JCPOA: One Year in Review International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Thursday, September 29, 03:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
After one year of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action assessments and critiques, have American security interests been damaged? Is Iranian gamesmanship ephemeral, or durably threatening? Critics point to evasions of the JCPOA like the easing of economic sanctions and the un-reviewed arms deals and contracts with Russia to say that the “deal” has only served as cover for Iranian nuclear infractions. Is the U.S. Congress empowered to demand a better deal, even after a year of performance and European reliance on a return to the status quo ante for financial re-engagement with Iran? Are there historic precedents for resetting the terms? In light of coming sunset clauses that may see Iran at near zero break-out time, what leverage potential does NATO possess, and do any “snap back” sanctions represent real restraining power?
- Mark Dubowitz, Executive Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)
- Peter Harrell, Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security
President Obama and Nuclear Tests International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Monday, September 26, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but the treaty did not go into effect because the Senate refused to ratify it. Twenty years later, the Obama administration still favors ratification of the treaty as part of its nuclear disarmament strategy. President Obama appears to be attempting to go around the Senate by signing a U.N. Security Council Resolution that would, according to a National Security Council spokesman, “call on states not to test and support the CTBT’s objectives,” but would not be legally binding. Here to debate the international & national security law implications of these actions are Professor Kontorovich of Northwestern University School of Law and Professor Spiro of Temple Law School.
Short video featuring Jamil N. Jaffer
- Prof. Eugene Kontorovich, Professor of Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law
- Prof. Peter J. Spiro, Charles R. Weiner Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Jamil N. Jaffer August 25, 2016
Jamil N. Jaffer explains the legal implications of the US State Department's payment of $400 million to Iran in light of US sanctions against the country. Prof. Jaffer also explores further questions: Was the payment "ransom"? Was it legal?
Mr. Jaffer is an Adjunct Professor and Director of the Homeland and National Security Law Program at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
In the aftermath of the San Bernadino terrorist attack, the Federal Bureau of Investigations sought the assistance of Apple in its investigation. An Apple phone used by one of the terrorists included a function, which the FBI wanted Apple to defeat, that would automatically delete all stored information after ten failed hacking attempts. Defeating the function would have required Apple employees to write code, which Apple contended amounted to compelled speech. Privacy issues were also asserted, but countered, at least in part, by the fact that the user of the phone was deceased, and the phone was actually owned by a local government. After the FBI used other sources to get the information it sought, Apple moved against the FBI to disclose exactly whether and how it had bypassed the delete function. Our experts discussed this interesting matter and next steps.
- Prof. Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, Assistant Professor of Law, Nebraska College of Law
- Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, George Mason University School of Law and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Immigration Restrictions & the Constitution [FedSoc 5] Transcript from short video featuring John Eastman and Ilya Somin
A quick wrap-up of the immigration debate between Professors John Eastman and Ilya Somin from our 2016 National Student Symposium.
Immigration restrictions keep millions of people stuck in impoverished countries – preventing them from improving their lives by moving somewhere else. However, some restrictions are clearly necessary to protect national security. And many say that our current laws do not go anywhere near far enough, arguing that additional restrictions are needed to prevent wage depression and the overburdening of our already-strained safety net. One way or another, immigration restrictions have an enormous impact on poverty, both domestically and abroad. But are such restrictions constitutional? This debate will address that question, along with the complex policy issues involved with the topic.
- Prof. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law
- Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law