliens who have a substantial connection to the United States.
¦ Constitutional protections do not, however, necessarily apply in every particular in every foreign place, even to a citizen or qualifying alien. The scope of its application may depend on pragmatic and political concerns, although the Supreme Court has so held only with respect to the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
¦ There is a presumption against extraterritorial application of a statute. This presumption is a canon of statutory construction, not a limit on congressional legislative power.
¦ The presumption may be rebutted by express statutory language asserting extraterritorial effect. It also may be rebutted by implication from the text, context, and purpose of a statute, or, more narrowly, according to Justices Alito and Thomas, from the “focus of the statute.”
¦ Although a statute may trump international law, and Congress is free to give extraterritorial effect to a law even in violation of international norms, our laws are construed to avoid conflict with such norms if possible.
¦ Under international law, Congress may prescribe regulations for activities abroad if the regulations satisfy one of five principles reflecting the legitimate sovereign interests of the United States. If they are consistent with one or more of these principles, they also must be reasonable in the circumstances.
Posted on August 19, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Charlie Wilson’s War (not the movie)
Is this allowable under the UN Charter?
Autonomous robots that can target and kill on their own are the cutting edge issue in law of war.
This is the first successful case in all of the attempts to bring civil actions against the persons involved in the US torture program post 9/11.
Salim V. Mitchell – Memorandum Opinion Re: Motions For Summary Judgment (August 7, 2017)
Read C. Alien Tort Statute – p. 25 to D. Defendants’ Liability on ATS Claim – p. 31. This is the most detailed and recent analysis of the extraterritorial application of the ATS since Kiobel.
Chapter 3 to B. THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSIVE WAR POWER, page 74.
June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993
CHAPTER I. PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES…
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.…
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state….
CHAPTER V. THE SECURITY COUNCIL…
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.…
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain and restore international peace and security.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.…
Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.…
Posted on August 22, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
National Infrastructure Advisory Council Report on Cybersecurity
Should the government prevent Google from shutting down the Daily Stormer?
Read from B. THE PRESIDENT’S DEFENSIVE WAR POWER – p.74 to D. DEFENDING AGAINST AL QAEDA AND THE ISLAMIC STATE.p. 91. This is not many pages, but most of the content is buried in the dense notes. Read them carefully.
Read: Prize Money, from: A Naval Encyclopædia: Comprising a Dictionary of Nautical Words and Phrases: Biographical Notices, and Records of Naval Officers; Special Articles of Naval Art and Science. LR Hamersly & Company, 1884.
Torreon, Barbara S. “Instances of use of United States armed forces abroad, 1798-2015.” LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC WASHINGTON DC, 2015.
Posted on August 25, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Bubba gets an RPG
Read to Chapter 4, B. APPLYING IHL—TARGETING IN ARMED CONFLICT, p. 124. This is dense, read carefully and think about how the codes fit together. Make sure you appreciate the different treatment for combatants and non-combatants.
Authorization for Use of Military Force Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (Sept. 18, 2001)
WAGING WAR ON TERRORISTS: SUMMARY OF BASIC PRINCIPLES
It is generally agreed that under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter a state may use force in individual or collective self-defense, not only once an armed attack is underway but before it is completed. But a state exercising the inherent right of self-defense must not only report its use of force to the Security Council, as required by Article 51, but also describe the circumstances that justified that use.
It is generally agreed that a state attacked by international non-state terrorists, like Al Qaeda, may exercise its inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 by using force against the terrorists residing in another state, if the host state is “unable or unwilling” to abate the continuing terrorist threat.
The U.N. Security Council may authorize member states to use force to “maintain and restore international peace and security.” Such force may be used against terrorists or terrorist organizations.
The framing of the Declare War Clause (“leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks,” according to Madison’s notes), the practical necessity to defend against attacks, and the Commander in Chief Clause all suggest that the President has an inherent power to fight what we have called defensive war. But the defensive war power may be subject to legal limits drawn from international law, as well as temporal limits that depend on the duration of a threat or attack and practical funding limits. These limits are disputed, mainly unaddressed by case law, and subject to inter-branch negotiation.
Because terrorists attack soft civilian targets without warning, some have argued that the only effective defense against a terrorist attack is to attack the terrorists even before they can begin to implement their plan of attack. But there is no consensus about the factual predicates for such anticipatory self-defense in advance of an actual armed attack.
