On November 2, 2017, Assistant U.S. Attorney Aloke Chakravarty visited Harvard Law School to reflect on his experience as he comes to the end of his service in the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). He also discussed how the field of national security prosecution has evolved since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Threats against aviation change constantly; countermeasures developed to combat emergent threats will become obsolete as new threats appear. Therefore, it is imperative for security practitioners to stay ahead of their enemies by identifying potential threats. This Article discusses ways in which current procedures fall short and should be reassessed.

This article summarizes the nature and purpose of the government’s terrorist watchlists, discusses the rules followed by agency screeners, explores the civil liberties implications of watchlisting, and identifies the need for oversight of the process.

By Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF (Ret.)* The Washington Post recently ran a story entitled “Would declaring ‘war’ on ISIS make victory more certain—or would it even matter?”[1] Among other things, it stated that today, “[m]ost legal scholars find a war declaration irrelevant.” Maybe so, but I’m not one of them. One scholar was quoted as saying that […]

By Sahand Moarefy By partially unwinding the sanctions regime against Iran, the United States has sought to achieve two goals: provide Iran some meaningful level of economic relief such that it carries through with its commitment to scale back its nuclear program, while preserving the U.S.’s architecture of sanctions that target Iran for non-nuclear reasons. Barring any additional actions by […]

by Christopher Izant “[I]t would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will […]

This Article proffers a hitherto understated mechanism for the establishment, maintenance and cogent analysis of national security: the establishment and maintenance of religious pluralism. To date, official positions and scholarship sparingly comment on this assertion. To address these gaps and to offer a fresh perspective on this subject, this Article undertakes a legal analysis to buttress the notion that U.S. national security interests can be best served by working towards the establishment of religious pluralism around the globe. Due to its strategic relevance for U.S. national security, the case of Pakistan – and the constitutional and legal apparatus that undergirds its view of religious minorities – serves as a blueprint for understanding this new national security paradigm (“NNSP”).
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

On November 13, 2001 then-President George W. Bush issued a military order that would forever be remembered. His military order “called for the [S]ecretary of [D]efense to detain non-citizens accused of international terrorism.” Specially, the order applied to members of al Qaeda, and “all those who have engaged in, aided, or conspired to commit international terrorist acts against the United States or its citizens.” The Secretary of Defense “[was] charged with establishing military tribunals (also called military commissions) to conduct trials of non-citizens accused of terrorism either in the United States or in other parts of the world.” Then-President Bush’s military order created the United States (U.S.) Military Commissions that have been the center of continued national and international criticism.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin delivered remarks at Harvard Law School on Thursday, December 3rd at an event hosted by the Harvard National Security Journal.