By Thea McDonald

Picture: Globe License: Public Domain

North Korea Tests Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles Potentially Capable of Reaching Any Location in Continental U.S.

Tensions between North Korea and the United States rose over the last year as the nations’ leaders exchanged threats and snarky comments. As American lawmakers considered options for managing the escalating threat and warned that initiating nuclear action against this rival could lead to grave consequences, North Korea built and tested its arsenal. During 2017, North Korea conducted 16 tests that included a total of 23 missiles. The 23^rd missile, a Hwasong-15 tested near the end of November, reached an altitude of 2,800 miles, the highest altitude any North Korean missile has ever reached. According to CNN, KCNA, North Korea’s state-run news outlet reported that this missile is capable of reaching any location on the U.S. mainland and “meets the goal of the completion of the rocket weaponry system development.” This “successful” test spurred the United Nations Security Council to approve sanctions against the aggressor that limit the amount of refined oil North Korea can import and scrutinize shipping into and out of the country.

ISIS Defeated in Syria and Iraq

ISIS has terrorized parts of the world for years. Finally, in 2017, an international coalition took control of two key ISIS strongholds, Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. According to U.S. News & World Report, 35,000 ISIS fighters held more than 17,000 square miles in the two states in January of 2017; by December, an estimated 1,000-3,000 fighters occupied a mere 2,000 square miles. This success came after months of fighting in both cities – fighting that killed as many as 11,000 civilians in Mosul alone. While much of the world celebrates the successes against the terrorist group, intelligence officers worldwide remain concerned about future potential ISIS-inspired “lone-wolf” attacks similar to those that have previously occurred in the U.S. and Europe.

Ethnic Cleansing in Myanmar

The Rohingya Crisis worsened this year as more than 6,700 Rohingya were killed, and as many as 2,300 died of starvation and other nonviolent causes, between August and September at the hands of the Myanmar government. This ethnic group has faced severe violence and brutality from their predominantly Buddhist government and its military, which have attempted to disguise the atrocities against the Rohingya as responding to internal terrorist attacks. In fact, the Myanmar government invoked sovereignty, which the New York Times describes as “the single biggest loophole in international laws and norms against atrocities,” as its defense against other world governments organizing action. As government leaders across the world, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, called for the Myanmar government and military to halt the atrocities the have led more than 600,000 Rohingya to flee Myanmar for Bangladesh, sovereignty has “prevailed” for the Myanmar government by allowing Myanmar to “act within their borders and protect [its] interests.”

Read More

March 19, 2018

By Thea McDonald

On October 10, 2017, the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) hosted a panel titled The National Security Council at 70: Charting the Future of America's Security.

CSIS President and CEO John J. Hamre moderated a coalition of distinguished experts who, among the four, have seen and addressed our nation’s most imminent national security issues over multiple generations. These four men have all held the job of top adviser to the president for national security. Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster joined three of his predecessors, General James L. Jones Jr., Mr. Stephen Hadley and Dr. Henry Kissinger, to discuss the history of our nation’s National Security Council (NSC) and the issues the NSC currently faces.

Congressional Collaboration

Faced with Congress’ oversight power and in possession of executive branch authority, the NSC “sits at the fault line of the national government,” Hamre noted as he asked for the panelists’ views on information sharing with Congress and deference to the president. Lt. Gen. McMaster, National Security Adviser to President Trump, expressed that his NSC aims to include Members of Congress in early strategy development conversations as many of the challenges our nation faces today require legislative fixes.

Gen. Jones, who served on Capitol Hill as a non-partisan Marine Liaison Officer and then as National Security Adviser to President Obama, opined that the NSC should “project an image of bipartisanship.” He continued and noted, “When I became National Security Adviser, all of a sudden I was a Democrat – and I didn’t know I was.”

President George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley expressed that while his former position is not Senate-confirmable, he spent plenty of time talking with Congress on national security priorities.

Dr. Kissinger, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents Nixon and Ford, and in other capacities under President Reagan, told of older times “when bipartisanship wasn’t at its height” but during which he and President Nixon held private, unrecorded meetings over drinks with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in their efforts to involve Congress in their decision-making.

