The Just Security Podcast

This week, leaders from across the Euro-Atlantic region met in Washington, D.C., for the annual NATO Summit. The security pact turned 75 this year, and its 32 members are facing challenges on multiple fronts, from Russia?s continuing bombardment of Ukraine, now in its third year, to the growing relationship between Russia and China and NATO member Hungary?s outreach to both. And that?s not to mention issues such as the impacts of technology, especially artificial intelligence, and questions of how many allies are reaching the intended threshold for their own defense spending of at least 2% of GDP.

And all of this comes amid the uncertainty of a looming U.S. election in which former President Donald Trump has signaled he would distance Washington?s support for the alliance, and amid President Joe Biden?s struggles to persuade supporters that he still has the physical and mental stamina ? at age 81 ? to serve another term. 

What are the key takeaways from the Summit and how might it influence security concerns on both sides of the Atlantic? 

Co-hosting today is Just Security?s Washington Senior Editor, Viola Gienger, and joining the show to discuss this year?s NATO summit and unpack its implications is Ambassador Daniel Fried. 

During his 40 years in the Foreign Service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles, including as Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted the annual NATO Public Forum with other think tanks on the sidelines of the summit.  

Show Notes: 

Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Ambassador Fried?s Just Security article ?At the NATO Summit, Strategy and Politics in Play?  Just Security?s NATO coverageJust Security?s Russia-Ukraine war coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. United States, finding that former presidents have ?absolute immunity? for certain ?official acts? taken while in office. The decision is a potentially sweeping expansion of presidential power and raises many questions, such as how to separate ?official? and ?unofficial? conduct in practice, and how it will impact the prosecutions against former President Donald Trump.  

What are the opinion?s key takeaways? How might Special Counsel Jack Smith respond to the decision? 

Joining the show to unpack the Court?s landmark ruling, and what it means for presidential power and democracy, are leading legal experts Marty Lederman, Mary McCord, and Steve Vladeck. Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, co-hosted the discussion. 

Marty previously served in the Department of Justice?s Office of Legal Counsel and is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Mary is Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center. She previously had a long career at the Department of Justice, as a federal prosecutor and later in leadership of the National Security Division. Steve is a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and he covers the Supreme Court both for CNN and through his Substack newsletter, ?One First.? Marty, Mary, and Steve are all Editors at Just Security.  

Show Notes: 

Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman)Mary B. McCordSteve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck)Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)Paras Shah (@pshah518)Just Security?s Trump Trials coverageJust Security?s Supreme Court coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On June 24, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two top Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during Russia?s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. 

Prosecutors allege that Sergei Shoigu, Russia?s former defense minister, and Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, directed missile strikes against Ukraine?s power plants and electrical infrastructure. 

Russian attacks on Ukraine?s power plants during the winter of 2022-2023 left 12 million people with limited or no access to energy and severely damaged Ukraine's health care system. 

Just how might the arrest warrants influence the war?  

Joining the show to discuss the arrest warrants and their potential impact are Kateryna Busol and Rebecca Hamilton. 

Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University.  

Show Notes: 

Kateryna Busol (@KaterynaBusol)Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s symposium ?International Law in the Face of Russia?s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv? Fionnuala Ní Aoláin?s Just Security article ?A Zone of Silence: Obstetric Violence in Gaza and Beyond? and Podcast episode with Paras and Viola Gienger ?Harm to Women in War Goes Beyond Sexual Violence: `Obstetric Violence' Neglected? Just Security?s International Law coverageJust Security?s Russia-Ukraine War coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

 The latest annual report from the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition identified more than 2,500 incidents of violence against, or obstruction of, health care in conflicts during 2023. 

Those incidents, which span from Myanmar to Mali, include attacks on health care workers and facilities, the use of drones to target hospitals and ambulances, and the occupation of hospitals to conduct military operations. And many attacks are carried out with impunity. 

Joining the show to unpack patterns of attacks on health care in armed conflicts is an expert team from the nonprofit organization Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and their local partners. 

Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas is PHR?s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) researcher where he documents attacks on health care, including unlawful detention of health care workers, and advocates for access to health.  

Dr. Neema Rukunghu Nadine-Néné is a gynecologist at Panzi hospital in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and an expert trainer on the care of survivors of sexual violence for PHR and the Panzi Foundation.  

Uliana Poltavets is PHR?s Ukraine Emergency Response Coordinator where she focuses on documenting attacks on health care in Ukraine since the onset of Russia?s full-scale invasion of the country in February 2022. 

