Chapter 4. Detention of Terrorist Operatives 226 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Developing a workable definition of “unlawful enemy belligerent” involves a complex synthesis of existing LOAC principles related to preventive detention of enemy belligerents and the realities of counter-terror operations. It is impossible to ignore the reality that the U.S. government has struggled in the face of the lack of clear LOAC authorities applicable to combating transnational terrorism, and the operational challenges of conducting effective counter-terrorism operations and has had difficulty developing a logical and clearly legitimate approach to preventive detention of transnational terrorists. As a result, the courts have been called upon to intervene to clarify the law, and are now decisively engaged in rendering decisions that eventually will provide clearer guidance on the scope of the authority of the U.S. government to detain terrorists.
- Earlier in the opinion, the Court emphasized that the “principles” it referenced in the extract quoted above were the principles derived from the law of war permitting the preventive detention of These principles, according to the Court, were implicitly invoked by Congress when it authorized the President to use all “necessary and appropriate” force against “nations, organizations, or persons associated with the September 11th terrorist attacks.” In short, Congress had authorized the President to invoke the same principle of military necessity that had been central to the Court’s endorsement of preventive detention of the German saboteurs in 1942.
- opinion therefore explicitly validated the legality of preventive detention of enemy combatants, it did not provide a comprehensive definition of the term “enemy combatant,” which is laced with ambiguity in the context of counter-terror operations. Instead, the Court expressly left the definitional process to the lower courts, noting, “[t]he legal category of enemy combatant has not been elaborated upon in great detail. The permissible bounds of the category will be defined by the lower courts as subsequent cases are presented to them.”
- In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant’s return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of “necessary and appropriate force,” Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here.
- However, there was also some evidence that the principle of humane treatment reflected in common article 3 was more broadly applicable. For several decades, as noted above, the armed forces of the United States had applied the principle of humane treatment to all military operations as a matter of Department of Defense policy. Ultimately, the intersection of the ‘internal’ interpretation of the concept of non-international armed conflict with the decision to designate the struggle against transnational terrorism as an international armed conflict exposed a lacunae in LOAC regulation that was identified and in view of many exploited by the legal interpretations endorsed by President Bush.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Targeting Terrorists With Military Force 121 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Ultimately, compliance with the proportionality principle is contingent on good faith judgments of attacking commanders. In fact, the complexity of complying with this principle in the context of counter-insurgency operations is a major factor in the imposition of policy based constraints on the use of combat power, such as command imposed restrictions on the use of indirect fire support (weapons that do not have line of sight with the intended target when fired, such as artillery) in civilian populated areas. It must, however, be emphasized that the imposition of such constraints in the form of command directives (normally rules of engagement) do not necessarily reflect the inherent illegality of causing civilian casualties in the effort to destroy military objectives. Instead, they reflect additional layers of operational restraint imposed on U.S. forces for a variety of political, strategic, and policy reasons.
- The targeting process is therefore perhaps the most fundamental manifestation of the LOAC principle of military necessity, a principle considered by most LOAC experts as a core principle of the This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that military necessity is a principle derived from some of the original sources of the LOAC. Furthermore, because the authority to detect, destroy, or disable terrorist capabilities is the essential byproduct of invoking the principle of military necessity, it is equally unsurprising that the invocation of this principle (explicitly or implicitly through the exercise of authority historically reserved for situations of armed conflict), is a significant motivation for why the United States would choose to characterize the struggle against transnational terror as an armed conflict.
- Application of the proportionality rule is also a critical aspect of targeting terrorist belligerent forces. This rule has also been characterized by the International Court of Justice as a cardinal principle of the LOAC and like the rule of military objective is applicable in all armed conflicts. Indeed, the principle of proportionality operates as a critical complement to the principle of military objective by ensuring that the collateral or incidental effects of an otherwise lawful attack are not so excessive as to negate the legitimacy of the attack.
