RSS
What the Law Actually Says About Targeting Jihadist Terrorists
Explosions take place on the deck of the Greek-flagged oil tanker Sounion on the Red Sea, in this handout picture released Aug. 29, 2024. Photo: Houthi Military Media/Handout via REUTERS
During the coming year, the United States, in occasional concert with Israel, must confront expanding terrorist threats. Topping pertinent concerns in Washington and Jerusalem will be an assortment of jihadi groups, some spawned by the al-Assad regime collapse in Syria and some by coinciding reconfigurations of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Houthi criminals. Also predictable are (1) strengthened and dispersed Fatah units beyond Judea/Samaria (West Bank); and (2) variously lethal synergies between criminal terrorist organizations that include al-Qaeda and ISIS remnants.
Under the protective tutelage of an American president, “We the People” are entitled to expect basic safety in world politics. At a minimum, we should all be able to assume that wider and consistently capable circles of public authority remain poised to thwart terror attacks.
In terms of United States law, the authoritative roots of core security assurances go back to 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Though likely unfamiliar to America’s current president and his senior defense advisors, Hobbes’ Leviathan was integral to the political thought of Thomas Jefferson. The erudite author of the Declaration was widely read by all categories of educated persons.
Regarding US counterterrorist preparation, America’s national security establishment must get ready for all contingencies, most plainly jihadi terrorists who seek “martyrdom.” This includes fashioning conceptual foundations for future Osama Bin-Laden “elimination-type” operations.
During the Obama years, one conspicuously major targeted killing of a jihadi terrorist was the September 2011 US drone-assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. That case was notably “special” in one generally overlooked or underestimated aspect: Jihadi al-Alwaki was born in New Mexico, and was therefore a US citizen. At the same time, despite the US Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protections regarding “due process,” it represented a tactical option that could sometime need to be repeated.
Here, a presumptively effective tactic would simultaneously undermine American law and justice.
What should be decided in Washington? Each and every trade-off option would be injurious. Even if we take with utmost seriousness Cicero’s reasonable injunction (“The safety of the people shall be the highest law”), it’s not clear which operational choices would best serve such indispensable “safety?”
What precise legal guidelines should Americans follow in these settings?
To respond properly, Trump and his designated counselors will need to inquire: “Is it sufficiently legal to target and kill jihadi terrorists if precise linkages between prospective targets and discernible attack intentions can be documented?”
To meaningfully answer this critical question, it will first be necessary for Trump’s national security officials to ask whether a proposed terrorist killing plan would be gainfully preemptive or just narrowly retributive. If the latter, a judgment wherein national self-defense was not in any way the underlying operational rationale, authoritative determinations of legality could become more problematic. It would not be sensible to launch risky defensive actions against terrorist adversaries solely because these actions could meet jurisprudential standards.
It gets even more complicated.
Assassination is explicitly prohibited by US law. (See Exec. Order No. 12333, 3 C.F.R. 200 (1988), reprinted in 50 U.S.C. Sec. 401 (1988)). Generally, it is also a crime under international law, which, though not widely understood, is part of American domestic law.
Still, at least in certain more-or-less residual circumstances, the targeted killing of jihadi terrorist leaders could be correctly excluded from ordinarily prohibited behaviors. Accordingly, such peremptorily protective actions could still be defended as permissible expressions of national law-enforcement.
A similar defense could sometimes be applied to the considered killing of terrorist “rank-and-file,” especially where such selective lethality had become part of an already-ongoing pattern of US counter-terrorism. Earlier, for example, the United States widened the scope of its permissible terrorist targeting in parts of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. This widened arc of permissibility — one which now modifies more stringent rules of engagement concerning human target identification — represented a byproduct of continuously developing drone technologies.
In the best of all possible worlds, there would be no need for any decentralized or “vigilante” expressions of international justice. Obviously, we don’t yet live in such an ideal world. Instead, enduring uneasily in an historically anarchic world order- – a context that international law professors prefer to call “Westphalian.”
At some still-indeterminable point, terrorist escalations could lead to instances of chemical, biological or nuclear attack. These unprecedented attacks (ones that are sui generis in law) might be undertaken by assorted sub-state adversaries or by certain “hybrid” combinations of state and sub-state foes. Ironically, in the policies of US ally Israel, dominant concerns have centered on Iran-Hezbollah and Iran/Hamas combinations. Here, an evident irony stems from the fact that one Iranian surrogate (Hezbollah) is Shiite while the other (Hamas) is Sunni.