Dr. ?B? Zemen is an Organizational Psychologist and board member of the Health Professionals Network for Tigray (HPN4Tigray).

Show Notes: 

Dr. Houssam al-Nahhas (@h_alnahhas)Dr. Neema RukunghuUliana PoltavetsDr. "B" ZemenParas Shah (@pshah518) Uliana and Christian De Vos? Just Security article ?Russia?s Attacks on Ukraine?s Energy Infrastructure Imperil Healthcare Access? Just Security?s International Humanitarian Law (IHL) coverageJust Security?s health coverageJust Security?s Civilian Harm coverageJust Security?s Gaza, Russia-Ukraine War, Syria, and Tigray coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Just over two years ago, Russian forces fired a missile that destroyed a museum complex in Ukraine. The attack decimated the home of 18th-century Ukrainian philosopher and poet Hryhorii Skovoroda. Hundreds of years after his death, Skovoroda is still an important national figure. Ukrainian universities bear his name, and he appears on the 500 hryvnia note. For many Ukrainians, the attack felt like it struck at the core of their identity. 

Damage to cultural heritage has deep impacts on the people who care about and depend on it. Attacks in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, and other areas affected by armed conflict reveal a pattern of harm from explosive weapons to cultural heritage and, by extension, to civilians. But now, a new legal framework could change how nations protect cultural heritage during war.  

Joining the show to discuss the impact of explosive weapons on cultural heritage, and what States can do to address it, is Bonnie Docherty. 

Bonnie is a Senior Arms Advisor in the Crisis, Conflict and Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. She is also a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School?s International Human Rights Clinic and Director of the Clinic?s Armed Conflict and Civilian Protection Initiative. 

Show Notes: 

Bonnie Docherty (@bonnie_docherty) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Bonnie?s Just Security article ?Explosive Weapons Pose Threats to Cultural Heritage: States Have a Tool to Protect It? Just Security?s International Humanitarian Law coverageJust Security?s Protection of Civilians coverageJust Security?s Civilian Harm coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Borders between countries are often dangerous, violent places. From the sands of the Sahel to the islands of the Mediterranean, borders allow governments to define who can enter a country ? often deciding whether a person can find refuge or is left behind.  

Increasingly, borders are also spaces for governments and private companies to test new technology. But how is that technology being used? And what impact is it having for people on the move?  

Petra Molnar?s new book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence offers a sweeping portrait of how new tech, from surveillance drones to lie detection software, is transforming borders around the world. 

A lawyer and anthropologist, Petra specializes in migration and human rights. She co-runs the Refugee Law Lab at York University and is a faculty associate at Harvard?s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. 

Just Security Podcast host Paras Shah recently sat down with Petra to discuss the book, which is available now from The New Press and wherever books are sold. 

Show Notes: 

Petra Molnar (@_PMolnar)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Petra?s book The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in The Age of Artificial Intelligence published by The New PressJust Security?s Technology coverageJust Security?s Migration coverageJust Security?s Artificial Intelligence coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)Music: ?Two Acres? by ?Arend? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/two-acres (License code: TSVLNHC2S7MBCVQS)

Last week, an international court issued a major decision that could impact how nations around the world address climate change and protect the ocean. 

On May 21, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), also known as ?The Oceans Court,? delivered an advisory opinion holding that countries must take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from greenhouse gas emissions. This is the first time that an international court has ruled directly on countries? international legal obligations to mitigate climate change. The European Court of Human Rights found similar State obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in April. 

The ITLOS decision is a major victory for the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, COSIS, a coalition of nine nations from the Caribbean and the Pacific. For small island States, climate change is an existential threat. Protecting the world?s oceans, which act as important heat and carbon sinks, is key to maintaining fish stocks, reducing the frequency and intensity of devastating storms, and preserving plants and wildlife. 

What exactly did the Tribunal decide? How might this groundbreaking ruling impact future climate policy? 

Co-hosting this episode is Just Security?s Managing Editor, Megan Corrarrino, and joining the show to discuss the Tribunal?s decision and its potential impact are Catherine Amirfar and Ambassador Cheryl Bazard.  

Catherine is Chair of the Subcommittee on Litigation Management of COSIS?s Committee of Legal Experts and the Co-Chair of the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton?s International Dispute Resolution Group. She is also the Co-Chair of Just Security?s Advisory Board. Ambassador Cheryl Bazard serves as The Bahamas' Ambassador to Belgium and the European Union. The Bahamas is one of the nine COSIS States that sought the opinion. 

