Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Bin Laden’s son-in-law, was convicted this week of conspiring to kill Americans and a series of other terror-related charges.
Abu Ghaith, was indicted nearly a year ago in The Southern District of New York, just a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, for his role in the September 11th attacks and as a senior associate of Bin Laden. Since news of Abu Ghaith’s indictment was first released last March, there has been a great deal of debate regarding whether SDNY was the appropriate forum for the trial. While many believed SDNY could hold a fair, safe trial for such a high-profile case, many opponents believed a military commission was a far more appropriate venue. Continue reading
My excitement ran high when Mark Denbeaux phoned to tell me I would be heading to the Guantanamo Naval Base for a week, for I had been studying, writing and talking about both its detention facility and its military commissions for years. Now I would be attending, as a journalist and observer, pretrial proceedings in the military tribunal capital prosecution of abd al Rahim Hussayn Muhammad Al Nashiri, the Saudi claimed to have presided over bin Laden’s “boats operation,” for which he had planned three attacks on foreign ships, including the devastatingly lethal one in 2000 on the USS Cole, the destroyer fueling in Aden Harbor in Yemen. Continue reading
In a recent post on the blog TomDispatch.com, Peter Van Buren published a piece condemning the United States’ drone policy, particularly in regards to the recent news that the U.S. is considering the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen abroad. In the piece, “Drone Killing the Fifth Amendment: How to Build a Post-Constitutional America One Death at a Time,” Van Buren explores the constitutionality of the U.S.’s drone policy, and argues that “They’ve thought about it [targeted killing]. They’ve set up the legal manipulations necessary to justify it.”
It is no great secret that both the legality and the morality of targeted killing has been a hot topic in recent months, Van Buren argues that the practice is at odds with the values our country is based on, as the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen denies him the due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Essentially, Van Buren’s point is that we are in a post-Constitutional America, and have strayed dramatically from the values of our Founding Fathers.
As someone who tends to agree with the loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, I side with Van Buren on this. Broadly, I believe that a document written over 200 years ago was never intended to be followed to the letter. Try as they might, our Founding Fathers had no way of predicting what our country would look like and the problems we would face in 2014. What Van Buren is saying, however, is that we have strayed too far from the values our country was built upon. While one would be hard-pressed to find the phrase “targeted killing” or “drone strikes” anywhere within the four corners of the Constitution, we still need to abide by the guiding principles outlined in the document. We are allegedly a country that values freedom, liberty, and due process. If we kill our own citizens in drone strikes, is that truly constitutional?
Kelly Ann Taddonio
Senior Research Fellow
February 18, 2014
Yesterday afternoon, the Associated Press reported that the US is currently tracking an American citizen and terrorist suspect in Pakistan. While officials have not confirmed the identity of the man, they described him as an “al Qaeda facilitator” who is currently plotting attacks against the United States. Now the Obama administration is struggling with the question of whether to use the controversial drone program to eliminate him. Continue reading
Yesterday, officials at Guantanamo Bay announced that United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. a.k.a the 9/11 trials, will be delayed until at least April. The case has been at a standstill since December when the presiding judge, Army Col. James Pohl, decided to adjourn to determine the mental status of one of the detainees on trial. Continue reading
Last week, John Rizzo, the former acting General Counsel for the CIA, spoke at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School about his new book, Company Man. Rizzo spent most of the time addressing the widespread perception that the 9/11 attacks occurred as a result of failures within the CIA and other intelligence agencies within the U.S. government. Continue reading
The NSA is back in the news, and this time it appears that the Agency was targeting data from smart phone applications as well as ordinary calling records. According to reports from The New York Times and The Guardian, the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ, have been tracking information regarding the age, sex, and location of smart phone users. Continue reading
In an article released just this morning, The New York Times reports that a government watchdog group has released a review of the NSA surveillance program, stating:
“An independent federal privacy watchdog has concluded that the National Security Agency’s program to collect bulk phone call records has provided only “minimal” benefits in counterterrorism efforts, is illegal and should be shut down. Continue reading
Earlier this month, Foreign Policy reported that the FBI had made a controversial decision to drop the term “law enforcement” from its official fact sheet in favor of “national security.” The terms were in reference to the primary functions of the FBI. After facing swift backlash, the FBI has once again revised the fact sheet to include both terms. Continue reading