National Security Law Brief

Al Qosi Pleads Guilty in Guantánamo

CF — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 13:24:13 +0000

Ibrahim al Qosi plead guilty to the two charges of conspiracy and material support of terrorism. This is only the fourth successful detainee trial in a military commission, and only the first under the Obama administration. Al Qosi was one of the first prisoners transferred to Guantánamo, and has been in custody since January 2002.

Al Qosi’s guilty plea was part of a pre-trial agreement (PTA), the details of which will remained sealed until after the sentencing portion of the trial, currently scheduled for August 9, 2010. Military.com reports that the PTA will limit al Qosi’s time in Guantánamo to two more years, after which he will released to Sudan, his home country. The portions of the PTA the military judge read aloud in court indicate that al Qosi has agreed to withdraw his current habeas petition, agreed to refrain from bringing suit against U.S. officials acting in official capacity relating to his apprehension, detention, or trial, and refrains from engaging or supporting any further hostilities against the U.S. or coalition members.

It was not clear from the trial whether al Qosi can challenge an Administrative branch decision to detain him as an unprivileged combatant after he serves his sentence, but a member of the defense counsel indicated that he would still have a right to file a habeas action to challenge such a detention.

The defense team declined to comment after the trial, but the prosecution team spoke in a press conference immediately following the trial. Captain David Iglesias said that “This represents progress in our country’s ongoing struggle against terrorism. We’ve got someone who admitted under oath to some pretty serious violations under the laws of war.”

Although it is not clear that material support is a violation of the recognized law of war, al Qosi has waived his right to appeal the charge. It is also not clear whether the court has yet determined that it has jurisdiction to try al Qosi, but he will probably not be able to challenge the jurisdiction of the military commission.

Read more at the National Security Law Brief

“Keep Your Friends Close, Keep Your Enemies Closer”

RR — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:26:57 +0000

Or if you are Russia, go live with your enemies.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Russia has had long term agents in the U.S. spying on us. The DOJ press release states that 11 men are being charged with “conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the U.S. Attorney” and money laundering. Eight of these men are alleged to have been on “long-term deep-cover” assignments for Russia and the S.V.R. (the successor to the KGB).

Apparently, they were on a mission “to search and develop ties in policymaking circles in US and sent (sic) intels.” The “spies” were staying in Upstate New York, New York City, Virginia, Boston and New Jersey. Even worse: One remains at large.

What are the implications of this spy network on the U.S.’s national security. Russia apparently still considers us a worthy enough adversary to plant spies. What of other nations and organizations, most notably terrorist-leaning organizations? What of our domestic policies? How will this affect our immigration policy, our Nuclear dealings with Russia, Obama’s decisions not to place missile defense system in outlying ex-Soviet nations? What about the U.S.’s cyber terrorism effort; back in April of 2009, was the power grid spy break just one a multifaceted espionage movement? This new piece of information seems to introduce a whole new web of implications and difficulties to the realities of National Security and where our country stands.

General McCrystal Removed as Commander in Afghanistan

CF — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:34:16 +0000

In an article published in Rolling Stone, GEN Stanley McCrystal, former commander of all US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, made critical remarks of senior Obama administration officials. Michael Hastings, the author of the article, spent a month with McCrystal and his staff, including a visit to an Irish Pub during extended stay over in Paris due to the Iceland volcano this summer, where “much of Team America [McCrystal's self-named staff, a nod to the 2004 film Team America: World Police] is completely shitfaced.” The General or his staff are on the record calling the Vice President “Bite Me,” saying that McCrystal was “disappointed” after his first meeting with the President, accusing Jim Jones of being a “‘clown’ who remains ‘stuck in 1985,’” and the General complains of getting emails from Special Representative Holbrooke. The article claims that McCrystal’s most strained relationship was with Ambassador Eikenberry, who McCrystal accused of “cover[ing] his flank for the history books.” Duncan Boothby, a civilian on McCrystal’s PR staff who set up the interview, has already resigned.