- In the context of military operations to destroy, disable, or disrupt transnational terrorist organizations, whatever standard is devised for designating opposition groups subject to targeting must be consistent with the underlying purposes of the LOAC. Any state invoking the authority of the principle of military necessity and engaging in attacks based on the rule of military objective in order to attack a non-state enemy, must ensure that the complementary targeting principles of proportionality and minimization of civilian risk are also applied. Once a military commander is authorized to engage an opponent with combat power based solely on a determination of the status of that opponent (irrespective of the status determination criteria), that commander must understand his obligation to comply with the principles of the LOAC that operate to limit the suffering resulting from the application of that combat power. Such a balanced application of authority and humanity is central to the
- Proportionality in the armed conflict context also exposes another crucial difference between LOAC based targeting and law enforcement based use of force. In the law enforcement context, the principle of proportionality operates to protect the object of state violence by allowing only that amount of force necessary to subdue a hostile actor. Thus, when a police officer employs force against a civilian, the officer is prohibited from using deadly force if less than lethal force would suffice to reduce the threat. Immediate resort to deadly force is therefore justified only when less than lethal force would be ineffective to respond to the threat. In contrast, the LOAC principle of proportionality is not intended and does not protect the lawful object of state violence—the enemy combatant. Once that status is determined, use of deadly force as a measure of first resort is lawful precisely because the individual qualifies as a lawful military objective. While use of less than lethal...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Prosecuting Terrorist Sponsors and Facilitators 155 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Extraterritorial jurisdiction is also permitted based on the universal principle. Under section 2339B(d)(1)(C), there is jurisdiction over an offense if “an offender is brought into or found in the United States, even if the conduct required for the offense occurs outside the United States.” In such a case, extraterritorial jurisdiction attaches regardless of the location of the offense (territorial principle), the nationality of the offender (nationality principle) or victim (passive personality principle), and regardless of whether the offense threatens the national security or governmental functions of the United States (protective principle). Jurisdiction based solely on the offender’s presence in the United States, supports the view that the provision of material support or resources to an FTO is a universal crime.
- Section 2339B(d) authorizes jurisdiction based on the subjective theory of the territorial principle; there is jurisdiction over a violation of section 2339B if “the offense occurs in whole or in part within the United States.” However, the statute does not explicitly authorize jurisdiction under the objective theory form of the territorial principle.
- Section 2339C is limited to providing or collecting funds for certain predicate acts, including offenses within the scope of nine counter-terrorism treaties. For purposes of section 2339C, the term “treaty” refers to the following international conventions ratified by the United States:
- Finally, the passive personality principle authorizes a state to assert jurisdiction over the offenses committed against their citizens abroad. Jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the victim. In , the D.C. Circuit stated. “Under the passive personality principle, a state may punish non-nationals for crimes committed against its nationals outside of its territory, at least where the state has a particularly strong interest in the crime.” The passive personality principle is the most controversial of the five sources of jurisdiction. The
- Section 2339C authorizes jurisdiction for offenses committed outside of the United States. The statute confers extraterritorial jurisdiction under the nationality principle, which provides that a State may prescribe laws regulating the conduct of its nationals wherever the conduct occurs. The nationality principle has been expanded to permit jurisdiction based on “domicile or residence,” Consistent with this broader application of the nationality principle, section 2339C confers extraterritorial jurisdiction where the offense was committed abroad by a U.S. national or the offender’s habitual residence is in the United States. The statute also authorizes extraterritorial jurisdiction based on the universal principle. Section 2339C(b)(2)(B) confers jurisdiction regardless of where the offense took place if the perpetrator was found in the United States. ...of jurisdiction based solely on the perpetrator’s presence within the United States supports the view that terrorist financing is...
- Open Chapter
Preface 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- No other event since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War has shaped the national security policy of the United States more profoundly than the terror attacks of that tragic day. Almost immediately following these attacks, it became clear that the United States would leverage every instrument of national power to detect, disrupt, and when possible destroy international terrorists and the resources necessary for their operations. This represented a profound philosophical shift in national security policy. On September 10, 2001, the threat of terrorism, while undoubtedly understood as genuine and significant, was viewed almost exclusively through the lens of law enforcement. Criminal investigation and prosecution were the predominant tools in the arsenal of counter-terrorism. Even that term—counter-terrorism—reflected a mentality that terrorism was a reality that had to be managed. By September 12, 2001, that philosophy changed dramatically. Literally overnight...
- National security involves leveraging every possible component of national power in order to achieve the security objective. The mnemonic DIMEC represents the components of national power that the government seeks to leverage in this process. Each of these letters represents an important source of that power: D for diplomacy; I for intelligence; M for military; E for economic, and C for criminal. Using each of these sources of national power in the effort to disrupt or defeat the terrorist threat is a complex and challenging process. One factor that adds to this complexity is that the use of these components of national power implicates both domestic and international law. The study of terrorism law is therefore the study of how these sources of law authorize or constrain the leveraging of these components of national power, and how policies for the purpose of achieving the objective of protecting the nation from this threat have evolved within this legal framework.
