A grand jury in Ohio has indicted Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud, a recently-naturalized US citizen and resident of Columbus, with two material support counts (and one false statement count) based on allegations that he traveled to Syria to fight, that he received military-style training from al Nusrah, and that he came back to the United States after receiving directions from "a cleric in the organization" who told him "he should return to the United States and carry out an act of terror
Latest in Criminal Law: Substantive
A very, very big arrest in Cincinnati today, involving allegations that a man named Christopher Cornell (online alias Raheel Mahrus Ubaydah) had planned to travel to DC in order to carry out an attack (via assault rifle) at the Capitol. It appears Cornell was arrested today after he purchased two ArmaLite M-15s. How did the FBI know?
James Connell III, lawyer for 9/11 accused Ammar al-Baluchi, had this to say today:
It now appears that the next military commissions case in which the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument is that of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri ("Nashiri"), with oral argument scheduled before an as-yet unnamed three-judge panel on Tuesday, February 10, 2015.
Does translating “radical” Arab texts and videos amount to material support for terrorism? That is the question that would face the Supreme Court, should they decide to take up Mehanna v. United States. (For full background and facts on the case, see our extensive prior coverage here.)
I am thumbing through the long-awaited and seemingly split ruling, which opens as follows:
Exporting the Preemptive Prosecution Model: AG Holder on Countering the Syrian Foreign Fighter Threat
Attorney General Holder gave an important speech in Oslo today, highlighting the threat posed by "foreign fighters" in Syria who may one day return to Europe or the United States. He advocated a four-pronged approach that he urged all concerned countries to involve, including (i) adoption of the sort of criminal laws that have enabled the United States to intervene preemptively in terrorism-related cases (particularly the "material support" concept), (ii) use of undercover operations to smoke out suspects, (iii) better international information-sharing regarding persons traveling to and fr
Such was the exceedingly unshocking result of this morning's exceedingly brief detention hearing in the criminal case against Ahmed Abu Khattala.
My very first Lawfare post, back in December 2011, focused on the messy constitutional question raised by United States v. Ali—a case then pending before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that raised the constitutionality of subjecting civilian military contractors to military, rather than civilian, trials.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Ben Weiser reported that Abu Ghaith’s case has renewed the “debate” over civilian terrorism trials. To my ear, this sounds a bit like today’s debates over New Coke, or the Dukakis Campaign.