terrorism

  • May 26, 2011
    BookTalk
    Infringement Nation
    Copyright 2.0 and You
    By: 
    John Tehranian

    By John Tehranian, the Irwin R. Buchalter Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School and the Biederman Entertainment and Media Law Institute in Los Angeles, California, and a founding partner of One LLP.


    Shortly after taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama announced that he would end the use of Guantanamo Bay as a detention camp for enemy combatants in the war on terrorism.  Although it appears increasingly unlikely that the President will achieve this goal any time in the near future, the eventual closing of the facility would potentially do away with a number of controversial policies.  Of those practices, one of the more unusual was the military’s arguably infringing use of music on the prisoners. The soundtrack to Guantanamo Bay, it turns out, was replete with copyrighted songs meant to addle and unnerve, especially on repeat. And, apparently, the government lacked an appropriate license to publicly perform these songs. 

    As a preliminary matter, the playlist at Guantanamo — at least during the Bush years — was, according to press reports, filled with curious choices. For example, it included Fuck Your God — a particularly bizarre selection considering the Bush Administration’s religiosity and the federal government’s position, through the FCC, on the use of indecent language in other contexts. Guantanamo Bay’s Top Ten List — the songs most frequently played to interrogate prisoners — featured a perverse smorgasbord of heavy metal, children’s music, and (seemingly) patriotic stadium rock:

  • July 21, 2010
    Guest Post

    David Mortlock is the author of a recent article on this topic in the Harvard Law & Policy Review.
    The United States has yet to settle on a definition of enemy combatant. The Supreme Court spent the past decade determining whether and how detainees could challenge their detention but explicitly avoided the question of whether they could be detained in the first place. The debate has divided not only political rivals, but also, as the New York Times recently detailed, seniors official in the current Administration.

    A handful of district and circuit courts have begun to examine the scope of the President's authority to subject enemy combatants to military detention without charges, a jury trial, or any of the other trappings of criminal detention. Some parties have taken the position that the President lacks detention authority in the fight against a terrorist group, while others argue that the President may detain even unwitting supporters of al Qaeda. The courts have reached a number of different conclusions.

    In my article, Definite Detention: The Scope of the President's Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants, I suggest that Congress has authorized the President to subject members of al Qaeda and the Taliban to military detention, whether or not they engage in combat. However, the President may not use military detention for mere supporters or sympathizers of those groups. This membership model could also be used to determine the appropriate time for release. Namely, detainees could be freed when they sever their membership in al Qaeda or the Taliban.

    Nonetheless, the debate is far from over. While a number of district courts have adopted this membership model, the D.C. Circuit recently suggested in dicta that an individual could be subjected to military detention merely for supporting the Taliban. The decision indicates that this debate could continue for many years.

  • February 11, 2010
    Later this month the Supreme Court will consider a case pitting First Amendment rights of a Los-Angeles based nonprofit against the federal government's ability to counter terrorism.

    Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, The New York Times' Adam Liptak writes, "represents the court's first encounter with the free speech and association rights of American citizens in the context of terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks - and its first chance to test the constitutionality of a provision of the USA Patriot Act." 

    The Humanitarian Law Project, headed by Ralph Fertig, says it has tried to work with members of Turkey's Kurdish population on ways to engage in peaceful protests, but that the government has stymied its efforts. Fertig and others lodged a lawsuit against the federal government's "material support" law, which bans organizations from providing assistance to international groups that the State Department has designated as terrorist organizations.

    David Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law School and an attorney for the Humanitarian Law Project, told the ABA Journal that the "material support" law is "so sweeping that it treats human rights activists as criminal terrorists." In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, striking the law as unconstitutional.

    Liptak notes that former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III and former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo maintain in a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court, that the "material support" law is an "optimal means to confront the unique challenges posed by terrorism."

    In a recent ACS Issue Brief, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, examined the "material support" law, writing that it has greatly hampered human rights work in some parts of the world.

    The high court will hear oral argument in the case on Feb. 23. 

     

  • August 21, 2009

    A frequently overlooked consequence of laws aimed at deterring support of terrorism is their effect on rendering humanitarian aid throughout the world.

    In his ACS Issue Brief, which is now available in the new issue of Advance, Ahilan T. Arulanantham writes that because of the "enormous breadth" of "material support" laws humanitarian groups and volunteers have scaled back their work. In A Hungry Child Knows No Politics: A Proposal for Reform of the Laws Governing Humanitarian Relief and ‘Material Support' of Terrorism, Arulanantham also notes that the laws barring material support of terrorism include "no general exception for humanitarian assistance, even if it is necessary to save the lives of people who happen to live in territory" controlled by groups that have been designated as terrorists. 

    Arulanantham writes:

    The current material support statute, with its limited exceptions and extremely broad intent requirement, leads to truly irrational results. A humanitarian organization may send medicine to perform dialysis, but risks prosecution if it also seeks to send either the doctor or the equipment needed to perform the dialysis itself. Surely we do not enhance our nation's security by enacting statutes that lead to such absurd, and cruel, results.

    All articles of the new issue of Advance: The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups are available here.