Congress may authorize the use of armed force by declaring war or by enacting an authorization for the use of military force (AUMF). Because the Constitution does not prescribe the form of AUMFs, some courts have inferred congressional authorization for the use of force from defense appropriation acts and related legislation that does not expressly authorize force.
The War Powers Resolution (WPR) imposes consultation and reporting requirements on the President for deployments of armed forces into hostilities, and it requires the President to obtain specific statutory authorization for such deployments within a fixed time period or terminate the deployment. No President has acknowledged the constitutionality of the WPR. The meaning of “hostilities” under the WPR, and the WPR’s legal effect on statutorily unauthorized deployments or claims of implied statutory authorization, among other questions, remain disputed.
The Commander in Chief Clause at a minimum vests the President with the unitary civilian command of the armed forces, and gives him control of day-to-day tactical military operations in authorized conflicts or defensive war, subject to the terms of any authorization from Congress. But precisely which operations fall within the Commander in Chief’s command authority, and whether command authority is beyond the reach of statute, are questions that are disputed and mainly unaddressed by case law.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 I.C.J. 226, 257 (July 8) – The Cardinal Principles
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 2187 U.N.T.S. 90, July 17, 1998.
Posted on August 30, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
This was just posted last night or I would have assigned it as a reading for class. It questions the notion of targeted killing as being targeted at all, and reminds us that this was an Obama policy.
Just a reminder that Trump is not the first president to make a controversial pardon that is a slap in the face to the courts. Note the irony of one of the Reagan pardons.
Read to C. TARGETED KILLING AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, p. 146
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (Philip Alston), Addendum: Study on Targeted Killings, at 17-18, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 (May 28, 2010).
An international armed conflict is a conflict between two or more states, even if a state of war is not recognized by one of them. Common art. 2 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, Aug. 12, 1949, 75 U.N.T.S. Was the Second Intifada an international armed conflict?
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: SUMMARY OF BASIC PRINCIPLES
International humanitarian law (IHL) has evolved alongside domestic and other international law to govern the conduct of states and individuals during armed conflicts and to limit the suffering caused by war.
The threshold question of when IHL applies is complicated when states carry out military operations against non-state terrorist and insurgent groups. The difficulty lies chiefly in determining whether an “armed conflict” is underway, and in distinguishing combatants from noncombatants.
Different IHL rules apply to international and non-international conflicts. The distinction is important in determining the level and detail of protections afforded civilians and limits on military operations.
The United States is committed to following IHL, including many of the provisions of the Geneva Protocols.
The core principles of distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and unnecessary suffering are reflected in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, and in customary law. Their application in individual cases, such as the Palestinian intifada, requires careful analysis of the particular facts.
Posted on September 1, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Can we use targeted killing against the North Korea?
North Korea / Trump condemns ‘very hostile’ nuclear test
Map of the strikes
Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (Philip Alston), Addendum: Study on Targeted Killings, at 17-18, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 (May 28, 2010). p.17-8
Executive Order No. 12,333, 46 Fed. Reg. 59,941 (Dec. 4, 1981)
2.12 Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.…
Read the highlighted and bookmarked text.
Targeting Terrorists: Summary of Basic Principles
Outside of armed conflict or a judicial process, human rights law (HRL), in relevant part, forbids a governmental killing unless the government uses no more force than absolutely necessary as a last resort to defend a person from imminent unlawful violence. The right to use lethal force thus turns on the conduct, not the status, of the target.
An international armed conflict is a conflict between states, whether or not one of them recognizes a state of war, and a non-international armed conflict is a conflict between a state and an identifiable group, or between identifiable groups, exceeding a minimal level of intensity and duration, with a territorial nexus to a state or across borders.
The United States takes the view that in armed conflicts international humanitarian law (IHL) (also called the law of armed conflict or LOAC) supplants HRL.
In an armed conflict lethal force may be used against combatants, civilians for as long as they take a direct part in hostilities, and other civilians incidental to a lawful military attack (collateral damage). The use of force must be necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives and proportionate (e.g., the incidental loss of civilian lives must be justified by the legitimate military benefit of the attack), but it is not restricted to defense against imminent attack.
The United States takes the view that national self-defense also justifies the use of lethal force even outside an area of active hostilities (or armed conflict), but it has declared that it will use such force only when (1) a terrorist target poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons, (2) capture and other non-lethal alternatives are not feasible, (3) the state where the target is located is unwilling or unable to address the threat, and (4) there is near certainty that the target is present and that noncombatants (other than those taking a direct part in hostilities) will not be injured or killed.
