This surely confused at least some observers. The mission had been executed by U.S. Navy SEALs from Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) after all, and both operational and tactical command seemed to have resided at all times with JSOC personnel. But for those who had been following the evolution of the CIA and JSOC during the post-9/11 period, Panetta’s account would not have been surprising. The bin Laden raid was, from this perspective, merely the latest example of an ongoing process of convergence among military and intelligence activities, institutions, and
authorities.

NEW YORK – Mohammad Younis pleaded guilty today in Manhattan federal court to operating an unlicensed money transfer business between the United States and Pakistan.  One of the money transfers was used to fund the May 1, 2010, attempted car bombing in New York City’s Times Square by Faisal Shahzad who is serving a life sentence in federal prison, announced Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  Younis pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan.

U.S. Attorney Bharara stated: “This case should send a clear message that we will not leave a stone unturned in our investigations of terrorists and how they get the money to finance their plots.  Mohammed Younis engaged in illegal activity that, although unbeknownst to him, facilitated the funding of a potentially lethal attack in New York City.  He was apprehended by law enforcement and as a result, a possible funding stream for terror attacks is now a dry well.”

According to the indictment previously filed in this case, other court filings and statements made during today’s guilty plea proceeding:

From January to May 2010, Younis provided money transmitting services to individuals in the New York City area by assisting in the operation of a “hawala,” a type of informal value transfer system in which money does not physically cross international boundaries through the banking system.  In the hawala system, funds are transferred by customers to a hawala operator, or “hawaladar,” in one country, and corresponding funds, less any fees, are disbursed to recipients in another country by hawaladar associates on that end.

On April 10, 2010, Younis engaged in two separate hawala transactions with customers who traveled from Connecticut and New Jersey to meet with him in Long Island.  In each of the transactions, Younis provided thousands of dollars in cash to the individuals at the direction of a co-conspirator in Pakistan, but without knowledge of how the customers were planning to use the funds.  At no time did Younis have the license to operate a money transmitting business from either state or federal authorities.

One of the individuals to whom Younis provided money was Shahzad, who, on June 21, 2010, pleaded guilty to a 10-count indictment charging him with crimes relating to his attempt to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.  During the course of his plea allocution, Shahzad acknowledged receiving a cash payment in April 2010 in the United States to fund his preparations for the attempted bombing.  According to Shahzad, the April cash payment was arranged in Pakistan by associates of the Tehrik-e-Taliban, the militant extremist group based in Pakistan that trained him to make and use explosive devices.

On Sept. 15, 2010, Younis was arrested at his Long Island, N.Y., residence by agents of the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF).

Younis, 45, pleaded guilty to one count of conducting an unlicensed money transmitting business.  He faces a maximum term of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or double the gain or loss arising from his conduct.  In addition, he agreed to forfeit $12,000 to the United States.  He is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Keenan on Nov. 30, 2011, at 3:15 p.m.

Please see the attached pdf for the details for this terrific upcoming conference at Boston University School of Law. See also the information below:

Ten Years In: Appraising the International Law of the ‘Long War’ in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Friday, October 14, 2011

October 2011 will mark the 10-year anniversary of the U.S. conflict in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. This conference, cosponsored by Boston University School of Law, the U.S. Naval War College, and the American Society of International Law’s Francis Lieber Society, will examine current controversies in the law of armed conflict, the law governing recourse to force, and international human rights law arising out of the continuing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and related operations in Pakistan. Panelists will address, among other issues, counterinsurgency doctrine, the increasing individuation of warfare, the tactical directive, rules of engagement, the concept of “direct participation in hostilities,” unmanned systems, targeted killings, and cross-border operations. The keynote address will be delivered by Dr. David Kilcullen, founding CEO and President of Caerus Associates. During his distinguished career, Dr. Kilcullen has served as counterinsurgency adviser to NATO International Security Assistance Force, special adviser for counterinsurgency to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, senior counterinsurgency adviser to General David Petraeus, and chief strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. The Boston University International Law Journal will publish selected portions of the proceedings.

