Author name: Branden Loizides

By John Thorlin, NSJ Staff Editor – Writing for the Yale Journal of International Law, Prof. Robert Sloane of the Boston University School of Law delves into the national security variant of the old debate about ends and means–the distinction and relationship between the concepts of jus ad bellum, the law governing resort to force, and jus in bello, the law governing the conduct of hostilities.  Since the introduction of the U.N. Charter, the two concepts have been separated: regardless of how a nation justifies its goals in a given conflict, it must adhere to the same set of in […]

Writing for the Council on Foreign Relation’s Center for Preventive Action, Steven Simon sets out to “assesses the likelihood of an Israeli strike against Iran despite U.S. objections, the implications for the United States should it take place, the policy options available to reduce the chances of its occurrence, and the measures that could be taken to mitigate the potentially negative consequences.” The likely method of attack and potential complications: Simon finds Israel is capable of unilaterally carrying out accurate, deeply penetrating attacks on up to three of Iran’s nuclear-related sites.  Above ground uranium conversion facilities could be heavily damaged

By Mat Trachok, NSJ Staff Editor – In a recent article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer considers the legal and moral implications of the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert drone program in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.  Under the Bush Administration, the CIA began using unmanned drone aircraft, most often Predators and more recently Reapers, to conduct targeted killings of terrorism suspects.  According to Mayer, President Obama has made very few changes to the program.  Indeed, the president has authorized forty-one strikes since taking office—as many as former President Bush authorized during his last three years in

By Jonathan Abrams, NSJ Staff Editor, HLS 2012 The Second Circuit ruled on November 2nd that Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who claimed he was a victim of “extraordinary rendition,” may not sue American officials for damages because Congress has not authorized such suits. Mr. Arar was detained at Kennedy International Airport on September 26, 2002 on suspicion of ties to Al Qaeda.  After thirteen days in U.S. custody he was flown to Jordan where he was handed over to Jordanian authorities.  After being treated roughly, he was delivered to the custody of Syrian officials, who detained him for a

By Jonathan Abrams, NSJ Staff Editor, HLS 2012 On October 27th, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review to an important case involving the “state secrets” privilege. The case, Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., 579 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2009), involves a lawsuit brought by five foreign nationals who claim they were part of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition program.”  The plaintiffs accuse Jeppesen of providing flight planning and logistical support to the program, which allegedly involved their transportation to secret prisons where they were tortured.  Before Jeppesen could answer the complaint, the United States government intervened, asserted the state secrets