This afternoon, President Obama announced that he had accepted McCrystal’s resignation as ISAF commander. The President announced that he would nominate GEN David Petraeus to replace McCrystal in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama stated that US policy in Afghanistan would not change as a result of the change in command.

Medical Experimentation on Detainees

CF — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:41:01 +0000

In a review of The Torture Papers—a collection of investigations by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR)—Professor Steven Vladeck says that medical personnel’s involvement in the interrogation of CIA detainees might have been of the nature of experimentation.

The report purports that doctors could have been used as a legal shield—that the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel reasoned that medical personnel could ensure that so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques did not cross the threshold of “severe physical and mental pain.”

However, the PHR report says that physicians were doing more than simply observing, they were collecting data from interrogations, then analyzing that and “sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied to subsequent interrogations.” Such action, Vladeck says, could rise to the level of war crimes or crimes against humanity, regardless of whether the interrogation techniques themselves were legal or illegal. That is, regardless of whether the interrogations rose to the level of torture, both domestic and international law prohibits medical experimentation on prisoners or detainees.

The Common Rule prohibits research without the consent of the subject. And the Nuremberg Code—the genesis of which was the U.S.-led Nuremberg trial of Nazi doctors—makes medical experimentation that has no “fruitful results for the good of society,” and is conducted without “the voluntary consent of the human subject” a war crime.

Since almost all information surrounding the CIA interrogation program remains classified, “it would be imprudent to speculate on what specifically happened, or who may actually be liable,” Vladeck’s post says. He continues, “The larger point, though, is that these charges only reinvigorate a point that I’m neither the first nor last to make: We still don’t know what we don’t know about the EITs, about who was behind them, and about how they were implemented. Thus, this Report is not about the well-worn debate over whether or not torture was committed, or, alternatively, whether individual techniques constituted ‘torture.’ Regardless of the legality of the individual interrogation techniques, any non-consensual medical experimentation would have been against both federal and international law.”

Fourth Round of Sanctions for Iran as Israel Puts China In Its Place

RR — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:55:41 +0000

"New Sanctions on Iran" - Original Photo: REX FEATURES Modified Photo: Author

The U.N. Security Council yesterday voted for “tough[,] . . . smart and precise” sanctions upon Iran’s rogue Government in hopes of stemming their Nuclear weapon ambition. With a 12-2 vote (notably Turkey & Brazil, having a nuclear fuel deal in place with Iran, being the “Nays”) a watered down sanction was passed.

While parts of the sanctions have “voluntarily provisions” they were needed to have China’s support. Victor Gao, director at the China National Association of International Studies,a government think-tank, states that it allows a legal justification for any actions specified in the resolution by each country. China strongly stating that it still supports a “diplomatic approach” as the best approach. One would due well to wonder what China’s interests (read as oil) are in not being tougher on a rogue government with nuclear weapons ambitions.

On the opposite side, reports have already come in criticizing Israel for leaning on China to accept the resolution by outlining not only classified information of what nuclear weapons Iran is developing but also what a preemptive strike upon Iran by Israel would look like to China’s oil supplies.

While some reports criticize this, some are ignoring the public acknowledgment by Israel. It does not deny the message which outlined (1) what Iran’s nuclear ambitions are and (2) what the outcome would be. In doing that Israel reminded China that their rise to world power is not yet complete. It is still crossing that tight rope line to world power status. China still needs to take into account the nations around it and possibly consider not just the repercussions but it’s responsibility in supporting rogue nations. A war between Israel and Iran would seriously disrupt China’s oil consumption with devastating economical results. It is noteworthy to pause here and ask if this “message” is financial leveraging or financial terrorism between states? Either way it has been happening behind closed doors between nations for years. Israel on the other hand, isn’t hiding anything.