Strategy vs. Operation

Noting that the NSC is faced with criticisms that its role has devolved from strategic to operational – and that the NSC should be a forum for strategy development – the panelists seemingly agreed that the agency’s focus should indeed be developing integrated strategies, but that staying out of the operations game is a difficult undertaking.

Technology’s Impact

According to Dr. Kissinger, when the U.S. government began opening lines of communication with China, the U.S. sent printed letters via a Pakistan diplomat, who would transfer the communications between the U.S. and China – taking anywhere from a couple of weeks to a few months from sending a letter until receiving a response.

Today, said Gen. Jones, the speed of information transfer and technological development makes it necessary for the National Security Adviser to always know what’s going on in every corner of the world, be able to sift through that information, and distill what the president needs to know on a daily basis.

Lt. Gen. McMaster acknowledged today’s technology-driven challenges and described the importance of agency heads in the operation, implementation and partnership in managing these challenges and contributing to the development of national security strategies.

Pragmatic Realism

Reflecting on his predecessors’ comments about the current national security situation, McMaster noted, “the stakes couldn’t be higher” because new and sophisticated threats emerge daily. McMaster described today’s threat pool as “democratization of destruction,” which “requires us to focus on our strategic competence.”

According to McMaster, President Trump has assessed the threats we face and laid out a strategy for moving forward. Put the safety and security of the American people first. Coordinate economic, diplomatic and military strategies. Prioritize “peace through strength.” Work to deter a broad range of bad actors. Expand America’s influence across the globe, and capitalize on our relationships with our allies. These are the ideals McMaster pinned to President Trump’s “pragmatic realism” approach to national security to close out the session.

To watch the full panel discussion, click here. 

Read More

October 18, 2017

By Brian Chae

French Parliament Elects to Extend National State of Emergency for the Fifth Time

France has been in an official state of emergency since the Paris shootings in late 2015 that left 130 people dead. Following the Bastille Day attack in August 2016 that left another eighty-seven dead, the French parliament voted by an overwhelming majority of 288-32 to extend the state of emergency until after the July 2017 elections. This gives the new president an opportunity to reassess security and extend the state of emergency if necessary. As Hollande is not seeking re-election and Le Pen is strongly favored to win office, another extension seems a distinct possibility. Declaring a state of emergency is significant because it curtails certain civil liberties and empowers the executive to respond to a serious threat to public order. One of the most significant examples of this includes the executive’s ability to unilaterally issue “administrative” search warrants without judicial approval. This was seen in action when French authorities raided a number of properties in rapid succession in search of suspects following the Paris and Nice attacks. Another significant executive power afforded in this situation is the power to expel certain individuals from French territories or place them under temporary house arrest. This has great implications for the wider European refugee crisis.

Obama Administration Releases Report on the Legal Bases on Which Continued United States Military Operations Abroad Justified

Since the 2001 AUMF marked the legal beginning of the War on Terror, both Bush and Obama have relied on their “powers against those . . . [they] determine” necessary in order to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States to wage war on various factions on multiple continents. This report provides a comprehensive summary of the domestic and international legal bases for the use of force in preservation of United States national security, consistent with respect for the sovereignty of other nations. It discusses these rationales with respect to use of military force abroad and to detention and applies them to particular theaters of conflict. The report does not, however, fully address the claims of some critics that the President is overly expansive in construing its constitutional and international authority.

Massive Influx of Refugees Sparks Concerns Over Western Inability to Effectively Control Crime and Terrorism

The refugee crisis continues to be an unresolved and contentious issue among Western governments. Amid reports that terrorist attacks in France and Belgium were linked to Islamic extremism, domestic support for tighter border control and refugee policing has dramatically increased. This has precipitated in the rise of right-wing political movements in many Western countries, such as Brexit in the United Kingdom, the election of Trump in the United States, and the potential election of Le Pen in France.

Read More

March 25, 2017

By Boris Lubarsky

Photo: Boris Lubarsky

On October 5, 2016 Edward Snowden participated in his second roundtable discussion at Georgetown University via Skype, from asylum in Moscow. Snowden is currently living in Russia after he leaked classified information in 2013, disclosing the government’s ongoing surveillance programs that included surveillance on American citizens. He is wanted by the United States’ government for theft of government property and violation of the Espionage Act.