Conference sessions will take place on Friday, October 14 from 1:00 – 6:00 p.m, and will be held at BU’s School of Law, 765 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA. Please arrive by 12:30 p.m., to register and join us for coffee and light refreshments before the proceedings begin. This event is free and interested members of the public are cordially invited to attend. For academic questions, please contact Robert Sloane, Associate Professor of Law. To RSVP, please contact <a href="mailto:eaa, Events & Public Relations Manager.

afghanistan conference postcard 2011.pdf

A grand jury yesterday returned an indictment in the case of Naser Abdo, the guy recently arrested in connection with an alleged bomb plot in relation to Killeen (the same guy who shouted “Major Nidal Hassan 2009!” in the courtroom after his arrest). I assume there will be a superseding indictment at some point, as this first iteration merely charges possession of an unregistered destructive device and posession by a fugitive (remember, he was AWOL from Fort Campbell) of a firearm & ammo. That is, there is no charge as yet specific to plotting to bomb Fort Hood personnel or otherwise. Of course, that’s the tricky thing about the lone wolf scenario: no option to charge conspiracy and hence a bit more trouble in finding the right inchoate offense charge where the arrest occurs early on the spectrum of planning. Assuming it remains a lone wolf scenario, I suppose the question is whether prosecutors are having trouble convincing themselves, or the grand jury, to attach on attempt charge in relation to this particular fact pattern. In that regard, compare this fact pattern to United States v. Aldawsari, which involved another lone wolf bomb plot (a former student at Texas Tech who allegedly was planning to set off a bomb), in that case charged as an attempt under 18 USC 2332a (see here for more).

If prosecutors cannot add additional charges, note that these charges expose Abdo to a mere ten years in prison. In any event, here is the press release in Abdo’s case:

WACO, Texas — U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy and FBI Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelson announced that a federal grand jury seated in Waco returned an indictment this afternoon charging 21-year-old Naser Jason Abdo with possession of an unregistered destructive device as well as possession of a firearm and ammunition by a fugitive from justice.

The three-count indictment specifically alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo was in possession of a destructive device not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record as well as a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol and 20-gauge shot shells while being a fugitive from justice.

According to court records, officers with the Killeen, Texas, Police Department arrested Abdo on July 27, 2011. At the time of his arrest, the defendant, an AWOL soldier from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, was in possession of the handgun plus instructions on how to build a bomb as well as bomb making components, including six bottles of smokeless gunpowder, shotgun shells, shotgun pellets, two clocks, two spools of auto wire, an electric drill and two pressure cookers. Court documents also allege that Abdo intended to use the materials to assemble two destructive devices with the intention of detonating them inside an unspecified restaurant frequented by soldiers from Fort Hood.

Abdo remains in federal custody. If convicted, he faces up to ten years in federal prison and a maximum $250,000 fine per count.

…

Evan J. Criddle (Syracuse University College of Law)

87 Notre Dame Law Review (2011)

At a time when the United States has undertaken high-stakes counterinsurgency campaigns in three countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan) while offering support to insurgents in a fourth (Libya), it is striking that the international legal standards governing the use of force in counterinsurgency remain unsettled and deeply controversial. Some authorities have endorsed norms from international humanitarian law as lex specialis, while others have emphasized international human rights as minimum standards of care for counterinsurgency operations. This Article addresses the growing friction between international human rights and humanitarian law in counterinsurgency by developing a relational theory of the use of force. The central insight is that a state’s authority to use force under international law is derived from, and constrained by, the fiduciary character of its relationship with its people. This relational conception of state sovereignty offers an attractive normative framework for addressing conflicts between human rights and humanitarian law. When states engage in internal armed conflict and belligerent occupation, their assertion of control over an affected population entails a concomitant fiduciary obligation to satisfy the strict proportionality standard of international human rights law. Conversely, when states defend their people in traditional international armed conflict and transnational armed conflict against non-state actors, international humanitarian law ordinarily supplies the applicable proportionality standard. Examples from conflicts in Afghanistan, Argentina, Israel, Libya, and Russia illustrate how the relational approach to choice-of-law analysis could lay a more coherent and principled foundation for counterinsurgency regulation under international law.