Show Notes:  

Ambassador Cheryl BazardCatherine AmirfarMegan Corrarino (@MeganCorrarino)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Catherine and Duncan Pickard?s Just Security article ?Q&A: ?The Oceans Court? Issues Landmark Advisory Opinion on Climate Change?Rebecca Hamilton?s Just Security article ?The ?Year of Climate? in International Courts? Just Security?s Climate Change coverageJust Security?s International Law coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

We are over a month into former President Donald Trump?s historic criminal trial. The prosecution and defense have each presented their cases, and a Manhattan jury will soon decide whether Trump broke the law and interfered in the 2016 election by falsifying business records in an effort to cover up ?hush money? payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. 

What has it been like inside the courtroom? What can we expect next from each side in closing arguments? 

Joining the show to discuss the trial and what comes next are seasoned legal reporters Terri Austin and Adam Klasfeld. 

Terri is an experienced lawyer and legal analyst and Adam is a veteran reporter and Journalism Fellow at Just Security. They?ve both covered Trump?s New York trial from inside the courtroom since day one. 

Show Notes:  

Terri Austin (@Terridaustin)Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s Trump New York criminal trial coverageJust Security?s ?Trump Trials Clearinghouse? Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Monday, May 20, International Criminal Court head Prosecutor Karim Khan announced that he has submitted an application to the Court?s judges to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav Gallant, the Minister of Defence of Israel, and three Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The allegations are extensive, as discussed in a lengthy statement released by the Prosecutor, although the application itself is not yet public.  

The decision has major implications for the devastating conflict still raging in Gaza; and for how the Court interacts with nations across the world. In Washington, the arrest warrants are certain to threaten recent increased cooperation with the Court, and efforts to prosecute Russian officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine could also be jeopardized. 

Joining the show to discuss Khan?s request and its potential consequences are Todd Buchwald, Tom Dannenbaum, and Rebecca Hamilton. 

Todd formerly served as Ambassador and Special Coordinator for the State Department?s Office of Global Criminal Justice. Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Rebecca is a law professor at American University and an Executive Editor at Just Security.

Show Notes:

Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Todd BuchwaldTom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s Symposium ?The International Criminal Court and Israel-Hamas War?Tom?s Just Security article ?Nuts & Bolts of Int?l Criminal Court Arrest Warrant Applications for Senior Israeli Officials and Hamas Leaders? Rebecca, Tess, and Ryan Goodman?s article ?Timeline of Int?l Crim Court Arrest Warrants for Gaza War: What Comes Next and How We Got Here? Just Security?s Gaza coverageJust Security?s International Criminal Court coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Last month, Europe?s top human rights court issued a major decision in the fight against climate change. In KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland, the highest chamber of the European Court of Human Rights found that the Swiss government has violated the human rights of its citizens by not doing enough to address the threat of climate change. The decision is a landmark ruling for activists, lawyers, and communities who are trying to use human rights law to hold governments accountable for promises to fight global warming. 

But it?s not the only case asking what international law requires of nations when it comes to protecting the environment. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the International Court of Justice are all grappling with similar questions.

What do these cases mean for the fight against climate change? Where are the opportunities and risks? 

Joining the show to discuss the ?Year of Climate? in international courts and tribunals are Naima Fifita and Joana Setzer. 

Naima is a lawyer from Tuvalu who has taken an active role in proceedings by small island nations before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Joana is an Associate Professorial Research Fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). 

Show Notes: 

Naima FifitaJoana Setzer (@JoanaSetzer)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Rebecca Hamilton?s Just Security article ?The ?Year of Climate? in International Courts? Just Security?s Climate Change coverageJust Security?s International Law coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Curiosity? by ?All Good Folks? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/all-good-folks/curiosity (License code: X6SN2UGIWYHPDJGF) 

In recent decades, the international community has sought to address the particular harms that women and girls experience in war. International law now punishes sexual violence in armed conflict. And there?s the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which the U.N. Security Council launched in 2000 with Resolution 1325. That requires member States to consider impacts of conflict based on gender and to involve women more in all aspects of conflict prevention, management, and resolution. 

But while some harms rightly receive coverage and draw condemnation, other forms of violence are overlooked.  In November 2023, the World Heath Organization estimated that there were 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza. Since the October 7th  Hamas terrorist attack, it is estimated that nearly 20,000 babies have been born into the humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded in the Gaza strip.

Around the world ? from Ukraine to Sudan to Gaza ? violence experienced by pregnant civilians, women giving birth, nursing women, and women struggling to survive in the period after childbirth remains entirely at the sidelines of global political conversations. 

