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 […]
Partially Unwinding Sanctions: The Problematic Construct of Sanctions Relief in the JCPOA
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. […]
Stingray Surveillance: Legal Rules by Statute or Subsumption?
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 […]
Religious Freedom as a National Security Imperative: A New Paradigm
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
U.S. v. Al Bahlul: Where It’s Been and Where It’s Going
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
So You’re Telling Me There’s A Chance: How the Articles on State Responsibility Could Empower Corporate Responses to State-Sponsored Cyber Attacks
By Daniel Garrie and Shane R. Reeves[1] Click here to read the full text as a PDF. “[U.S] information systems face thousands of attacks a day from criminals, terrorist organizations, and more recently from more than 100 foreign intelligence organizations.”[2] Looking forward, if the pace and intensity of attacks increase and are not met with […]