- Further, Congress has enacted several important statutes authorizing civil liability for personal injury or death caused by acts of international terrorism. Civil causes of action benefit the victims of terrorism by affording them the remedies of American tort law against the actual perpetrators of terrorist acts as well as their financial sponsors and facilitators. While the prospect of large civil monetary judgments may arguably have minimal or no deterrent value for the actual perpetrators of terrorist attacks, such causes of action may deter secondary actors such as corrupt charities and banks from providing and collecting funds or providing financial services to foreign terrorist organizations. However, as will be discussed in later chapters, plaintiffs face enormous legal obstacles to the enforcement of civil monetary judgments against the aiders and abettors of terrorist acts.
- In many ways this is a narrative that continues and will continue to be written. Contrary to the hopes of many of the supporters of candidate Obama, President Obama does not appear to be willing to abandon the wartime model for dealing with transnational terrorism. Instead, like his predecessor President Bush, he has continued to invoke all components of national power, including the military component, to deal with differing aspects of the struggle against transnational terrorism. It is therefore apparent that anybody who seeks to gain a genuine understanding of the law related to the struggle against terrorism, and in particular how the United States has and ostensibly will execute operations pursuant to that law, must gain an appreciation of the law that guides the invocation of the four core components of a national power related to this struggle: military, criminal, economic, as well as civil causes of action.
- The sentiment expressed by Captain Miller in the face of a wholly unexpected turn of events is in many ways a parable for the dilemma confronted by the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. The nation, and in particular the political leadership of the nation, was confronted with the dilemma of how to respond to a threat that had manifested itself in a manner and magnitude that had not been effectively contemplated. On that day, the world indeed did seem to have taken a turn for the surreal, but as Master Sergeant Horvath emphasized to Captain Miller, this in no way obviated the necessity for decisive action. How the United States would respond to the threat of future attacks from international terrorists, and more specifically how domestic and international law influenced that response, is the focus of this text.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. International Economic Sanctions 163 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Terrorist Bombing Convention imposes various duties and obligations on states parties to prevent and suppress terrorist bombing attacks. Article 4 imposes a duty on each state party to make terrorist bombing a criminal offense under its domestic law and to make the offense punishable by penalties which take into account the gravity of the offense. take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offense when committed in the territory of that state (territorial principle) or committed by a national of that state (nationality principle). take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offense “where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite that person to any of the States Parties which have established jurisdiction” under the treaty (universal principle). establish its jurisdiction over the offense when committed against a national of that state (passive personality principle), or a State...
- UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur [Martin Scheinin] on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, A/61/267, New York, 16 August 2006, ¶ 40.
- Iain Cameron, The European Convention on Human Rights, Due Process and United Nations Security Council Counter–Terrorism Sanctions (report prepared by Professor Iain Cameron for the European Council on Human Rights, Council of Europe, 6 February 2006)).
- , Human Rights and Terrorism, U.N. G.A. Res. 59/195, ¶ 1 (20 December 2004); Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, U.N. G.A. Res. 59/191, preamble (December 20th, 2004); Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, U.N. G.A. Res. 49/60, ¶ 1 (9 December, 1994); U.N. G.A. Res. 46/51, U.N. Doc. A/46/654 (December 9th, 1991).
- Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union,
- Open Chapter
Advisory Board Part 2 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Counter Terrorism, Armed Forces and the Laws of War
- UN General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur [Martin Scheinin] on the Promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, A/61/267, New York, 16 August 2006.
- Transnational Armed Conflict: A ‘‘Principled’’ Approach to the Regulation of Counter–Terror Combat Operations
- Iain Cameron, European Convention on Human Rights, Due Process and United Nations Security Council Counter—Terrorism Sanctions (report prepared by Professor Iain Cameron for the European Council on Human Rights, Council of Europe, 6 February 2006).
- Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, U.N. G.A. Res. 59/191, preamble (December 20th, 2004).
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Triggering the Law of Armed Conflict 188 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Counter–Terrorism, Armed Force and the Laws of War,
- Almost immediately following this decision, the world witnessed five weeks of intense combat operations between the Israeli Defense Forces and the armed component of Hezbollah. The intensity of this conflict, and especially the resulting collateral damage inflicted on civilians and civilian property, immediately shifted the international focus of LOAC applicability from the humane treatment principle implicated in the decision to other core LOAC principles, including distinction, proportionality, and necessity. This conflict and the international response it evoked indicate an obvious reality: that the international community expected compliance with these principles during all armed conflicts not merely as a matter of policy but as a matter of legal obligation. In essence, the international reaction to this conflict implicated the same rationale relied on by the Supreme Court in ...-international armed conflict. However, the issues of concern related to that conflict indicate...