"The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause and the Right of Natural Liberty"

JOHN C. HARRISON, University of Virginia School of Law

Important recent scholarship shows that the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause is aimed mainly at substantive legislation that authorizes confinement by the executive that otherwise would be unlawful. Thus a grant of detention authority that leaves the judicial habeas corpus remedy intact can constitute a suspension subject to the clause. This article emphasizes that at the time of the framing the central example of a suspension of the writ was a grant of extremely broad discretion to the executive to confine people the executive believed to be dangerous. It maintains that broad executive discretion to confine is a necessary condition for a grant of detention authority to qualify as a suspension. Therefore legislative authorization of executive detention for reasons of national security is not a suspension as long as the executive’s discretion is substantially bounded; for example, the confinement of enemy aliens during war does not require suspension of the writ. That is true whether the persons to be detained are citizens or aliens. Congressional grants of legally determinate national security detention authority are thus not limited to cases of rebellion and invasion by the Suspension Clause, because they are not suspensions, and may be applied to citizens and aliens alike.

"Civil Litigation and International Terrorism: An UK-Israeli Reflection on the Role and Impact of US Styled Anti-Terrorism Litigation for the Prevention of Terrorism and the Protection of Human Rights"

SASCHA-DOMINIK OLIVER VLADIMIR BACHMANN, University of Portsmouth – School of Law
Email: sascha.bachmann

Global terrorism relies directly on financial economic support from a multitude of donors, both individual and corporate. Terrorist financing is a global problem which is closely linked to international crimes such as money laundering and organized crime. Consequently, possible responses have to be coordinated, multilateral and multi-faceted under the umbrella of a wide range of international stakeholders such as the United Nations Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Apart from “kinetic” lethal security responses and measures of criminal deterrence another response could be the use of transnational civil litigation by victims of terrorism against both terrorist groups and their sponsors. Corporations, both profit and non profit, such as banks (cf. the US Arab Bank cases and the In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 case) and other entities (cf. the Boim litigation cases), as well as individuals, collude as aiders and abettors by providing financial assistance to the perpetrators (cf. UN Consolidated List established and maintained by the 1267 Committee with respect to Al-Qaida et al). Such collusion in acts of terrorism gains additional importance against the background of so called “Hybrid Threats” reflecting on new threats arising from multi-polar threat scenarios. This article reflects on the evolving notion of corporate responsibility for colluding in acts of terrorism and human rights violations as an additional legal form of redress for the individual victim of terrorism from a UK-Israeli perspective. This article acknowledges the interdependence of the different responses to terrorism and argues for the adoption of a holistic approach to combat terrorism.

“Rules of Engagement: Law, Strategy and Leadership”

Laurie R. Blank

Emory University School of Law

ASPECTS OF LEADERSHIP: ETHICS, LAW AND SPIRITUALITY, Marine Corps University, 2012

This collection of scholarly works from both academia and uniformed service personnel provides PME institutions, the operating forces, and civilian academics a resource of thought-provoking material on the challenging ethical and legal considerations facing Marine leaders and encourage discussion of these issues in an open forum. The project stems directly from the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ most recent planning guidance, directing the forces to focus on "better educat[ing] and train[ing] our Marines to succeed in distributed operations and increasingly complex environments."

This article will examine and refocus the debate about ROE to analyze the critical intersection of law, strategy and leadership that Rules of engagement (“ROE”) represent in during armed conflict. ROE are a key leadership tool. At the same time, leadership plays a critical role in communicating the direct relationship between the overall mission, the law of armed conflict, and the tactical needs on the ground. The top brass and senior commanders see the value of the ROE in their every day operations and relationships with local military and government officials, but many officers and enlisted soldiers complain about what they view as unreasonable restrictions on their ability to use force. When strategic counterinsurgency goals of minimizing civilian casualties are mistaken for legal rules that do not allow for civilian deaths in wartime, the differences between law and policy, between legal parameters governing the use of force and the targeting of persons and tactical considerations driven by strategic policy are being differentiated appropriately.

