All content tagged with: Terrorism

Filter

  • Material Support Prosecutions and their Inherent Selectivity

    The government’s maintenance of a list of designated foreign terrorist groups and criminalization of any meaningful interaction or transactions – whether peaceful or violent - with such groups are no longer novel concepts. Inherent in both listing these groups and prosecuting individuals for assisting them, even in trivial ways, is the government’s essentially unreviewable discretion to classify groups and proceed with any subsequent prosecutions. A summary review of the past quarter-century reveals the government’s predilection for pushing the boundaries of what it deems “material support” to terrorist groups, all the while making greater and greater use of a criminal statutory scheme for foreign policy purposes. This Article explores the dynamics of the designation process and material support prosecutions, highlighting the selectivity inherent at every turn, which tells who and from what major monotheistic faith the terrorist threat emanates.

  • The World of Private Terrorism Litigation

    Since 9/11, private litigants have been important players in the “fight” against terrorism. Using several federal tort statutes, these plaintiffs have sued foreign states as well as other parties, like non-governmental charities, financial institutions, and social media companies, for terrorism-related activities. While these private suits are meant to address injuries suffered by plaintiffs or their loved ones, they often reinforce and reflect the U.S. government’s terrorism-related policies, including the racial and religious discrimination endemic to them. Indeed, much like the U.S. government’s criminal prosecutions for terrorism-related activities, private terrorism suits disproportionately implicate Muslim and/or Arab individuals and entities while reinforcing the belief that those groups are predisposed to engage in or support terrorism. This short Article provides a brief overview of the world of private terrorism litigation. It begins by describing the various federal tort statutes on terrorism—including their fraught relationship with foundational tort law norms. It explains the connection between those laws and the U.S. government’s terrorism prosecutions, as well as its other terrorism-related priorities. It ends by demonstrating how private terrorism suits reinforce discrimination and prejudice against Arabs and Muslims that are reflected in criminal terrorism prosecutions. In focusing on private terrorism litigation, this Article highlights how private parties are furthering the government’s counterterrorism work, as well as how private terrorism suits reinforce the state’s endemic discrimination against Arabs and Muslims in the counterterrorism realm.

  • Origin Stories: Critical Race Theory Encounters the War on Terror

    Stories matter. They matter to those intent on maintaining structures of power and privilege, and to those being crushed by those structures. In the United States, the space to tell, and to hear, our stories has been expanding. This means that the histories and lived realities of those who have been excluded, particularly people of color, are seeping into mainstream discourse, into the books our children read, the movies and television shows they watch, and the many websites comprising social media. Critical race theory has played a role in this expansion. It insists that we recognize the legitimacy of the stories of those deemed “Other” because they have been erased or distorted beyond recognition in the dominant narrative. 3 Critical race theory has helped ensure that the legacies of genocide and broken treaties, of the cruelties imposed upon enslaved persons, of the forced inclusion and exclusion of those regarded simply as disposable labor, have worked their way into the realm of what can be talked about. Critical race scholars have exposed immigration injustices and called out xenophobia and Islamophobia. All this discomfits those who benefit, or believe they benefit, from the status quo.

  • Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution?

    Our criminal justice system is founded upon a belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. This belief is what foists the burden of proving a person’s guilt upon the government and belies a statutory presumption in favor of allowing a defendant to remain free pending trial at the federal level. Though there are certainly circumstances in which a federal magistrate judge may—and sometimes must—remand a defendant to jail pending trial, it is well-settled that pretrial detention itself inherently prejudices the quality of a person’s defense. In some cases, a defendant’s pretrial conditions become so onerous that they become punitive and even burden his or her constitutional rights, including the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process and the effective assistance of counsel, respectively. Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) consist of a variety of confinement conditions that the attorney general may impose on an individual defendant at his or her discretion. Their purpose is to severely restrict communication by defendants with the demonstrated capacity to endanger the public through their third-party contacts. Although Congress did not create SAMs with terrorists in mind, their use in terrorism cases is almost routine. This Note explores the constitutional implications of SAMs when they are imposed on terrorism defendants who are detained pending trial. Specifically, my interview with criminal defense attorney Joshua Dratel sheds critical light on the deleterious impact SAMs have on a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel.

  • Constitutional Cash: Are Banks Guilty of Racial Profiling in Implementing the United States Patriot Act?

    This Article begins by comparing the concerns of American racial profiling to current terrorism concerns. Part II is an overview of the Bank Secrecy Act and its role in privacy issues concerning bank customers (as the predecessor to the USA Patriot Act). Here, the value of traditional reporting devices, specifically CTRs and SARs used by banks to alert law enforcement to possible terrorist activities, are discussed and evaluated. The facts suggest these reports have been ineffective in identifying terrorists, and have not only greatly infringed upon First Amendment privacy rights, but also diminished the Fourth Amendment protection against warrant-less searches of American bank account holders. Although the Supreme Court has previously ruled on the Constitutionality of these issues, I suggest that they must now reexamine a decision which many always felt was illogical, but has become increasingly so in today's fear-driven environment. Part III explores the policies banks initiated to comply with Patriot Act I, and the possibility that those policies have contributed, to the racial profiling of certain individuals of, or mistaken for, being of Middle Eastern descent. Part IV is an analysis of some of the problems Patriot Act I created. Part V highlights the dangers of The Proposed Domestic Security Enhancement Act, also known as Patriot Act I. Part VI discusses the desperate need to pass the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA) and evaluates whether the changes in bank policy attributed to Patriot Act I and proposed Patriot Act II are essential to the government's ability to strengthen national security and root out terrorists in our midst, even though they compromise the financial privacy Americans expect and believe in. Finally, the Conclusion proposes several solutions to protect American Constitutional liberties, obtain the intelligence necessary to protect us from terrorism, while most importantly beginning the process of repairing the psyche of America.

  • Ghosts of Alabama: The Prosecution of Bobby Frank Cherry for the Bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church

    Perhaps no other crime in American history has shocked the conscience of America like the 1963 bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. In May of 2002- almost thirty-nine years after the bombing- Bobby Frank Cherry was brought to trial for the murders of Addie, Carole, Cynthia, and Denise. He was the last person to be tried for the bombing. As an Assistant United States Attorney in Birmingham, Alabama it was my privilege to be a part of the prosecution team that brought Cherry to justice. This Article tells the story of that prosecution and explores the question of whether such trials, so long after the events in question, serve any useful purpose.