In our persistently anarchic and prospectively chaotic world legal system, assorted jihadi leaders are already responsible for the mass killing of noncombatant men, women, and children of many different nationalities. It follows that wherever such leaders are not suitably “terminated” by the United States or Israel in the tumultuous Middle East, egregious terror crimes will almost certainly continue and be left unpunished.
Any impunity would be inconsistent with the universal legal obligation to punish international crimes, a jus cogens or peremptory obligation reaffirmed at the original Nuremberg Tribunal and in the subsequent Nuremberg Principles.
Inevitably, complex considerations of law and tactics will intersect and inter-penetrate. In this connection, the glaring indiscriminacy of most jihadist operations is rarely if ever the result of adversarial inadvertence. Typically, it is the intentional outcome of violent terrorist inclinations, unambiguously murderous ideals that lay embedded in the jihadist terrorist leader’s operative views of insurgency.
For jihadists, there can never be meaningful distinctions between civilians and non-civilians, between innocents and non-innocents. For these active or latent terrorist murderers, all that really matters are unassailably immutable distinctions between Muslims, “apostates” and “unbelievers.”
As for the apostates and unbelievers, it’s quite simple. Their lives, believe the jihadists, have no value. Prima facie, they have no immunizing sanctity. In law, both international and national, every government has the right and obligation to protect its citizens against external harms.
Usually, assassination is a certifiable crime under international law. Yet, in our essentially decentralized system of world law, extraordinary self-help by individual states is often necessary, and more-then-occasionally the only real alternative to passively sufferance of terror crimes. In the absence of particular targeted killings, terrorists would continue to create havoc against defenseless civilians almost anywhere of their choosing and with unjust impunity.
A basic difficulty is that jihadi terror criminals are usually immune to the more orthodox legal expectations of extradition and prosecution (aut dedere, aut judicare). This is not to suggest that the targeted killing of terrorists will always “work” — there is literally nothing to support the logic of any such suggestion — but only that disallowing such killing ex ante might not be operationally gainful or legally just.
If carried out with aptly due regard for pertinent “rules,” targeting terrorist leaders could remain consistent with the ancient legal principle of Nullum crimen sine poena, “No crime without a punishment.” Earlier, this original principle of justice had been cited as a dominant rationale for both the Tokyo and Nuremberg war crime tribunals. Subsequently, it was incorporated into customary international law, an authoritative source of law identified inter alia at Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
By both the codified and customary standards of contemporary international law, all terrorists are hostes humani generis, or “common enemies of humankind.” Still, choosing precisely which terrorists ought to be targeted remains a largely ideological rather than jurisprudential matter.
Overall, in his consideration of assassination or targeted-killing as counter-terrorism, President Trump should consider the clarifying position of 18th century Swiss scholar Emmerich de Vattel in his most famous work, The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law (1758): “The safest plan is to prevent evil where that is possible. A Nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force and every other just means of resistance against the aggressor.”
Even earlier, the right of self-defense by forestalling an attack had been asserted by the foundational Dutch scholar, Hugo Grotius, in Book II of The Law of War and Peace (1625). Recognizing the need for what later jurisprudence would reference as threatening international behavior that is “imminent in point of time,” Grotius indicated that self-defense must be permitted not only after an attack has already been suffered, but also in advance, where “the deed may be anticipated.”
Further on, in the same chapter, Grotius summarized: “It be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill.” Interestingly, Vattel, Pufendorf and Grotius were all taken into primary account by Thomas Jefferson in the American Declaration of Independence.
International law is not a suicide pact. “Where the ordinary remedy fails, recourse must be had to an extraordinary one.”
Donald Trump is obligated to comply with the rules and procedures of humanitarian international law, yet he must also bear in mind that jihadist enemies will remain unaffected by these or any other jurisprudential expectations. Assassination and broader forms of preemption may sometimes be not only allowable under binding international law, but indispensable.
Conversely, there are occasions when strategies of assassination could be determinedly legal but be operationally ineffectual. Recalling the close connections between international law and US law — connections that extend to direct and literal forms of “incorporation” – -an American president can never choose to dismiss the law of war on grounds that it is “merely international.”Always, President Trump should consider decipherable connections between targeted killings, counter-terrorism, and United States Constitutional Law.
Under US law, we are bound to inquire, should an American president ever be authorized to order the extra-judicial killing of a United States citizen — even one deemed an “enemy combatant” — without meaningful reference to “due process of law?” On its face, any affirmative response to this query would be difficult to defend under the US Constitution.
Operational approval would need to be based upon a reasonably presumed high urgency of terror threat. Any such allegedly “authorized” targeted killing of US citizens would express potentially irremediable tension between indissoluble citizen rights and peremptory requirements of public safety. Going forward with obligatory counter terrorist preparations, the US president will need to keep this firmly in mind.