Joining the show to discuss what experts call ?obstetric harms? faced by women and girls in armed conflict and the obligations of combatants in the face of these risks, is Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. Fionnuala is the former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism, and a law professor at the University of Minnesota and at Queen?s University School of Law in Belfast, Northern Ireland. We?re honored to have her as an Executive Editor at Just Security. 

Show Notes: 

Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (@NiAolainF)Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Fionnuala?s Just Security article ?A Zone of Silence: Obstetric Violence in Gaza and Beyond?Just Security?s International Humanitarian Law (IHL) coverageJust Security?s Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) coverageJust Security?s U.N. Security Council coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On April 17, 2024, NYU School of Law hosted a panel of experts to discuss whether a former President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct that allegedly involved official acts during his tenure in office. The Supreme Court is considering that question in United States v. Trump and will hear oral argument in the case on April 25. 

The panel consisted of George Conway, a Contributing Writer at The Atlantic and Board President of the Society for the Rule of Law; Trevor Morrison the Eric M. and Laurie B. Roth Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus of NYU School of Law; and Kate Shaw a Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Andrew Weissmann, a Just Security Editor and Faculty Co-Director of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law, moderated the discussion. 

Show Notes: 

George Conway (@gtconway3d)Trevor MorrisonKate Shaw (@kateashaw1)Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_)Just Security?s Trump Trials coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Sudan and Gaza are teetering on the brink of man-made famine. 

In Sudan, fighting between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the rival Rapid Support Forces has displaced more than 7 million people with 18 million people enduring acute food insecurity, and nearly 5 million of those suffering at emergency levels, according to the World Food Programme. 

In Gaza, Israel?s war against Hamas has left 1.1 million people, half the territory?s population, facing ?catastrophic? food shortages, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification process.

Using starvation as a method of warfare is a war crime. And while the most urgent need is for immediate access to food and humanitarian aid, the crises in Sudan and Gaza also raise important questions about how to hold those responsible for potential atrocities to account. 

Joining the show to discuss the situations in Gaza and Sudan, whether the parties to the conflict might be committing the war crime of starvation of civilians, and what might be done about it, is leading expert Tom Dannenbaum.  

Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Tom is a foremost expert on international humanitarian law, including: starvation of civilians, siege warfare directed at a civilian population, and accountability for these acts. 

Show Notes:  

Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Tom?s Just Security article ?Does the ICC Have Jurisdiction Over the Starvation War Crime in Sudan??Tom?s Just Security article ?The Siege of Gaza and the Starvation War Crime?Just Security?s Sudan coveragJust Security?s Gaza coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Vladimir Putin recently claimed victory as Russia?s president despite extensive evidence that the ?election? was illegitimate in a number of ways. His repression, including evidence of State-ordered assassinations and assassination attempts, and his manipulation of Russia?s legal systems and institutions seems to assure him power ? and impunity.

Putin?s efforts to consolidate that power have included eliminating most political opposition and civil society organizations and forcing independent media to shut down or move their operations into exile. The recent death of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a remote prison camp exemplified the threats to anyone deemed critical of the Kremlin.

The long arm of the Kremlin also extends far beyond its borders. In addition to the now decade-long war on Ukraine, which escalated into a full-scale invasion in February 2022, and military interventions in the Middle East and Africa, Russian exiles are also not immune from Putin?s wrath. 

Just Security's Washington Senior Editor Viola Gienger recently interviewed Gleb Bogush, a Russian lawyer and expert on international criminal law who fled Russia in 2022. 

Gleb is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Center of Excellence for International Courts of the University of Copenhagen. He is also a member of the Cologne-Bonn Academy in Exile (CBA). Before 20222, he was an Associate Professor of International Law at the Moscow State University and HSE University in Russia, also known as the Higher School of Economics.

This conversation took place a day before the March 22 terrorist attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 130 people. 

Show Notes: 

Gleb Bogush (@gleb_bogush)Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Just Security?s Russia coverageJust Security?s Russia-Ukraine War coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Haiti?s crisis of gang violence and political dysfunction has been spiraling out of control. The number of reported homicides more than doubled last year to almost 4,800, and kidnappings soared to almost 2,500 cases. Sexual violence is rampant, and 313,000 Haitians have fled their homes.

In recent weeks, the crisis has reached new heights. While de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry was out of the country, the gangs took advantage and rampaged across the capital, Port-au-Prince. According to the United Nations, since the start of the year, the gangs have killed over 1,100 people and injured nearly 700 others. 