- THE PRE 9/11 PERCEPTION OF MILITARY COUNTER–TERROR OPERATIONS
- AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW: REJECTING THE DESIGNATION OF COUNTER–TERROR OPERATIONS AS ARMED CONFLICT
- Transnational Armed Conflict: A ‘Principled’ Approach to the Regulation of Counter–Terror Combat Operations,
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 53 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A. The Pre 9/11 Perception of Military Counter–Terror Operations
- F. An Alternative View: Rejecting the Designation of Counter–Terror Operations as Armed Conflict
- Chapter 6. Gathering Counter–terrorism Intelligence Information
- B. Counter–Terrorist Financing Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2339C
- A. International Counter–Terrorism Resolutions
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. The Legal Basis for the Use of Force 109 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The potential impact of this amendment on U.S. officials responsible for ordering the execution of counter-terror military operations in the future seems too speculative to really assess at this point. Even assuming the United States accedes to the treaty and therefore becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, how the Security Council and/or prosecutor would interpret such operations is impossible to predict. Nonetheless, the incorporation by the amendment of the Resolution 3314 definition is an important endorsement of the significance of that definition.
- It is clear that the response to the terror attacks of September 11th, and what came to be known as the Bush doctrine of preemption, went beyond the Caroline imminence principles and called into question the U.S. commitment to those principles. Many critics of the Bush doctrine challenged the assertion that use of force could be justified in self-defense as a preemptive measure. They argued that this was nothing more than a subterfuge to provide legal sanction for preventive military action, an exercise of authority unjustified by the inherent right of self-defense and inconsistent with the U.N. Charter. Others, including the Bush administration, took the position that the nature of the threat of terrorism required a more expansive interpretation of the concept of imminence.
- the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,
- Characterizing terrorism as an armed attack has profound legal consequences. The first of these consequences is that the victim state may consider the act of terrorism as an event triggering the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. State action pursuant to this authority will itself trigger a legal framework fundamentally distinct from the normal law enforcement framework historically relied on to deal with terrorism. As a result, use of military power will likely follow such a characterization, and that use will involve an exercise of state power that would be considered legally prohibited pursuant to a law enforcement legal framework, allowing for deprivations of life, liberty, and property in a manner inconsistent with peacetime legal authorities. The U.S. response to the terror attacks of September 11th provide the quintessential example of how characterizing terrorism as a threat justifying resort to the use of force in self-defense produces significant...
- The controversy surrounding the invocation of the inherent right of self-defense as a preemptive measure certainly predates the threat of international terrorism. Scholars have long debated the triggering criteria for this right. As a general proposition, a requirement of imminence has always been the accepted standard for the legitimate use of force in self-defense. This imminence requirement is directly related to the fact that the authority to act in self-defense is an exception to the presumptive prohibition against use of force. It therefore requires a narrow interpretation of the self-defense exception in order to operate consistently with the overall framework for the use of force established by the U.N. Charter. Accordingly, while preemptive self-defense has and remains an accepted principle in the use of force equation, preventive self-defense has always been perceived as legally invalid.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Gathering Counter–Terrorism Intelligence Information 190 results (showing 5 best matches)
- 15 U.S.C. § 1681u (“information is sought for the conduct of an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities”); 12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5)(A) (“records are sought for foreign counter intelligence purposes to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities”).
- Financial institutions, and officers, employees, and agents thereof, shall comply with a request for a customer’s or entity’s financial records made pursuant to this subsection by the Federal Bureau of Investigation when the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (or the Director’s designee in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Directory) certifies in writing to the financial institution that such records are sought for foreign counter intelligence purposes to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities….
- ., enacted in 1978, provides a statutory framework for the use of electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence information. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, FISA, as amended, has become a prominent tool used by the Government to collect foreign intelligence information to prevent terrorist attacks and conduct international terrorism investigations. As originally enacted, FISA governed the collection of foreign intelligence information through the use of electronic surveillance of “foreign powers” and “agents of foreign powers” as those terms were defined under the Act. Subsequent legislation expanded FISA to address gathering foreign intelligence information through the use of physical searches, FISA was a response by Congress to three related concerns: “(1) the judicial confusion over the existence, nature and scope of a foreign intelligence exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement that arose in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 1972...
