Recently in Terrorism Category

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral argument today in the case of the surviving Boston Marathon Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Jon Kamp has this report for the WSJ. Looks like the main issues are change of venue and jury selection. There is also an argument about the defense's attempt to introduce evidence implicating the older brother in another murder, but the probative value of that seems quite weak.

Once again, we see a tragic demonstration that leniency to the evil is cruelty to the innocent. Usman Khan stabbed five people, killing two of them, on London Bridge last week. Jason Collie reports for the Evening Standard that Khan had been convicted of terrorism offenses in 2012. He "originally received an indeterminate sentence for public protection but this was quashed at the Court of Appeal in April 2013 and he was given a determinate 16-year jail term." "He was released from prison in December 2018 on licence ...."

Clint Watts of the Foreign Policy Research Institute has this essay in the weekend WSJ:

In fact, the for­mula for re­sponding to Amer­i­ca's white su­premacist ter­ror­ism emergency is quite clear--in part be­cause of our hard-won ex­pe­ri­ence fight­ing ji­hadists from al Qaeda and its spawn, Is­lamic State. We must swiftly and care­fully ap­ply the best prac­tices of the two decades since Sept. 11, 2001, to counter this decade's do­mes­tic ter­ror­ist threat--by pass­ing new laws, in­creas­ing re­sources and en­hanc­ing in­ves­tiga­tive ca­pa­bil­ities.

There just is no moral bottom for those who strive to suppress Politically Incorrect opinions.

The family-run Twitter account of a young girl who went viral for posing in photos mocking New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been pulled. The family claims to have received death threats for using their daughter to parody photos of a visit Ocasio-Cortez made to a migrant detention camp last year.

Earlier this week, the account had tweeted out several photos of "Mini AOC," an 8-year-old girl named Ava ... widely known for her impersonations of Ocasio-Cortez, standing outside a fenced-off park in an all-white outfit and red lipstick, looking visibly upset.

Authorities charged a Florida man Friday in connection with the packages containing suspected explosive devices sent to prominent Democrats and outspoken critics of President Trump this week.

Cesar Sayoc, 56 years old, was arrested in the Miami area Friday. Mr. Sayoc, a Trump supporter, is a failed entrepreneur and a former manager of a male revue with a history of arrests.

At a Justice Department press conference in Washington, officials said he would face five federal counts including interstate transportation of an explosive, illegal mailing of explosives and making threats against former presidents. The charges in total carry a potential penalty of 58 years in prison, officials said.

"This is utterly unacceptable. Political violence, or the threat of violence, is antithetical to our vigorous system of self government," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.

"This is a law and order administration," Mr. Sessions said. "We will not tolerate such lawlessness, especially not political violence."

Packages containing pipe-bomb-type devices addressed to former President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.) and CNN were intercepted by authorities and investigators are looking into whether Democrats are being targeted, federal and local officials said Wednesday.

A new judge taking over the 9/11 military tribunal could finally bring "sanity" to the painfully slow prosecution, a sister of a victim and a retired FAA agent who warned of the attack told the Herald.

"It's a travesty this has gone on for so long," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was one of the pilots murdered 17 years ago Tuesday.

"It makes our country look like fools," she added. "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Army Judge Col. James L. Pohl is retiring on Sept. 30 and has handed the tribunal over to Marine Col. Keith A. Parrella.

He picks up the death-penalty case against 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged accomplices.

*      *      *

"Think of all the adult victims whose parents were alive at the time of the attack. Many are now gone. This has taken too long. It's ridiculous," [Ms. Burlingame] said. "Nobody could have been worse than Judge Pohl. ... I'm hoping the new judge will feel a sense of responsibility."

That is apparent from five sources of law: the text and original understanding of Article I, the overall structure of the Constitution, landmark Supreme Court precedent, longstanding federal statutes, and deeply rooted U.S. military commission practice.