The event coincided with the recent release of Oliver Stone’s new film “Snowden” and was moderated by Kevin Bankston, Director of New America’s Open Technology Institute. At the roundtable, Snowden discussed the role of encryption and the myth of ‘going dark.’

Recently, the FBI has warned that the encryption of electronic communications has led to terrorist’s ‘going dark’ or communicating in a way the FBI cannot access or intercept. FBI director James Comey called for telecommunications companies to expand and build up their real-time intercept capabilities. Director Comey further advocated that companies should always be able to decrypt any information sent using their service. Presently, Congress has yet to enact legislation that would prohibit end-to-end encryption.

Similarly, agencies within the EU and UK have also called for a legislative ban on end-to-end encryption. Earlier this year the French and German interior ministers advocated that internet companies should be able to decrypt any communication on its service. If these proposals were enacted it would effectively outlaw end-to-end encryption. The United Kingdom has also pushed to ban end-to-end encryption, with Prime Minister Cameron speaking against it and during a debate in the House of Lords Baroness Shields made a similar argument. “There is an alarming movement towards end-to-end encrypted applications,” she said. “It is absolutely essential that these companies which understand and build those stacks of technology are able to decrypt that information and provide it to law enforcement in extremis.”

End-to-end encryption is a system of communicating in which only the communicating users can read the message. End-to-end encryption works by providing both sender and recipient with an encryption key – only this key can unlock the contents of the message. Before an email is transmitted it is encrypted by the sender using his key, then the encrypted email is sent to the internet service provider which delivers the email to the intended recipient. While encrypted, the email is effectively garbled white noise – even if it were intercepted it would be unintelligible. The recipient uses his copy of the encryption key to unlock the message and read its contents.

Snowden, however, painted a starkly different picture than those advocating against encryption. Specifically, Snowden noted that encryption is not an insurmountable obstacle for intelligence services or law enforcement. “Anyone that says that information is going dark because encryption exists isn’t telling the truth.” Snowden mentioned numerous ways to surmount encryption but focused a common age-old method: allow the target to decrypt the information for you.

For an illustrative example, Snowden pointed to the 2015 arrest of Ross Ulbricht, the convicted ringleader of the infamous Silk Road Marketplace, an online black market selling everything from drugs to murder for hire. On the day of Ulbricht’s arrest, the FBI followed him to a public library and waited for him to unlock his computer and begin using it. Then two agents posing as quarreling lovers had a loud fight to distract Ulbricht; as soon as he turned to look at the disturbance an agent snatched his laptop and inserted a flash drive to clone the data on the computer. Only then was Ulbricht informed of his arrest and presented with a warrant. Ulbricht’s computer was encrypted, but by using standard police techniques the FBI was able to access the information anyway.

Snowden noted that, traditionally, law enforcement had to physically surveil the individual subject of an investigation and from that evidence obtain a warrant that allowed a search or seizure; however, with electronic communications the government could instead conduct mass surveillance for the same cost. Snowden further proposed that “when [the government] can monitor a hundred times as many people with the same amount of money – it’s time to review the privacy settings with fresh eyes; because with that order of magnitude change it’s a good rule of thumb for a review.” The advent of cellular phones and computers has created exactly this exponential decrease in the cost of surveillance.

Snowden acknowledged that encryption will raise the cost of surveillance worldwide, however this increase in cost means that “now they can’t do things in bulk and shifts from mass surveillance to individualized surveillance.” Snowden indicated that this individualized surveillance is exactly what law enforcement has traditionally done and strikes the correct balance between personal liberty and society safety.

Lastly, encryption is not just used by members of terrorist cells. Encryption provides law-abiding citizens a secure means to protect their data against criminals and hackers. The European Union Agency for Information and Security has supported encryption and come out strongly against back doors that would jeopardize end-to-end encryption. Technology companies such as Apple, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft all similarly support encryption and resist weakening that encryption with back door access.

Read More

November 20, 2016

By Rick Mendenhall

The Georgetown Law Center on National Security and the Law hosted their 24^th Annual Review of National Security Law last Thursday and Friday at the Capital Hilton. Talks incorporated panels on “Making Smart Sanctions Smarter,” Cybersecurity, and the Future of Foreign Intelligence, all of which implicate international law. Speakers included Federal judges and General Counsels to the CIA, DNI, and NSA.