US policy on assassination or targeted killing will have to reflect a very delicate balance. Most important, in any such calculation, will be the protection of civilian populations from jihadist terror-inflicted harms. In those circumstances where harms would involve unconventional weapons of any sort — chemical, biological or nuclear — the legal propriety of targeting jihadists could be patently obvious (per Cicero, above) and “beyond reasonable doubt.”
In sum, for both the United States and Israel, legal assessments of targeted killing ought never be undertaken apart from correlative operational expectations. This means that before any “extraordinary remedies” should be applied, these measures would be not only legally correct, but tactically cost-effective. In the end, as we may finally be reminded by Cicero in The Laws, “The safety of the people shall be the highest law.”
Louis René Beres, Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue, is the author of many books and articles dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (University of Chicago Press, 1980) and Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (D.C. Heath/Lexington, 1986). His twelfth book, Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy, was published by Rowman and Littlefield in 2016. A version of this article was originally published by Jewish Business News.
The post What the Law Actually Says About Targeting Jihadist Terrorists first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New Jersey Man Inspired by Hamas’s Oct. 7 Attack Pleads Guilty to Assisting Al Shabaab Terror Group
Palestinian terrorists ride an Israeli military vehicle that was seized by gunmen who infiltrated areas of southern Israel, in the northern Gaza Strip, Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ahmed Zakot
Karrem Nasr, a 24 year-old man from New Jersey, has pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a US-designated terror group, with federal prosecutors noting that he was inspired by Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 to become a jihadist terrorist.
“Karrem Nasr devoted himself to waging violent jihad against America and its allies,” Danielle Sassoon, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement announcing the plea on Monday. “Inspired by the evil terrorist attack perpetrated by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, Nasr, a US citizen, traveled from Egypt to Kenya in an effort to join al Shabaab so that he could execute his jihadist mission of creating death and destruction.”
The Palestinian terror group Hamas murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, kidnapped 251 hostages, and started the Gaza war with its Oct. 7 onslaught, which also included widespread sexual violence against the Israeli people.
“Now, instead of perpetrating a deadly attack in the name of a foreign terrorist group, Nasr resides in federal prison,” Sassoon added. “I thank the career prosecutors of my office and our law enforcement partners for their extraordinary work in disrupting this plan and bringing a terrorist to justice.”
In the US, attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Nasr is scheduled to be sentenced by a judge on June 30.
Nasr relocated from his home in New Jersey to Egypt around July 2023, according to the US Justice Department. In November of that year, he began repeatedly expressing his desire and plans to join al Shabaab, which is based in Somalia, including in communications with an undercover FBI informant pretending to be a recruiter for terrorist groups.
Further detailing his beliefs, Nasr explained to the informant that he hoped to receive training from al Shabaab, kill innocent people, and ultimately die on behalf of the organization’s jihadist goals.
“I would like to become a martyr in the sake of Allah … I think in coming years, inshallah we are going to see here big events in Egypt and the other Arab countries. Inshallah if this happens; I will come back to Egypt, inshallah to help the Muslims in Egypt in their struggle to establish here in Egypt,” he said in one communication, according to the Justice Department.
Al Shabaab has a history of calling for violence against Jews and Israel. In 2014, Sheikh Ali Dhere, a spokesperson for the group, publicly repudiated “the Americans who stood by the Jews in their aggression against the Muslims in Gaza.”
“Muslims must attack the Jews and their properties in every place, and they must pray for their brothers in Gaza,” he said at the time.
In both his discussions with the FBI and his online postings, Nasr communicated that he was particularly motivated to engage in terrorism by the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023 attacks in Israel.
During his discussions, Nasr rebuked the United States as “evil” and lambasted the country as the “head of the snake.” He also warned that jihadist violence would “soon” happen across the US.
Experts have warned of a rising global terror threat in the wake of Hamas’s invasion of southern Israel, explaining to The Algemeiner that “lone wolf” terrorists inspired by Islamist groups could carry out attacks on US soil, motivated by the Oct. 7 attack and war in Gaza.
The post New Jersey Man Inspired by Hamas’s Oct. 7 Attack Pleads Guilty to Assisting Al Shabaab Terror Group first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Judenrein’: CUNY Professors Blast Faculty Union for Passing ‘Antisemitic’ BDS Resolution
CUNY pro-Hamas students and supporters setup encampment at the school’s campus in New York City on April 25, 2024. Photo: Steve Sanchez via Reuters Connect
Jewish faculty at the City University of New York (CUNY) are denouncing their public sector union’s passing of a resolution which called for the adoption of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
The Professional Staff Congress (PSC) union, which represents over 30,000 CUNY staff and faculty, passed the measure on Jan. 23 by a razor thin margin of just three votes. It falsely accused Israel of war crimes and other affronts to humanity, including “genocide” and “apartheid,” and called for the union to divest its pension plan of holdings linked to “Israeli companies and Israeli government bonds no later than the end of January 2025.”