"The U.S. Supreme Court, the War on Terror, and the Need for Thick Constitutional Review"

Mississippi Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 4, 2011

MARK KENDE, Drake University Law School
Email: mark.kende

Commentators have praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s three famous “war on terror” cases (Hamdi, Hamdan, and Boumediene) for showing the Court’s courage in rejecting broad wartime claims of executive power. By contrast, this symposium essay criticizes the Court for failing to provide essential legal criteria to govern how the lower courts should handle enemy combatants and the military commission system. Justice O’Connor’s position in Hamdi that the detainees could be held for the duration of the conflict, in a war that could last indefinitely, is just one example. Due to its omissions, the Court effectively allowed many of the Bush Administration’s questionable detention policies to continue with only minor legal adjustments. Indeed the D.C. Circuit was given license to develop the law to problematic effect.

This essay argues that the only viable solution left, to preserve the rule of law and the international stature of the U.S., would be for Article III judges to adjudicate any Guantanamo prosecutions. The commission’s procedural rules should also be as court-like as possible. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has failed to alter certain key Bush policies on the commissions, even conceding Congressional obstacles. In addition, the essay poses the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court should remain deferential to the other branches during wartime, given the consistent recent history of government deception on war related issues (as shown by Korematsu, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Pentagon Papers, the supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and Yaser Hamdi’s purported dangerousness).

Israel’s National Security Law: Political Dynamics and Historical Developments

Amichai Cohen (Ono Academic College, Israel)

Routledge

Terror attacks on western civilian targets have stimulated interest in the dilemmas faced by liberal societies when combating threats to national security. Combining the perspectives of political science and law, this book addresses that discourse, asking how democracies seek to harmonize the protection of individual liberties with the defence of state interests.

The book focuses on the experience of Israel, a country whose commitment to democratic values has continuously been challenged by multiple threats to national survival. It examines the legal, legislative and institutional methods employed to resolve the dilemmas generated by that situation, and thus provides a unique interpretation of Israeli national security behaviour. Policy-making and policy-implementation in this sphere, it shows, have reflected not just external constraints but also shifts in the domestic balance of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The book concludes with an agenda of the measures that each branch of government needs to implement in order to repair the flaws that have developed in this system over time.

Based on a close reading of legislative and court readings, the book proposes a new taxonomy for the analysis of national security legal frameworks, both in Israel and elsewhere in the democratic world. As such it will be of great interest to students and scholars of political science, national security law, Israeli history and civil-military relations.

Well, for better or worse this ends what would otherwise likely have been a very interesting First Amendment case involving the constitutionality of charging solicitation based on online incitement to terrorism (as well as the constitutionality of prosecuting for the publication of bomb-making instructions). In any event, Emerson Begolly today pled to the solicitation count, and it would appear the other charges have been dropped in exchange. From the press release:

WASHINGTON – Emerson Winfield Begolly, 22, of New Bethlehem, Pa., pleaded guilty today in Pittsburgh to soliciting others to engage in acts of terrorism within the United States and to using a firearm during and in relation to an assault on FBI agents.

…

According to information presented by the government in court, Begolly was an active administrator on the Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum (AMEF), which is an internationally used Islamic extremist Internet forum. Using the pseudonym of Abu Nancy, Begolly systematically solicited jihadists to use firearms, explosives and propane tanks against targets such as police stations, post offices, Jewish schools and daycare centers, military facilities, train lines, bridges, cell phone towers and water plants.

In the summer of 2010, Begolly urged jihadists on the AMEF to “write their legacy in blood.” Begolly promised a special place in the afterlife for violent action in the name of Allah. Following the reported shootings in Northern Virginia at the Pentagon and the Marine Corps Museum in October 2010, Begolly posted a comment online that praised the shootings and hoped the shooter had followed his previous postings encouraging similar acts of violence. On Dec. 28, 2010, Begolly further solicited his AMEF audience to violence by posting a manual on how to manufacture a bomb.

Days later, on Jan. 4, 2011, FBI agents were assaulted by Begolly as they attempted to prevent him from reaching a loaded 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, which he had concealed on his body. While violently struggling with the agents, Begolly bit the agents on their fingers in an attempt to free himself to reach his firearm. His actions are consistent with a posting in which he urged his audience not to be taken alive by law enforcement, to always carry a loaded firearm, and to aggressively resist any law enforcement encounter including biting fingers if necessary.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Maurice B. Cohill scheduled sentencing for Nov. 29, 2011.