- Acts of terrorism directed at the United States at home and abroad constitute a preeminent national security threat. To counter these attacks, the Government has employed existing criminal investigation techniques while developing a new legal framework to adapt to the evolving threats of global terrorism. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and National Security Letters (NSLs) have proven to be invaluable investigative tools enabling the Government to discover and prevent terrorist plots before they mature. FISA allows the Government to gather counterterrorism intelligence information through the use of electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen registers, trap and trace devices, as well as access business records and other tangible things. At the same time, FISA imposes important procedural safeguards to protect against abuse by law enforcement, including minimization procedures and a requirement that a significant purpose of the FISA order is to obtain foreign...
- “Together the two NSL provisions afforded the FBI access to communications and financial business records under limited circumstances—customer and customer transaction information held by telephone carriers and banks pertaining to a foreign power or its agents relevant to a foreign counter-intelligence investigation.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Civil Liability—Private Actions Against Terrorists and their Sponsors 324 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This requirement of clear definition is not meant to be the only principle limiting the availability of relief in the federal courts for violations of customary international law, though it disposes of this case. For example, the European Commission argues as amicus curiae that basic principles of international law require that before asserting a claim in a foreign forum, the claimant must have exhausted any remedies available in the domestic legal system, and perhaps in other fora such as international claims tribunals. We would certainly consider this requirement in an appropriate case.
- First, Central Bank addressed extending aiding and abetting liability to an implied right of action, not an express right of action as we have here in section 2333. Second, Congress expressed an intent in the terms and history of section 2333 to import general tort law principles, and those principles include aiding and abetting liability. Third, Congress expressed an intent in section 2333 to render civil liability at least as extensive as criminal liability in the context of terrorism cases, and criminal liability attaches to aiders and abettors of terrorism. Fourth, failing to extend section 2333 liability to aiders and abettors is contrary to Congress’ stated purpose of cutting off the flow of money to terrorists at every point along the chain of causation.
- at 166. Attacks against innocent civilians during and armed conflict is prohibited by the laws and customs of war. The “principle of distinction,” which requires parties to the conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants, forbids the deliberate attacking of civilians. 2 L. OPPENHEIM, INTERNATIONAL LAW § 214, at 524 (H. Lauterpacht ed., 7th ed. 1961); 1 JEAN–MARIE HENCKAERTS & LOUISE DOSWALD–BECK, CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW 3–4 (2005). This principle is also reflected in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which provides in pertinent part:
- While the principle of distinction and the Geneva Conventions apply expressly only in situations of armed conflict, their long-standing existence supports the conclusion, made explicit in the Bombing and Financing Conventions, that attacks against innocent civilians of the type alleged here are condemned by international law.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Trial by Military Tribunal 247 results (showing 5 best matches)
- plurality seriously questioned this basic jurisdictional premise of an armed conflict between the United States and al Qaeda, at least beginning on September 11, 2001. Indeed, by focusing on the nature of the allegation of conspiracy and the procedural defects of the commission, was, if anything, an implicit endorsement of the treatment of the struggle as an armed conflict subject to the LOAC. Accordingly, assuming terrorist operatives are in fact engaged in a non-international armed conflict, complying with this limitation required alleging offenses derived from the LOAC applicable to such conflicts. This provides a limited, although increasingly expanding body of treaty rules and norms for which war crimes liability may be imposed. The most obvious source of liability would be violations of the principle of humanity as reflected in Common Article 3. standard of conduct for any and all participants in any armed conflict—not necessarily as a matter of treaty obligation,
- No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure …
- Statute of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, adopted by S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., 3217th mtg., U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993);
- When is a war not a war?—The proper role of the law of armed conflict in the “global war on terror”,
- AW OF
- Open Chapter
Index 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Counter–Terrorism Committee (CTC), 345
- Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism Convention Implementation Act of 2002, 339
- Army Regulation on Interrogation of Prisoners of War and Detainees, 142, 148, 150
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 397–98
- Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GCC), 114–15, 137, 158
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Domestic Economic Sanctions 147 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The court stated that “[p]romptness is an important aspect of the due process right to be heard.” While there is no bright-line gauge for determining whether the government has provided a hearing with sufficient promptness, courts are to examine several factors, including the “importance of the private interest and the harm to this interest occasioned by delay; the justification offered by the government for delay and its relation to the underlying governmental interest; and the likelihood that the interim decision may have been mistaken.” The court found that KindHearts had a substantial private interest-the loss of access to its assets. Finally, while the material provided to KindHearts may reasonably support OFAC’s allegations, the court stated that does not justify the length of the government’s delay in giving KindHearts an opportunity to be heard. ...whose assets are blocked pending investigation is entitled to prompt notice of the reasons for the blocking action. More... ...of...