This is not the first controversial resolution passed by the CUNY faculty union. In 2021, during a previous conflict between Israel and Hamas, it voted to approve a defaming statement which accused Israel of “ongoing settler colonial violence” and demanded the the university “divest from all companies that aid in Israeli colonization, occupation, and war crimes.” Doing so set off a cascade of events, including a mass resignation of faculty from the union, the founding of new campus Jewish civil rights groups, and a major — ultimately unsuccessful — lawsuit which aimed to abolish compulsory public sector union membership.
History is repeating itself, Jewish faculty said following what has been described as the union’s latest outrage against the Jewish community.
“Since the mass exodus of Jews from the union after its antisemitic pro-BDS resolution in 2021, its delegate leadership is virtually Judenrein,” Jeffrey Lax, a Kingsborough Community College professor and founder of the advocacy group Students, Alumni, and Faculty for Equality (SAFE), told The Algemeiner on Wednesday in a statement. “This is a welcome development for the antisemitic, Marxist leaders who have been lying in wait to adopt a full BDS divestment policy, which they have now done, with few Jews still around to oppose it.”
Taking aim at PSC president James Davis, Lax continued, “Senior leaders like President James will pretend that they were against the vote as it ‘divides’ the union. No kidding. But the truth is, it’s no secret that Davis is a proud BDS supporter. We exposed video of him voting for BDS at the American Studies Association. And this is our union today: a corrupt, opaque, Jew-expunging entity that has just signed its own death knell by so blatantly breaking the law.”
Lax’s group, SAFE, is mounting an effort to thwart the resolution’s objectives, and filed on Tuesday a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) alleging discrimination against Zionism, a central component of Jewish identity, and the “blatant violation” of a state executive order, EO 157, which explicitly proscribes boycotts of Israel. The letter also requested that DHR open a formal investigation of PSC CUNY to uncover any further acts of alleged antisemitism.
“It is no coincidence that hundreds — perhaps thousands — of Jewish faculty members have left the PSC union,” the complaint says. “The PSC-CUNY’s BDS boycott policy and singular divestment from Israel makes clear that Zionist Jewish and Israeli faculty members are not welcome to work with the union, will not receive the same benefits or protections, and will not receive any assistance of values from the union related or connected in any way to their protected nationality or ethnicity.”
Davis maintained in a statement issued on Wednesday that the union will continue to serve the interests of its members.
“We were elected to protect PSC members’ rights, to improve their pay and working conditions and working conditions, and to strengthen their union,” Davis said. “Keeping focus on these primary responsibilities while engaging in wider struggles for justice and peace is important, especially in this politically tumultuous movement. The PSC recently ratified a new contract and is intent on enforcing that contract and improving the working conditions of all members.”
CUNY faculty such as Queens College professor Azriel Genack, continue to be suspicious of the union’s intentions, however, and argue that its recent conduct is unbecoming of any institution which counts academics as members.
“This new PSC Resolution does not mention Hamas or its unspeakably brutal attack [in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023]: the torture, rape, mutilation, kidnapping, and massacre of entire families that broke the ceasefire that has been in place since the previous war. Now the PSC has two resolutions condemning Israel and not a single resolution condemning any other country; not Russia, Iran, China, or North Korea,” Gunack wrote in an open letter shared with The Algemeiner. “The resolution does not speak truth to power; it hides and distorts the truth in order to find soulless solidarity that disgraces CUNY by seeking to demonize a people that faces an enemy that is sworn to annihilate it, even if this entails destroying the hopes of its own people for a better life.”
The City University of New York’s campuses have been lambasted by critics as some of the most antisemitic institutions of higher education in the country.
Last year, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolved half a dozen investigations of antisemitism on CUNY campuses, a consortium of undergraduate colleges located throughout New York City’s five boroughs.
The inquiries, which reviewed incidents that happened as far back as 2020, were aimed at determining whether school officials neglected to prevent and respond to antisemitic discrimination, bullying, and harassment. Hunter College and CUNY Law combined for three resolutions in total, representing half of all the antisemitism cases settled by OCR. Baruch College, Brooklyn College, and CUNY’s Central Office were the subjects of three other investigations.