As you probably have heard by now, an AWOL soldier from Ft. Campbell was arrested this week in Texas in connection with an apparent bomb plot targeting Ft. Hood soldiers. Details from the press release are below, and the indictment is attached:

WACO, Texas – U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy and FBI Special Agent in Charge Cory B. Nelsonannounced that 21-year-old Naser Jason Abdo, an absent without leave (AWOL) soldier from Fort Campbell, Ky., is charged with possession of an unregistered destructive device in connection with a bomb plot.

A criminal complaint, unsealed today in Waco, Texas, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Mankse during Abdo’s initial appearance, alleges that on July 27, 2011, Abdo was in possession of a .40 caliber handgun, ammunition, an article entitled, “Make a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom,” as well as bomb making components, including six bottles of smokeless gunpowder, shotgun shells, shotgun pellets, two clocks, two spools of auto wire, an electric drill and two pressure cookers.

The complaint further alleges that Abdo intended to use the materials to assemble two destructive devices with the intention of detonating them inside an unspecified restaurant frequented by soldiers from Fort Hood.

On Wednesday, officers with the Killeen Police Department arrested Abdo without incident. Abdo is currently in federal custody. If convicted, Abdo faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a maximum $250,000 fine.

…

Signed Abdo Complaint.pdf

From the ABA Standing Committee on Law & National Security:

Attention: Academics, Practitioners, Educational and Instructional Communities –— those who teach National Security Law

Jurga 2011 registration form (6).pdf

For those of you interested in the intersection of terrorism, organized crime, and narcotics—not to mention international cooperation in investigating such matters—these will be very interesting:

NEW YORK – Two indictments resulting from two DEA narco-terrorism undercover operations have been unsealed, announced Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Michele M. Leonhart, the Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The first indictment is against Siavosh Henareh, Bachar Wehbe and Cetin Aksu for conspiring to provide various forms of support to Hizballah. The second indictment is against Taza Gul Alizai (Gul) for narco-terrorism conspiracy, narco-terrorism and heroin importation related to his supplying of 15 kilograms of heroin and six AK-47 assault rifles to a DEA confidential source whom Gul believed represented the Taliban.

Henareh and Aksu were arrested yesterday in Bucharest, Romania, where they were detained pending extradition to the United States. Wehbe and Gul were detained yesterday in the Republic of the Maldives, after an International Red Notice issued by Interpol. They arrived in the Southern District of New York early this morning and were to appear in Manhattan federal court.

“Today’s indictments provide fresh evidence of what many of us have been seeing for some time: the growing nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism, a nexus that threatens to become a clear and present danger to our national security,” said U.S. Attorney Bhara. “Combating this lethal threat requires a bold and proactive approach. And as crime increasingly goes global and national security threats remain global, the long arm of the law has to get even longer.”

DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart stated: “These DEA operations starkly illustrate how drug trafficking is a double threat that fuels both addiction and terrorism. We have successfully targeted and substantially dismantled two dangerous and complex networks; stopped efforts to arm Hizaballah and Taliban terrorists; and prevented massive amounts of heroin from reaching illicit markets around the world. Those responsible for these crimes will now face trial due to the brave and talented men and women of the DEA, the skilled federal prosecutors of the Southern District of New York, and the extraordinary cooperation of our many international and federal agency partners, all whom were instrumental in the success of these DEA operations.”

Charges Against Henareh, Wehbe, and Aksu

As alleged in the superseding indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

Beginning in June 2010, Henareh had a series of meetings in countries including Turkey, Romania, and Greece with DEA confidential sources (CSs), at least one of whom represented himself as an associate of Hizballah. During those meetings, and in a series of telephone calls, Henareh agreed to arrange the importation of hundreds of kilograms of high-quality heroin into the United States. The CSs represented to Henareh that the profits from the sale of the heroin in the United States would be used, among other things, to purchase weapons for Hizballah. In April 2011, in Bucharest, the CSs received a one-kilogram sample of heroin from Henareh’s co-conspirator in anticipation of a future, multi-hundred kilogram load.