Executive Order No. 12,333’s ban on assassination does not apply to the targeted killing of combatants or civilians taking a direct part in hostilities in armed conflict or to targeted killing in self-defense.
The Fifth Amendment affords a U.S. citizen due process before the government deprives him of life both at home and abroad, but the United States takes the view that these standards, as implemented by a reportedly deliberate inter-agency executive process in which the President personally approves additions to a “kill list,” with periodic notice to congressional committees, is all the process that U.S. citizens are due. No U.S. court has yet ruled on what process is due a targeted U.S. citizen, although the Supreme Court has ruled on the process due a U.S. citizen who is detained by the military.
Posted on September 5, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Florida flood risk
Google street view just got a lot more intrusive
Chapter 6 to E. INTELLIGENCE REORGANIZATION AFTER 9/11, p 207
This is mostly structural – how the agencies are set up. Read the case and the Notes and questions carefully. They are what we will discuss.
Posted on September 7, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
These are private surveillance agencies that collect very detailed information about you. This includes all of your identify info, including SS#s, driving license numbers, addresses, and personal family information. Depending on the level of the hack, this is everything a criminal needs to hijack your identity. Equifax’s stock is taking a hit.
Excellent article on game theory analysis of nuclear standoffs.
This is a good guide to the thinking behind MAD (mutually assured destruction) and the dance with North Korea.
Humorous introduction to game theory
Organization of Intelligence Agencies
History of the Internet – “DARPA and the Internet Revolution.” DARPA: 50 years of bridging the gap (2008): 78-85.
Structure of IPv4 versus IPv6 packets
Posted on September 12, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
RT, Sputnik and Russia’s New Theory of War – Fake News as War
Personal privacy protection (on the Internet)
I will continue our discussion of the Internet and will introduce our next discussion of the 4th Amendment, time permitting.
Posted on September 15, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall,Class assignments.
A good Internet security blog
CIA wants expanded authority to conduct drone strikes
Was there a FISA (national security) warrant for electronic surveillance on Trump campaign official?
We are going to read some additional background on cybersecurity. The additional text is free, you just have to download your own copy. Go this page and in the upper right hand corner, there is a link to download a free PDF. You can create your own free account for downloading books in the future, or you can check out as a guest:
Read the first three chapters. This is not as dense reading as the case book, and we have covered some of it. You do not have to memorize this, it is get you up to speed on the basic topics.
Administrative Searches – from the founding to Snowden
Posted on September 19, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Stanislav Petrov, Man Who Saved World From Nuclear Annihilation, Has Died – important bit of history
Manafort and FISA
Slate Money podcast discussing the Equifax hack with a leading data scientist, along with a discussion of a new cyberattack fear – warning, this podcast contains mature language and adult themes.
Look over slides on administrative search – Administrative Searches – from the founding to Snowden
Read Chapter 7 to C. A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE EXCEPTION?, p. 235
We might not get to most of this, but it is useful to have it in mind as we think about administrative searches.
Podcast discussing the difference between FISA and criminal warrants in the Manafort investigation
Posted on September 20, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Secrets in the Sky – ignoring the lessons of 9/11
Just Security – put this in your RSS feed to keep up with national security news
Posted on September 26, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Ventura nuclear attack preparation video – Putting a happy face on nuclear attack.
Ventura County Nuclear Safety Education Guide
CDC Preparation guide for the Zombie Apocalypse
Read chapter 8. Read CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE: SUMMARY OF BASIC PRINCIPLES at the end first, to get oriented. Then look hard at the intro questions at the beginning of each case and make sure you can answer those as you read the case. There is a lot of material in this chapter. Our focus is to get a basic understanding of FISA and the legal issues it poses compared to conventional criminal law.
50 U.S. Code Subchapter I – ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE – – Tip of the Hat to Cornell LII
§ 1801 – Definitions
B(1)(c) – lone wolf
§ 1802 – Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
§ 1803 – Designation of judges
§ 1804 – Applications for court orders
§ 1805 – Issuance of order
§ 1806 – Use of information
§ 1807 – Report to Administrative Office of the United States Court and to Congress
§ 1808 – Report of Attorney General to Congressional committees; limitation on authority or responsibility of information gathering activities of Congressional committees; report of Congressional committees to Congress
§ 1809 – Criminal sanctions
§ 1810 – Civil liability
§ 1811 – Authorization during time of war
§ 1812 – Statement of exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted
§ 1813 – Procedures for the retention of incidentally acquired communications
Posted on September 30, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Chapter 9. There is a lot of material in this chapter, but a lot is historical development that is not critical to understanding the current law. Read the whole chapter, but concentrate on the requirements of the 702 program and how it is carried out. Pay particular attention to 3. Legal Analysis of 702 Collection to the end of the chapter, and review the notes and questions after this section.
