MENU

Terrorism

Is the FBI Taking a Bite Out of Apple?

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Thursday, May 26, 12:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

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 will discuss this interesting matter and next steps.

Featuring:

  • 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

What is the Future of Guantanamo Bay? - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Steven A. Engel, Karen Greenberg May 16, 2016

On his second day in office, President Obama declared that closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility would be among the top priorities of his Administration. Over seven years later, as we near the end of the President's second term, both that goal and the prison remain. The panelists analyzed the chances that President Obama will close Guantanamo Bay and the issues with which a future administration must wrestle, if he does not.

Featuring:

  • Steven A. Engel, Partner, Dechert LLP
  • Karen Greenberg, Director of the Center on National Security, Fordham Law School

Bank Markazi v. Peterson - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 5-16-16 featuring Erik Zimmerman
Erik Zimmerman May 16, 2016

On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Bank Markazi v. Peterson. The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 makes a designated set of assets available to satisfy the judgments gained in separate actions by victims of terrorist acts sponsored by Iran. Section 8772(a)(2) of the statute requires a court, before allowing execution against these assets, to determine, inter alia, “whether Iran holds equitable title to, or the beneficial interest in, the assets.” Respondents—more than 1,000 victims of Iran-sponsored acts of terrorism, their estate representatives, and surviving family members—hold judgments against Iran and moved for turnover of about $1.75 billion in bond assets held in a New York bank account allegedly owned by Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. When respondents invoked §8772, Bank Markazi argued that the statute was unconstitutional, contending that Congress had usurped the judicial role by directing a particular result in a pending enforcement proceeding and thereby violating the separation of powers.  The District Court disagreed and upheld the statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, and Bank Markazi took its objection to the U.S. Supreme Court.

By a vote of 6-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Second Circuit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that Section 8772 does not violate the separation of powers. Justice Ginsburg was joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan. Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion in all but Part II-C. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an attorney at Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA.

We've Said It – Now What? Genocide in the Middle East - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Julian Ku, Nina Shea, Gregory H. Stanton, Jeremy A. Rabkin April 12, 2016

After much prodding from human rights advocates and congressional committees, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the Obama administration considers ISIS guilty of "genocide." Why did it take them so long? The Obama administration may believe the rationale that Christian purges are mitigated by the ISIS offer of historic jizya (dhimmi tax) compliance from religious objectors. But field reports reveal that, under ISIS, the jizya option has been categorically rejected. What does the genocide designation do for targeted religious groups? Does it matter that particular religious groups are described by this designation? Should we now expect a very different policy in the Middle East?

Featuring:

  • Prof. Julian Ku, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Faculty Director of International Programs and Hofstra Research Fellow, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University
  • Nina Shea, Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson Institute
  • Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, President, Genocide Watch
  • Moderator: Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law

The War on Terror: What’s in a Word? - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
David F. Forte, Andrew C. McCarthy January 07, 2016

“The government denies that terrorism is caused by Islamic doctrine. This is a triumph of willful blindness and political correctness . . . “ So says Andy McCarthy in National Review Online. Others assert that Islam is a peaceful religion that has been corrupted or hijacked by terrorists for their own un-Islamic purposes. Our experts discussed the legal and policy implications of these two contrasting viewpoints.

Featuring:

  • Prof. David F. Forte, Professor of Law, Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law
  • Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute