Right now, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Intelligence Committee's Chairman, is speaking out, on the Senate floor, about a well-publicized dispute between the CIA and the SSCI---regarding the latter's review of documents pertaining to the CIA's interrogation practices in the years following 9/11, and the CIA's auditing of Committee staffers' computer use during the review.
Latest in Interrogation: Criminal: Miranda
So report the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Wednesday on the Senate floor, three senators spoke about the Obama administration's decision to prosecute, in a federal court, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law and Al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith. Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham unsurprisingly opposed this approach, and argued instead that Abu Ghaith should have been sent to GTMO for interrogation, detention, and (potentially) trial by military commission.
As Ritika notes below, the United States has captured a senior al Qaeda figure (Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, who was the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden), and will be bringing him to the United States for prosecution in civilian court. One important question this story raises is whether it is right to think of this as a continuation of the "Warsame model," or if instead this reflects a policy decision to steer even fu
Under the snazzy headline "Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns," today's Washington Post has a long article on the overseas arrest, detention, and subsequent criminal indictment in New York (civilian) federal court of three "European men with Somali roots." The article claims (with emphasis added) that:
Yesterday the D.C. Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Mohammed, in which the defendant, Afghan citizen Khan Mohammed, appealed his conviction on narcoterrorism charges stemming from his involvement in a plot to attack a NATO base in Afghanistan. Of particular relevance to Lawfare readers is the court's broad interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 960a, which criminalizes drug trafficking that financially benefits terrorists.
An important story from Ben Weiser at the New York Times, from this morning, describes an interesting new development in the prosecution of Mohamed Ibrahim Ahmed--a case that receives little attention, but is in fact quite important. Ahmed is an Eritrean citizen and Swedish resident, arrested in Nigeria in 2009 on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. He was interrogated there by the Nigerian authorities first, then by a team of U.S.
As I noted on Tuesday, Adis Medunjanin was convicted this week in connection with the NYC subway bombing plot. Previously, he had moved to suppress inculpatory statements he’d made after his arrest, and the judge has now issued an opinion explaining the denial of the motion. Given the importance of the issue (post-capture questioning in a terrorism-related case), the decision is worth reading in full. For those who do not have time, the short version is that the court rejected three distinct arguments: that the government violated Edwards by questioning the defendant without cou
Here is the prepared text, released by the White House, of John Brennan's speech at the Harvard Law School-Brookings conference now under way in Cambridge. I will post video, including of the very interesting Q&A, as soon as I can:
Remarks of John O. Brennan – As Prepared for Delivery
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Program on Law and Security
Harvard Law School
Friday, September 16, 2011
“Strengthening our Security by Adhering to our Values and Laws”
Well, this is timely. The Journal of National Security Law & Policy has just published this 104-page article from David Kris (who recently stepped down as the AAG for the National Security Division at DOJ) titled “Criminal Prosecution as a Counterterrorism Tool”. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction: