While a lot of international attention has been focused on the Olympics over the last two weeks, the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated considerably. This article discusses the developments in some detail and represents potential American action as well.

According to the article, both the Ukranian and Russian governments have begun labeling protestors as terrorists, which can only endanger said protestors as the conflict continues. The article suggests that such a label could precede a state of emergency in country and expanded powers for military and police.
The article also suggests that relationships between the government and people of Ukraine took a turn for the worse when Ukraine’s President Yanukovych met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi this week. It is also significant that Russia began buying Ukrainian bonds.
Within Ukraine itself, “Demonstrators are now occupying some government buildings in some western Ukrainian cities where authorities are considered more sympathetic to the opposition, which the officials also said is a telling sign that things are looking bad for the government.”
Said the article, “Senior U.S. officials said visas were revoked in January for Ukrainian government officials linked to the violence against protestors. The officials said the administration is putting the final touches on a presidential executive order imposing sanctions against those involved in the crackdown. President Barack Obama would still need to sign off on any new sanctions.””
While today’s update is a bit abbreviated, we will keep you informed as the situation in Ukraine continues to develop. As a parting thought, consider the situation confronted by Ukrainian protestors this week. What are the ramifications, both legal and social, to be officially labeled a terrorist? Has anyone come up with an acceptable distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter?

Terror Suspect Targeting Debate 

Drones – Targeting Americans  

As you can see, this week’s post actually discusses two articles, both of which tackle issues surrounding the U.S. using drones to target American citizens. The Obama administration, along with the military and national security actors are in “high-level discussions about staging an operation to kill an American citizen involved with al Qaeda and suspected of plotting attacks against the United States.” The senior official who confirmed the discussions refused to provide specifics.

Under current U.S. law, military force cannot be used against an American unless there is “imminent danger and no reasonable prospect of capturing the target.” The action would also require Presidential approval.

The first article concludes by listing Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both American citizens who were targeted and killed by a drone strike in 2011. According to the article, Khan, who died in, but was not the target of, the strike, “was behind al Qaeda’s English-language Inspire magazine.”

The second article discusses an American citizen who might be targeted in a drone strike. Because specifics are not given, it is unclear whether the two articles refer to the same individual. The individual mentioned in the second article is “an al Qaeda fighter in Pakistan.”

The article begins by discussing whether a drone strike should be delayed or scrapped in favor of increasing surveillance on the targeted individual in hopes of discovering other terrorist operatives. The article reiterates the Obama administration’s standard that an American would have to pose an imminent threat to the United States and there must be no reasonable prospect of capture before an American can be killed in a drone strike. Because the individual in question is located within Pakistan, the article also lays out a brief discussion concerning the negative impact such a strike would have on U.S.-Pakistani relations.

Farther down in the article, and perhaps most significant, is a quote from former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the effect that “The Obama administration would be justified using drones to kill American terrorists abroad and at home.” This blending of lines is significant. As of yet, drone strikes on American citizens have only publically occurred overseas. That the former top law enforcement officer of the United States embraces drone strikes on Americans at home is significant.

Departing from the article for a moment, this extension of drone jurisdiction seems to raise three separate but important issues. First, what due process rights or concerns are implicated when Americans are targeted for execution on domestic soil? Second, if the “American terrorist” is on American soil, how could the Presidential Administration, Department of Defense, or other National Security bodies ever argue that there is no reasonable prospect of capture, specifically via traditional arrest? Finally, how would the use of drones domestically implicate or violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids deployment of the military within American borders?

In addressing the due process concerns, the article, and Mr. Gonzales, discuss the two-step process of putting an individual on the “kill list” and then executing a specific kill order. According to Gonzales, “the President has the authority – as the commander in chief – once you identify where an ‘enemy combatant’ is, to take action, to take him out on the battlefield like you would any other enemy.” In administrations prior to that of George W. Bush, the notion of America being an active battleground in any war on terror was relatively limited. Gonzales followed by saying that “Due process would be a concern only in designating someone as an “enemy combatant”.

“Asked whether drones might be used to kill Americans who have been determined to be pressing, imminent threats to U.S. safety on U.S. soil, Gonzales said doing so was probable, even though it might worry civil libertarians.”

Given that engaging in acts of or supporting terrorism is a federal crime under the United States Code, why should terrorists on American soil be given fewer rights than any other criminal? Is Gonzales’s analysis of a President’s authority going too far in allowing individuals or small groups to decide people’s fates outside the constitutional and moral bounds traditionally respected in this country?

With the Sochi Winter Olympics officially upon us, the world’s attention will likely be fixed on Sochi, Russia, a small resort town built almost solely to house the new Olympic venue. There have been plenty of discussions in popular media outlets about the living conditions for athletes and spectators in Sochi as well as the alleged corruption which has made the Sochi Olympics the most expensive in history. One topic, however, has received a somewhat lower profile.

There has been a lot of media expressing concern about Russia’s official stance regarding LGBT athletes and spectators, but most discussions of potential terror threats are focused on domestic Russia. However, the House Homeland Security Committee is advising airlines that fly nonstop to Russia that “explosive materials could be concealed in toothpaste or cosmetic tubes.”

Because of the expected concentration of people in Sochi as spectators go to watch the Olympics, homeland security officials are worried that any explosives might be used either in the air or detonated once the traveler reaches Sochi. However, “authorities have increasing confidence about the safety of Sochi and the Olympic venues. Still, U.S. intelligence is picking up increasing chatter that causes worry about targets outside the Sochi area, including regional transportation links.”
The parties which are of major concern include domestic Russian terrorists from the southern regions of the county, as well as potential al Qaeda cells. Representative Peter King, from New York said that “he believes the athletes and American spectators are ‘reasonably safe,’ but noted that he would not go himself.
‘Just as a spectator, I don’t think it’s worth the risk. I mean, odds are nothing is going to happen, but the odds are higher than for any other Olympics, I believe, that something could happen’”.
Would you go to the Olympics this year? What responsibility does the Russian government have to keep the international contingent safe?

Images of the conflict in Ukraine have been bouncing around popular news sites on the internet for more than a week now, and the photography coming out of the country is nothing short of shocking. This article discusses the current situation in the ongoing conflict.

The article begins with a quote from former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk, “Both Ukraine and the world recognize the country is on the brink of civil war.” Both the quote and the article come on the heels of reports that the Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has resigned.

The next few paragraphs deal with a potential amnesty deal between the Ukrainian parliament and protesters. “[M]ore than 200 people [have been] arrested since the demonstrations began in late November, centered on Independence Square.” The government has offered amnesty for these individuals if protesters leave Independence Square, a condition the protesters consider unacceptable.

Parliament also apparently voted to repeal anti-protesting laws which had exacerbated the controversy and drawn concern from the European Union and the United States over potential infringement of free speech and the right to protest. “The repeal legislation has still to be signed off by Yanukovych.” Yanukovvch is the leader of the Party of Regions, which called for the repeal.

With the resignation of the Prime Minister, the rest of his government resigned by operation of Ukranian law, which means that there is no permanent government currently in place, with the resigning cabinet currently acting as caretakers until a new government is installed.

“The recent clashes are an escalation of weeks of largely peaceful public protests prompted by Yanukovych’s decision in November to spurn a planned trade deal with the European Union and turn toward Russia. He and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on a $15 billion deal for Russia to buy Ukrainian debt and slash the price of natural gas.”

Given the tensions between Russia and the United States over Syria late last year, and the newly forming tensions between Russia and the European Union, how will the Ukranian situation and future developments affect the growing conflict between American international interests and Russian priorities?