- Executive Order 13224 also authorizes blocking all property and interests in property of foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General, “to have committed or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.” Thus, the Secretary of State as well as the Treasury Secretary may initiate designations and asset freeze Further, while Executive Order 13224 was certainly directed at members of al Qaeda, it is much broader in coverage, authorizing blocking all property and interests in property, of all persons who pose a threat of future terrorist attacks and threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.
- blocking assets. However, divergent views have emerged on whether OFAC’s method of post-designation notice is constitutionally adequate and comports with procedural due process. In , the District Court for the District of Columbia rejected plaintiff’s due process challenge. , the former chairman of Al–Haramain Islamic Foundation (AHF), an Islamic charity based in Saudi Arabia, brought action against the Secretary of the Treasury and other government officials, alleging that his designation as an SDGT by OFAC violated his due Plaintiff claimed that OFAC’s method of notice—posting a press release on the Treasury Department website-was inadequate and did not provide him with an understanding of the allegations against him in order to prepare a defense. The press release stated that a variety of sources and reports had identified Al–Aqeel as the Chairman, Director General and President of AHF, a designated SDGT. ...founder and leader, Al–Aqeel was responsible for all of AHF’s activities...
- Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. Treasury Department has blocked the assets of over 500 individuals and entities determined to be acting for or on behalf of, sponsoring, providing support or services to, or otherwise associated with suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations. Further, blocking actions have several important legal consequences. First, all property and interests in property of designated parties that are in the United States or that come within the United States, or within the possession of control of U.S. persons, are blocked. More specifically, U.S. persons are prohibited from “making or receiving … any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit” of persons determined to be subject Third, any transaction by any U.S. person that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding any of the prohibitions of the Executive Order is prohibited. ...may be assessed for violations of any license, order, or... ...of E....
- The blocking actions have been highly controversial and the subject of extensive legal challenges. Persons subject to asset freeze maintain that blocking orders violate the right of freedom of association and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. One group argues that blocking assets “substantially burdens” religious freedom because donations are intended to fulfill the religious obligation of their members to engage in charitable giving and blocking those funds interferes with that religious expression. Critics also maintain that such blocking orders constitute an unreasonable seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Also, blocking orders have been criticized for failing to provide adequate notice and a hearing to the property owner prior to his assets being blocked, in violation of the Due Process Clause. ...that the authority to block assets based on an entity’s support of and association with groups that have never engaged in terrorism is unconstitutionally...
- Open Chapter
Advisory Board 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley
- Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law,
- Open Chapter
Acknowledgments 2 results
- First, I would like to acknowledge the support provided by my coauthor. I am immensely indebted to Professor Gurulé for conceiving of this project, inviting me to participate, and offering consistently timely and salient comments on my drafts. Like my co-author, I too owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the tremendous contributions of my research assistants, all students at South Texas College of Law. Without their collective efforts, this project simply would not have come to fruition. Kareem Salem’s South Texas counterpart equally entitled to special praise is Jessica Poarch (Class of 2012). Her tireless commitment to supporting this effort was in many ways decisive. However, she was not alone in her efforts, and I simply could not have completed this project without the contributions of Lorne Brook (Class of 2012), Thomas Kelley (Class of 2012), and Nalaka Senaratne (Class 2012). Finally, I would like to especially thank all the outstanding mentors ...The foundation of knowledge...
- I would like to compliment an outstanding group of Notre Dame Law students who contributed to the P
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Part 1. The Military Response 1 result
Copyright Page 2 results
- Thomson Reuters created this publication to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered. However, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. Thomson Reuters does not render legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Printed in the United States of America
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: December 20th, 2010
- ISBN: 9780314205445
- Subject: Terrorism
- Series: Concise Hornbook Series
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: The book examines the military and law enforcement responses to international terrorism. Subjects include the legal authority to use military force; determining when the law of armed conflict comes into force; the law of targeting and how this authority is applied to terrorist operatives; preventive detention; prosecution of terrorists by military commission; the legal framework for gathering counter-terrorism intelligence information; prosecuting terrorists and their sponsors; freezing terrorist assets; and civil liability for personal injury or death caused by acts of international terrorism.