First, the text and original understanding of Article I demonstrate that international law does not impose a limit on Congress's authority to make offenses triable by military commission.

Imagine that, not only looking to the text and original understanding of the Constitution, but looking to them first. That is really the only approach to constitutional interpretation that is consistent with a respect for the people's right of self-government, i.e., democracy. The Constitution means what the people meant it to mean until the people, not the courts, change it.

And given that a Justice Kavanaugh would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy -- the swing vote in several key national security cases (such as Boumediene v. Bush, in which the Supreme Court held that Guantanamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus) -- his impact in this area of the law could bring significant change when such cases reach the court.

Given that Boumediene was wrongly decided (see CJLF brief), that would be a significant change in the correct direction.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump's third executive order on the "travel ban" yesterday.  The case is Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965.  The case came down pretty much as expected from oral argument.  See this post.

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, involving the third version of the President Trump's executive order sharply limiting immigration from certain countries.  The transcript is on the Court's website.

Most observers think that the argument went well for the Government.  Amy Howe at Howe on the Court says, "After over an hour of debate, a majority of the court (and perhaps even a solid one) appeared ready to rule for the government and uphold the order in response to concerns about second-guessing the president on national-security issues."

So it should.  This version of the order is solid and carefully considered.  It is well within the Chief Executive's sweeping authority over these issues.

CJLF did not file an amicus brief in this stage of the litigation.  For "Travel Ban 2.0," we filed a brief arguing that the case was moot.  We were the only ones to make a substantial argument to that effect in the main briefing (although the SG came along in a supplemental), and that was the holding of the Court.  We considered it strategically better for the Court to reach the merits in TB 3.0 rather than TB 2.0 because it is much more defensible ground.

Expect an opinion at the very end of the term in late June or early July.

Back in September, the 90-day travel ban on immigration from six particularly problematic countries expired, and in October the Supreme Court dismissed the challenges to the ban as moot.  See posts of September 24, September 26, October 10 and October 24. As envisioned in the original executive order, the short-term ban was replaced by a more detailed, considered rule based on the ability and willingness of the countries at issue (a somewhat different set from the prior six) to provide the information needed to vet those seeking entry.

Despite the marked differences in the orders, a U.S. District Judge in Hawaii granted a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the key section except as to Venezuela and North Korea. A single district judge, it seems, is now better suited than the Department of Homeland Security to determine if the means chosen by DHS, in consultation with the Departments of State and Defense, is a good fit to the end to be achieved on a matter of national security and foreign relations. Or at least he thinks he is.

The government consented to the conversion of the TRO to a preliminary injunction to make it appealable. The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction, with the major exception of "foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." That is a hole you can drive a truck through (a truck loaded with explosives), so the government has asked the Supreme Court for a complete stay.

As noted in this post Sunday, the 90-day travel ban in the case before the Supreme Court expired on that day and was replaced by a very different order.  The 120-day refugee restriction will expire in October.  Yesterday the Supreme Court took the case off the calendar and ordered the parties to further brief the mootness issue:

The parties are directed to file letter briefs addressing whether, or to what extent, the Proclamation issued on September 24, 2017, may render cases No. 16-1436 and 16-1540 moot. The parties should also address whether, or to what extent, the scheduled expiration of Sections 6(a) and 6(b) of Executive Order No. 13780 may render those aspects of case No. 16-1540 moot. The briefs, limited to 10 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before noon, Thursday, October 5, 2017. The cases are removed from the oral argument calendar, pending further order of the Court.

CJLF's amicus brief supporting neither party, specifically on mootness, is here.  Amy Howe has this post at Howe on the Court, republished at SCOTUSblog.

The same executive order that announced a 90-day travel ban for selected countries also directed cabinet officers to develop a more tailored approach to countries that cannot or will not provide the information needed to vet people coming in.  The 90-day ban expires today, and the Administration announced the replacement package in a Presidential proclamation.

Laura Meckler has this story in the WSJ.  See also Friday's post.