As a result of their meetings with Henareh, the CSs were later introduced to Aksu and Wehbe. Beginning in February 2011, in Romania, Cyprus, Malaysia and elsewhere, Aksu and Wehbe agreed to purchase military-grade weaponry from the CSs on behalf of Hizballah. In those meetings, and in telephone calls and email messages, Aksu and Wehbe discussed the purchase of American-made Stinger surface-to-air missiles (SAMs", Igla SAMs, AK-47 and M4 assault rifles, M107 .50 caliber sniper rifles and ammunition, from (among other places) an American base in Germany.

On June 13, 2011, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Aksu and Wehbe signed a written contract for the purchase of 48 American-made Stinger SAMs, 100 Igla SAMs, 5,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 1,000 M4 rifles, and 1,000 Glock handguns, for a total price of approximately $9.5 million. During the course of the weapons negotiation, Wehbe stated that he was purchasing the weapons on instructions from Hizballah. Shortly thereafter, Wehbe and others caused approximately $100,000 to be transferred to the CSs as a down payment for the weapons purchase, including a $50,000 wire transfer to an undercover bank account.

In coordination with Romanian authorities, Henareh and Aksu were arrested in Bucharest on July 25, 2011. Wehbe was detained in the Maldives after the International Red Notice was issued by Interpol on July 25, 2011. Wehbe was transferred to DEA custody and transported to the Southern District of New York. Wehbe was to make his first appearance this afternoon in Manhattan federal court. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff.

The superseding indictment in U.S. v. Siavosh Henareh, et al. charges defendants Henareh, Aksu and Wehbe with the following counts:

• Count One charges Henareh and Aksu with conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, knowing or intending that the heroin would be imported into the United States, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 959 and 963;

• Count Two charges Aksu and Wehbe with conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization — namely, Hizballah — in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2339B; and

• Count Three charges Aksu and Wehbe with conspiracy to acquire and transfer anti-aircraft missiles, in violation of Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2332g.

The maximum and, in some cases, mandatory minimum penalties for these offenses are as follows:

• Count One of the indictment — life in prison, with a mandatory minimum term of 10 years in prison;

• Count Two –– 15 years in prison; and

• Count Three — life in prison, with a mandatory minimum term of 25 years in prison.

Charges Against Taza Gul Alizai

According to the superseding indictment unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

In May 2008, in the vicinity of Kandahar, Afghanistan, Gul sold approximately five kilograms of heroin to a DEA confidential source (CS). Approximately two years later, Gul arranged for the sale of six AK-47 assault rifles and an additional 10 kilograms of heroin to the CS, who purported to represent the Taliban. In connection with the May 2010 transaction, Gul and the CS discussed, among other things, that the heroin sold by Gul to the CS was destined for the United States, and that the proceeds from the sale of the heroin were to be paid to the Taliban. Gul understood that the assault rifles would be supplied to the Taliban. In exchange for the heroin and the AK-47 rifles, the CS paid Gul and a co-conspirator $31,000. During the negotiations, GUL’s co-conspirator explained to the CS that heroin laboratories in Afghanistan were under Taliban protection.

In coordination with authorities in the Republic of the Maldives, Gul was detained in that country and then transferred to DEA custody and transported back to the Southern District of New York. Gul was to make his first appearance today in Manhattan federal court. The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr.

The indictment in U.S. v. Taza Gul Alizai charges defendant Gul with the following counts:

• Count One charges Gul with conspiracy to engage in narco-terrorism, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 960a;

• Count Two charges Gul with engaging in narco-terrorism, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Section 960a;

• Count Three charges Gul with conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin, knowing or intending that the heroin would be imported into the United States, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 959 and 963; and

• Count Four charges Gul with distributing one kilogram or more of heroin, knowing or intending that the heroin would be imported into the United States, in violation of Title 21, U.S. Code, Sections 959 and 960.

The maximum and, in some cases, minimum penalties for these offenses are as follows:

• Count One –- life in prison, with a mandatory minimum term of 20 years in prison;

• Count Two –- life in prison, with a mandatory minimum term of 20 years in prison;

• Count Three –- life in prison, with a mandatory minimum term of 10 years in prison; and

• Count Four –- life in prison, with a mandatory minimum term of 10 years in prison.