50 U.S. Code § 1881a – Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons
50 U.S. Code § 1881c – Other acquisitions targeting United States persons outside the United States
What is a “Multi-Communication Transactions?”
NSA will not collect email that only mentions a foreign selector.
Posted on October 3, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Federal monitoring of social media
Does the Stored Communications Act reach data held by Microsoft outside the US?
Leahy amendment to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (proposed)
What to watch for next week: Nuke deal hangs in balance as Trump plans Iran policy speech
Chapter 10 – Third Party Doctrine
Much of this should be a review for you.
Short review of subpoenas
More info on Doe – Doe was the owner of the small ISP that got the NSL. It just happened that the NYC ACLU was one his ISP clients. Or maybe that was not just a coincidence, but we cannot know because he still cannot tell you want the FBI wanted. Here is the record of the litigation, a Wired story on the case, and here is his interview on On the Media.
Doyle, Charles. “National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence Investigations: A Glimpse of the Legal Background and Recent Amendments.” (2015).
Table of National Security Letter Statutes
a. No standard or legal process: The government just gets the information it seeks.
b. Internal administrative process: There is no bifurcation between the issuing and enforcing authority.
c. Grand jury or administrative subpoena: The issuing and enforcing authority are bifurcated.
d. Certification court order: The government needs a court order, but gets it simply by certifying relevancy. The court does not decide whether the certification is justified.
e. Articulable facts court order: The government needs a court order and must offer specific and articulable facts to establish relevancy.
f. Probable cause search warrant: The traditional criminal law standard and the predicate preferred by the Fourth Amendment.
g. “Super” search warrant: Same, but government must first exhaust all other investigatory techniques or meet some other “plus” requirement beyond showing probable cause.
h. Prohibition: The government is forbidden from getting the information.
Posted on October 11, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
How the FBI recruits counter terrorism informants.
There is a lot of overlap between this chapter and previous material we have covered. This chapter concerns data mining of information that is covered by the third party doctrine. Focus on why the courts might still be concerned about the use of this data, even if traditional doctrine holds that there is no expectation of privacy in it. Look hard at the last section – Connecting the Dots – and it is notes and questions. Also look at Statistical Transparency Report Regarding Use of National Security Authorities (2016) to get an idea of how much of this collection is going on. This will close out our discussion of electronic surveillance.
Metadata collection after the USA Freedom Act
Chapter 12 to B Watchlisting at 420.
This is a review of border checkpoint searches. Some of this should be familiar to you from ACJ.
Posted on October 17, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Border Security – Firesign Theater
India’s national identity system
World Wide Geolocation System
Think about the history of attacks on airlines before we talk about the 9/11 attack at the beginning of the chapter.
Does the 9/11 screening make more sense in this context?
Finish Chapter 12 – Screening for Security
Krouse, William J., and Bart Elias. “Terrorist watchlist checks and air passenger prescreening.” LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2009.
Posted on October 20, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Chapter 13 – HABEAS CORPUS: THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUSPENSION CLAUSE
Posted on October 24, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
The persecution of dissenters and foreigners during WWI.
The FBI has 7,000 phones it cannot unlock
Encryption makes a big difference in protecting your privacy, as long as you do not put your data in the cloud unencrypted or send it to a third party.
Surveillance shifts from the NSA to local police
This is a short article, but it raises important questions about the decentralization of surveillance.
Posted on October 26, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Mariel detention correction: Clark v Martinez
It has been a while since I checked on the endgame for the Mariel detainees. In 2005 the Supreme Court ended indefinite immigration detentions.
How Fidel Castro and the Mariel boatlift changed lives and changed Miami
Posted on October 31, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
I have added an Exam Info page.