Read More

November 11, 2014

By Evan Abrams

The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada is a little-known organization, but it is playing a key role in the fight against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. According to an article by The Globe and Mail, “The agency’s access to information about banking and other financial transactions allows it to see links between people and groups in Canada and abroad that support terrorist activities.” The agency made 234 disclosures to security officials last year for instances related to terrorist financing or national security threats. This marks a 450% increase from 2008.  

Read More

October 24, 2014

By Phillip Yu

Sihai Cheng of China and Seyed Abolfazl Shahab Jamili of Iran allegedly plotted between 2009 and 2011 to send transducers ordered from MKS Instruments Inc. in Andover, Massachusetts, to Eyvaz Technic Manufacturing Co., a Tehran-based business that has previously supplied parts to Iranian nuclear facilities. 

Cheng allegedly plotted with coconspirators at MKS Shanghai, a Chinese subsidiary of MKS in Andover to set up companies to pose as the intended recipients of the materials. Cheng then allegedly redirected the materials to Iran once they were shipped to China. 

While Iran urges that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, Cheng’s indictment maintains that currently U.S. sanctions ban the export of any goods, technology, or services from the United States to Iran. 

Read More

April 12, 2014

By Sam Obenhaus

NATO-Ukraine Commission session in Brussels |
U.S. Department of State on Flickr 

Money flows quickly.  It has no morals and tends to have a very short memory.  In the case of great powers, it’s tentacles also bind economies together in ways that are hard to define and even harder to untangle.

This last trait has, of course, been a tremendous benefit of expanding trade and interdependence since the latter half of the 20^th century.  Global trade, some like to say, is now “too big to fail.”  The interconnectedness it created pacified Europe, the most violent continent for the majority of recent history, and this is not about to change.  World War III, or even another Cold War, is not around the corner.

But has the deterrence of large-scale conflict come at the expense of reducing the expected costs associated with moderate acts of aggression?  This is the hypothesis Russian President Vladimir Put is testing in Crimea and maybe soon in Eastern Ukraine.

Read More

April 04, 2014

By Abraham Shanedling

Russian President Valdimir Putin meets with
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in January 2014.
(Photo courtesy of The Iran Project)

A sanctions tit-for-tat battle is quickly emerging between Moscow and the Western powers in light of Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

So far the United States and the European Union have implemented asset freezes and visa restrictions against 28 Russian and Ukrainian officials, including several close advisers to Russian President Vladimir Putin, accused of involvement in the seizure of Crimea.

Moments after President Obama announced expanded sanctions on Russian financial services, energy, mining and engineering sectors, Putin hit back with his own round of sanctions, targeting certain White House officials and Members of Congress.

Most of the named U.S. officials, now blocked from entering Russia, have not expressed severe concern. “I guess that means my spring break in Siberia is off, my Gazprom stock is lost, and my secret bank account in Moscow is frozen,” said Senator John McCain, who had recently returned from a trip to Kiev and was included on Putin’s list.

Members of Congress may not be taking the Kremlin’s response seriously right now. But this all may change.

Read More

March 26, 2014

By Abraham Shanedling

This Wednesday, March 5 from 1-2 p.m., Georgetown Law’s National Security Law Society is hosting a brown-bag lunch discussion on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), looking at bribery, transparency, and accountability in international business. The panel will feature James Kouikous, Senior Deputy Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Fraud Secction, and Michael Diamant, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

The event will take place in McDonough Hall, Room 437. For questions, contact gulcnsls@gmail.com.

Read More

March 04, 2014

By Matt Klinger

Last month the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) fast-tracked a case filed by a London-based activist groups against the U.K. government for its alleged involvement in the U.S. National Security Agency's PRISM surveillance program.

The groups filed their complaint with the ECHR in September, alleging the U.K. intelligence services participating in PRISM were violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  In particular, Article 8 requires that any government interference in an individual's private or family life must be "in accordance with the law" and "necessary in a democratic society."  The U.K. government now has until May 2nd to respond to several questions from the court.

Axel Arnbak at Freedom to Tinker has insightfully analyzed how the court is likely to approach the case.

Read More

February 06, 2014