Israel is also free from what the U.S. cannot do. Influence from the U.S. on China is intrinsically hampered by it’s foreign debt to China (much like the London-U.S. debt-selling threat in the Suez Canal or the U.S.-China threat to “stop spending money”). Israel, though, does not have that problem and has the luxury of having its voice “heard” by the rising Asian Lion.

In the end, how strong or weak are these voluntary provisions? It will still need to be seen as the U.N. nations prepare to implement the sanctions. Brazil and Turkey’s nuclear fuel deal with Iran has already been wiped out automatically by the sanctions. But whether the sanctions are in fact “like a used handkerchief for [Iran] . . . and should be thrown into a waste bin . . . [t]hey cannot hurt Iran” is yet to be seen. (quoting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)

Aljazeera – A New Round of Sanctions

Aljazeera – Iran Threatens To Revise IAEA Ties

CNN – U.N. Votes To Slap New Sanctions On Iran

Aljazeera – Israel Shakes Down China

Editor’s Note: NSLB Hiatus Ending

SS — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 05:39:22 +0000

This post is just a quick note to let readers know that the National Security Law Brief is going to resume posting on a modified schedule soon. Within the next month, we plan on updating the website format. Shortly thereafter, the Brief will release its inaugural issue. Please stay tuned!

Mehsud Reportedly Alive

BG — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:10:32 +0000

Despite earlier reports to the contrary, Pakistani intelligence now believes that Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud survived a late January drone strike and is now alive. The Taliban had steadfastly denied his death since the strike in January, and while such is common practice (it took the Taliban three weeks to acknowledge that Baitullah Mehsud had been killed), the absence of a martyrdom video or tribute lent support to their position. He is believed to have suffered only minor wounds, and was reportedly the only Taliban member to have survived the January strike.

The C.I.A. has increased the scope and frequency of its drone program in the wake of the December bombing of the C.I.A. base in Khost, which killed 8 C.I.A. officers.

To read more, please go to Dawn.com.

Legality of drone attacks questioned

JM — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:09:55 +0000

In a subcommittee hearing Wednesday, Congress sought to explore the legality of unmanned drone attacks, a controversial and politically sensitive issue that U.S. officials have shied away from firmly defining. Though U.S. officials typically refrain from commenting on such attacks, most have been used to target suspected military hideouts along the Pakistan Afghanistan border, a region where the U.S. is the only power to have known drone capability. Several law professors, whose views of the legal landscape differed considerably, were invited to testify to shed light on the scope of legal issues. The law professors offered varied testimony on the scope of permissible conduct; some argued that because the U.S. is engaged in a war, it is entitled to use the full scope of its military capability, while others argued that only lawful combatants, and not military contractors, are entitled to use such force.

U.S. Student Admits to Aiding al-Qaeda

MG — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:33:30 +0000

On the day before his trial, U.S. student Syed Hashmi reached a deal with prosecutors and pled guilty to “conspiring to provide support” to al-Qaeda. On behalf of his guilty plea, Hashmi had three additional charges brought against him in New York district court dropped. The student is accused of sending socks, ponchos and sleeping bags to al-Qaeda agents in Afghanistan. This case represents one more of the nearly 200 terror and terror-related cases that have been tried in New York since the September 11th attacks.

India and Pakistan’s PMs to Meet at Summit

MG — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:33:12 +0000

After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, India temporarily suspended all formal dialogue with Pakistan. Further straining the ties between the two south Asian nations, India recently announced the arrest of a diplomat working at the Indian embassy in Islamabad over suspicion that she was spying on behalf of Pakistani intelligence services. The Prime Ministers of both countries, however, have decided to meet at a summit of south Asian leaders in Bhutan. It has been indicated that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will likely address the continued threat of Pakistan-based fighter groups, such as those blamed for the Mumbai attack, and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is expected to bring up the possibility of continuing the dialogue involving long-term peace. This discussion will represent one of the few contacts between the two countries since senior foreign ministry officials met in Delhi in February.