One of the cases which OCR resolved, involving Brooklyn College, prompted widespread concern when it was announced in 2022. According to witness testimony provided by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law — which filed the complaint prompting the investigation — Jewish students enrolled in the college’s Mental Health Counseling (MCH) program were repeatedly pressured into saying that Jews are white people who should be excluded from discussions about social justice.
The badgering of Jewish students, the students said at the time, became so severe that one student said in a WhatsApp group chat that she wanted to “strangle” a Jewish classmate.
“Some of the harassment on CUNY campuses has become so commonplace as to almost be normalized,” the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) once alleged in July 2022. “Attacking, denigrating, and threatening ‘Zionists’ has become the norm, with the crystal-clear understanding that ‘Zionist’ is now merely an epithet for ‘Jew’ the same way ‘banker,’ ‘cabal,’ ‘globalist,’ ‘cosmopolitan,’ ‘Christ killer,’ and numerous other such dog-whistles have been used over the centuries to target, demonize, and incite against Jews.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post ‘Judenrein’: CUNY Professors Blast Faculty Union for Passing ‘Antisemitic’ BDS Resolution first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Australian Police Foil Antisemitic Attack After Finding Explosives, List of Jewish Targets
Car in New South Wales, Australia graffitied with antisemitic message. Photo: Screenshot
Australian police announced on Wednesday that they foiled a potential mass-casualty antisemitic terrorist attack after discovering a caravan in a suburb of Sydney filled with explosives and material containing details about Jewish targets.
The announcement came amid a wave of antisemitic incidents, including arson and graffiti, in Australia recent months that has alarmed the country’s Jewish community.
Law enforcement officials said police discovered a list of Jewish targets and a cache of Powergel, a mining explosive, in a trailer located in the outer suburb of Dural on Jan. 19.
According to New South Wales state Deputy Police Commissioner David Hudson, there were enough explosives to create a bomb with a blast zone of around 40 meters, or 130 feet.
“This is certainly an escalation,” Hudson said in a press conference, commenting on the recent spate of antisemitic crimes in the greater Sydney area, where businesses and vehicles have been torched and buildings vandalized with graffiti.
“The use of explosives … have the potential to cause a great deal of damage,” he added.
Hudson also confirmed that several suspects unrelated to the explosives had been arrested and that the Jewish community would be informed about the potential targets.
Chris Minns, the premier of New South Wales, referred to the incident as “terrorism,” while confirming that counterterrorism authorities are also investigating the discovery of the explosives.
“This is the discovery of a potential mass casualty event,” he said. “This would strike terror into the community, particularly the Jewish community, and it must be met with the full resources of the government.”
Antisemitism spiked to record levels in Australia — especially in Sydney and Melbourne, which are home to some 85 percent of the country’s Jewish population — following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s bloody invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, amid the ensuing war in Gaza.
In the past two months alone, at least half a dozen incidents were reported in Sydney.
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar condemned the latest plot as “intolerable” in a post on the X social media platform.
“The epidemic of antisemitism is spreading in Australia almost unchecked,” he said. “We expect the Australian government to do more to stop this disease!”
The attempted antisemitic terror attack at a synagogue in Sydney is intolerable. This joins a long list of antisemitic attacks in Australia, including setting fire to a childcare center in Sydney, firebombing a synagogue in Melbourne, and many other antisemitic attacks.
The…— Gideon Sa’ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) January 29, 2025
Last week, a child care center in Sydney was set alight and antisemitic graffiti was sprayed on the wall. Located near a Jewish school and synagogue in the city’s eastern section, the center suffered extensive damage, though no injuries were reported.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the attack as “a vicious crime.”
That incident followed several recent cases of antisemitic vandalism targeting cars, homes, and synagogues.
Amid upcoming national elections to be held by mid-May, antisemitism has become a key issue, with Albanese facing criticism from the opposition for being “weak” in addressing hate crimes against Jews.
Last month, arsonists set fire to a synagogue in Melbourne, injuring one person and causing significant damage to the building.
According to a report from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), the country’s Jewish community experienced over 2,000 antisemitic incidents between October 2023 and September 2024, a significant increase from 495 in the prior 12 months.
Following Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, the number of antisemitic physical assaults in Australia rose from 11 in 2023 to 65 in 2024. The level of antisemitism for the past year was six times the average of the preceding 10 years.
Amid the onslaught, law enforcement in Australia has started an investigation into the origins behind the spree of recent antisemitic crimes, announcing they suspect individuals outside the country have coordinated the campaign of hate.
The post Australian Police Foil Antisemitic Attack After Finding Explosives, List of Jewish Targets first appeared on Algemeiner.com.