* * *

The charges, arrests, and transfers of these four defendants were the result of the close cooperative efforts of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the Special Operations Division of the DEA, and the DEA Country Offices in: Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur; Copenhagen; New Delhi; Athens; Cyprus; and Kabul.

Mr. Bharara expressed his gratitude to the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative Regional Center for Combating Trans-Border Crime; the Romanian National Police; the Turkish National Police; the Malaysian National Police; the Greek Hellenic Police; the Cyprus National Police; the Maldives Police Service; the Latvian Central Criminal Police; and the Estonian Police and Border Guard Board. He also thanked the Office of International Affairs of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division, the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol and Interpol Headquarters in Lyon, France, the U.S. Embassy in Sri Lanka, and the U.S. Department of State for their assistance.

These two cases are being handled by the Office’s Terrorism and International Narcotics Unit. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Benjamin Naftalis, Adam S. Hickey, and Edward Kim are in charge of the prosecutions.

…

This is the latest in a series of convictions federal prosecutors have obtained in response to the recruitment of young Somali-American men in the Minneapolis area to travel to Somalia to fight for al-Shabab. Details from the press release follow:

MINNEAPOLIS – Earlier today in federal court, a 26-year-old Minneapolis man pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide material support to a conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim abroad. Omer Abdi Mohamed, also known as “Brother Omer” and “Galeyr,” who was indicted on Nov. 17, 2009, entered his plea before U.S. District Court Chief Judge Michael J. Davis.

In his plea agreement, Mohamed admitted being a member of a conspiracy that recruited young men of Somali descent to travel to Somalia to fight against Ethiopian troops, who were in Somalia assisting the internationally-recognized Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia. Mohamed admitted assisting the men in planning their trips, knowing that once in Somalia, the men intended to murder, kidnap or maim Ethiopian and Somali government troops.

Following the entry of the plea, U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones said, “Those involved in this conspiracy, including Omer Abdi Mohamed, violated the law in a dangerous and misguided effort to support a terrorist organization. In the process, they tore apart many Somali-American families. Parents were left to fret over the disappearance of their young sons, who often left home without a word. In some instances family members discovered what happened to their relatives only by watching Internet videos being used as propaganda by al-Shabaab. I doubt many of us can imagine the feelings in such circumstances, and I can only hope that the criminal prosecutions we continue to take against those involved, including Omer Abdi Mohamed, will help deter these ill-advised actions in the future.”

Between September and December of 2007, Mohamed admittedly attended meetings at a Minneapolis mosque, restaurant and private residence, where he and his co-conspirators formed a secret plan that called for Somali men residing in Minneapolis to travel to Somalia to fight. He also facilitated the travel of several of these young men, including assisting them in obtaining plane tickets as well as the false itinerary needed by one man to mislead his family about the purpose of his travel.

In his plea agreement, Mohamed further admitted being present in Minneapolis when money was raised to mobilize groups of men to travel to Somalia. Many of the donations came from unsuspecting members of the Somali-American community, who were told the money was going to be used for Somalia relief efforts.

The indictment of Mohamed arose out of the “Operation Rhino” investigation, which has focused on young ethnic Somali men from the Minneapolis area who were recruited to fight with al-Shabaab against the TFG and African Union peacekeeping troops in Somalia. The earliest groups of identified travelers departed the United States in October and December 2007, while others left in February 2008, August 2008, November 2008 and October 2009. Upon arriving in Somalia, the men resided in al-Shabaab safe-houses in southern Somalia until constructing an al-Shabaab training camp, where they were trained. Senior members of al-Shabaab and a senior member of al-Qaeda in East Africa conducted the training.

In July 2008, men from Minneapolis as well as other Americans participated in an al-Shabaab ambush of Ethiopian troops. Then, on Oct. 29, 2008, one of the December 2007 travelers from Minneapolis, Shirwa Ahmed, detonated a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device as part of an apparently coordinated series of five suicide bombings in Bosaso and Hargeisa, Somalia. In doing so, Ahmed is believed to have become the first American suicide bomber in Somalia. Then, in June 2011, Farah Mohamed Beledi, one of the indicted October 2009 travelers, was killed at a checkpoint in Somalia as he attempted to detonate his suicide vest.