Manhattan Terror Attack Kills 8 as Pickup Truck Mows Down Cyclists
It is that time in the course when we are going to skip some of the less critical material so we can get to more relevant materials. Chapter 16 concerns long term military detention of non-US persons, i.e., those at Guantanamo. Review the MILITARY DETENTION OF NON-U.S. PERSONS: SUMMARY OF BASIC PRINCIPLES on page 582, which we will discuss briefly in class. Then read Chapter 17. This is a dense chapter. Use the Notes and Questions to guide your reading, and I will try to focus our discussion on the issues they raise so that we can more efficiently cover the material.
28 USC 2680(h) – Exemptions to the FTCA
Comparison of 42 USC 1983 versus FTCA
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 198 L. Ed. 2d 290 (2017)
Posted on November 3, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
An ICC Investigation of the U.S. in Afghanistan: What does it Mean?
Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use (2015)
Mohamedou Ould Slahi was held in Guantanamo for 14 years and tortured, despite there being no evidence that he was connected to terrorism. He wrote a diary in the form of letters to his attorneys, which is our best picture of what it was like for the detainees. It is a fascinating story. The version that was published while he was still being held was heavily redacted. Once he got out, he filled in the redactions as best as he could remember what he wrote and that version has now been published.
Gitmo, Unredacted – The interviews
Guantánamo Diary – The book.
Read this carefully – we are going to talk about the definition of torture and whether one should be necessary under jus cogins. Should the authors of the torture memo have known this was torture? (What would be the standard for treatment under the Geneva convention?) As background, the best available information at the time this program was started was that it was useless for interrogation, and would, at best, generate unreliable information. The FBI had proven techniques that were also humane.
NB – We are going to track the Notes and Questions pretty closely in this chapter, as well as looking at the few cases.
Water Cure: US Policy and Practice in the Philippine Insurrection, Richard Prevost, ESQ, Member of the Virginia Bar and Military Law Section
Scan this and read the conclusion on p. 14 as background for the class discussion.
Army, U. S. “Field Manual 2-22.3 (FM 34-52). Human intelligence collector operations.” (2006). – PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE
Convention Torture Act
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity As used in this chapter—
(1) ‘‘torture’’ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or
suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ‘‘severe mental pain or suffering’’ means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality . . . .
Posted on November 8, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
This is 2009, so take it as descriptive of the past, but perhaps also of the future.
Hagan JL, Hanson A. The Militarization of Mass Incapacitation and Torture during the Sunni Insurgency and American Occupation of Iraq. Social Sciences. 2016 Nov 30;5(4):78.
U.N. Comm’n on Human Rights, Situation of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay (2006)
Senate Select Committee. “Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program.” United States Senate: Declassified Dec. 3rd (2014).
Posted on November 10, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
CHAPTER 20 – CRIMINALIZING TERRORISM AND MATERIAL SUPPORT
Margulies, Peter, Advising Terrorism: Material Support, Safe Harbors, and Freedom of Speech (March 4, 2011). Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 63, p. 455, 2011; Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 101. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1777371
Legacy of Ashes – NYT review
Legacy of Ashes – CIA review
Posted on November 14, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Chapter 22 – Evidence in Criminal Trials
Be sure you can answer the questions before and after the cases.
The eventually fell apart.
CRS – Protecting Classified Information and the Rights of Criminal Defendants: The Classified Information Procedures Act (2012)
Posted on November 17, 2017 and filed under 2017 Fall.
Major Earthquake Response Plan
USNORTHCOM Playbook Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) Catastrophic Earthquake & Tsunami Response (April 2016)
Another terrorist who became a statesman when his side won. Brexit may rekindle the conflict.
The government’s right to deny that information exists (when it does) in an FOIA request is called a Glomar response, from a case in which the government kept secret information about using a private submarine borrowed from Howard Hughes. Read more here
We will discuss the domestic role of the military and first response. You can skim the materials in book, but this is not exam material. We will then talk about the course and the sweep of the material.
Smallpox Bioterrorism Attack – try to watch this to see a realistic (perhaps optimistic) portrayal of a smallpox attack.
If you want to know more about smallpox – my analysis of the problems with the smallpox response system and why the CDC gave into political pressure to weaken the response plan.
The Politics of Smallpox Modeling – Powerpoint
(posse comitatus – a body of men, typically armed, summoned by a sheriff to enforce the law.)
Insurrection Act 10 U.S.C. §§331-335 (2012) –
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it . . . (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. . . .
§382. EMERGENCY SITUATIONS INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Doyle, Charles, and Jennifer K. Elsea. “The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law.” (2012).
USNORTHCOM Playbook Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) Catastrophic Earthquake & Tsunami Response
What would the response look like for a really big disaster?