This is the sixth guilty plea in connection with the investigation. Kamal Said Hassan, Abdifatah Yusuf Isse and Salah Osman Ahmed returned from Somalia to the United States and have been convicted of terrorism offenses. Adarus Abdulle Ali and Abdow Munye Abdow have been convicted of obstruction offenses. Mohamud Said Omar is in the custody of authorities in the Netherlands pending extradition, and Ahmed Hussein Mahamud is in custody in the United States pending trial. An indictment of eight men believed to be fugitives in Somalia also was unsealed late last year.

For his crime, Omer Abdi Mohamed faces a potential maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release. Chief Judge Davis will determine his sentence at a future hearing, yet to be scheduled.

First, the Journal of National Security Law & Policy has created a page that contains a whole lot of interesting stuff, beyond what appears in the Journal itself:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lawfare/111721462217828#!/JNSLP

Second, the blog I’m associated with also has a Facebook page, and not all the content there is just the RSS feed from the blog. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lawfare/111721462217828.

Third, the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse has lots of interesting content:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lawfare/111721462217828#!/insct

I’m sure there are others, but in any event, consider giving these three a “like” next time you are on Facebook.

The latest issue of the Journal of National Security Law and Policy is out, and as usual it has lots of great stuff in it. I’ve previously posted the lead article from David Kris, but below you’ll see all the rest as well.

The Journal of National Security Law & Policy (JNSLP) is pleased to announce the publication of its latest issue, Vol. 5:1, with articles by:

David S. Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice from March 2009 to March 2011. Law Enforcement as a Counterterrorism Tool.

Geoffrey R. Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor, University of Chicago Law School. WikiLeaks, the Proposed SHIELD Act, and the First Amendment.

Mary-Rose Papandrea, Associate Professor, Boston College Law School. The Publication of National Security Information in the Digital Age.

Douglas Cox, Associate Law Library Professor, City University of New York School of Law. Burn After Viewing: The CIA’s Destruction of the Abu Zubaydah Tapes and the Law of Federal Records.

Craig Forcese, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada. Spies Without Borders: International Law and Intelligence Collection.

Howard M. Wasserman, Associate Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law. Constitutional Pathology, the War on Terror, and United States v. Klein.

Louis Fisher, Scholar in Residence, The Constitution Project. United States v. Klein: Judging Its Clarity and Application.

Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law. Why Klein (Still) Matters: Congressional Deception and the War on Terrorism.

Jeffrey Kahn, Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University. The Case of Colonel Abel.

Eugene R. Fidell, Senior Research Scholar in Law and Florence Rogatz Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School. The Next Judge.

To read articles and subscribe to the print version, visit jnslp.com.

A fascinating case. Details from the press release below, and the indictment is attached:

WASHINGTON – Emerson Winfield Begolly, 22, of New Bethlehem, Pa., was indicted by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., today for allegedly soliciting Islamic extremists to engage in acts of terrorism within the United States and posting bomb-making instruction materials online.

…

According to the two-count indictment, Begolly has been an active moderator of a popular, internationally known Islamic extremist web forum, the Ansar al-Mujahideen English Forum (AMEF), used by its members to promote and distribute jihadist propaganda. The indictment alleges that since July 2010, Begolly has placed a number of postings encouraging attacks within the United States, including the use of firearms, explosives and propane tanks against targets such as police stations, post offices, synagogues military facilities, train lines, bridges, cell phone towers and water plants.

Following the reported shootings in Northern Virginia at the Pentagon and the Marine Corps Museum in October 2010, Begolly allegedly posted a comment online that praised the shootings and hoped the shooter had followed his previous postings encouraging similar acts of violence that might “seem small but cause big damage.”

On Dec. 28, 2010, Begolly allegedly posted links to a 101-page document that contains information on how to set up a laboratory, conduct basic chemistry and manufacture explosives.

The indictment charges Begolly with solicitation to commit a crime of violence, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, and distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices and weapons of mass destruction, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

On Feb. 2, 2011, Begolly was indicted for allegedly assaulting federal agents and firearms-related charges in the Western District of Pennsylvania. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted of the charges filed in that district.

…

Begolly Indictment.pdf