As the gangs roam freely, the United States and Caribbean countries ? in a bloc called CARICOM ? are trying to mediate a solution. The result thus far ? though still unfolding ? is that Henry has agreed to resign as soon as a transitional council of possibly 9 members is formed and an interim prime minister is chosen. But many questions remain about how that council and the interim prime minister will be appointed, which segments of Haitian society will be represented on it, and how a potential Kenyan-led international policing mission might go forward.

Where does Haiti go from here?

Joining the show to discuss the security situation in Haiti, and how policymakers in the region and around the world are addressing it, are Rosy Auguste Ducéna and Beatrice Lindstrom. 

Rosy is a human rights lawyer and Program Manager for the National Network for the Defense of Human Rights (RNDDH) in Haiti and has testified before the U.S. Congress. Bea is a Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School?s International Human Rights Clinic. Prior to joining Harvard, she was the Legal Director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, which works to bring Haitian grassroots struggles for human rights to the international stage. 

Show Notes: 

Rosy Auguste Ducéna (@AugusteRosy)Beatrice Lindstrom (@BeaLindstrom)Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Bea?s Just Security article ?With Haiti on the Brink of Collapse, a Reckoning for US Policy on Haiti?Just Security?s Haiti coverageJust Security?s U.N. Security Council coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

In the two years since Russia?s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, the fighting has caused widespread horror and devastation. Over 10,000 civilians have been killed and more than half a million people injured. Still millions of others are internally displaced, seeking refuge abroad, or are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. 

The idea of war ? and how to prevent it ? was a central concern when 51 nations came together to form the United Nations over seven decades ago. Russia?s invasion of Ukraine poses deep challenges to the international rules-based order and raises complex questions of international law, not only for Ukraine, but for nations around the world.

In partnership with the Ukrainian Association of International Law, which worked with other stakeholders such as the Ukrainian Bar Association, the American Society of International Law helped to convene a gathering of international lawyers in Lviv, Ukraine in December 2023. 

Lviv was home to three giants in the field of international law: Hersch Lauterpacht, Rafael Lemkin, and Louis Sohn. Lauterpacht developed the concept of crimes against humanity, Lemkin pioneered the term ?genocide,? and pushed for the adoption of the U.N. Genocide Convention, and Sohn played a pivotal role in helping to conceptualize article 51 of the U.N. Charter on the right of self-defense. 

Many of those who gathered in Lviv are now sharing their reflections on the meeting in a Just Security symposium. Joining the show to discuss the symposium are four of its editors, Kateryna Busol, Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer.  

Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Olga is President of the Ukrainian Association of International Law and Chaired Professor of Law at Kyiv?s National University of Taras Shevchenko. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University, Washington College of Law. Greg is the Scott K Ginsburg Professor of International Law at Georgetown University Law Center and the President of the American Society of International Law. 

Show Notes:  

Kateryna Busol (@KaterynaBusol)Olga ButkevychRebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)Gregory Shaffer (@gregorycshaffer) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s symposium ?International Law in the Face of Russia?s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv? Patryk I. Labuda?s (@PILabuda) Just Security article ?Accountability for Russian Imperialism in the ?Global East??Just Security?s International Law coverageJust Security?s Russia-Ukraine War coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbe

On March 6, 2024, Just Security and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law co-hosted an all-star panel of experts to discuss the issue of government ?jawboning? ? a practice of informal government efforts to persuade, or strong-arm, private platforms to change their content-moderation practices. Many aspects of jawboning remain unsettled but could come to a head later this month when the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case called Murthy v. Missouri on March 18. 

Murthy poses several questions that defy easy answer, driving at the heart of how we wish to construct and regulate what some consider to be the modern public square.

The expert panel consists of Jameel Jaffer, the Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and an Executive Editor at Just Security; Kathryn Ruemmler, the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of Goldman Sachs and former White House Counsel to President Barack Obama; and Colin Stretch, the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of Etsy and the former General Counsel of Facebook (now Meta). Just Security?s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, moderated the discussion. 

This NYU Law Forum was sponsored by the law firm Latham & Watkins. 

Show Notes: 

Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) Kathryn RuemmlerColin StretchRyan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of LawJust Security?s First Amendment coverageJust Security?s Content Moderation coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On February 27, 2024, Just Security hosted a live event for the launch of Professor Barbara McQuade?s new book, Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America. Barbara is an Editor at Just Security and a Professor from Practice at the University of Michigan Law School. She joined NYU Professor of History and Italian Studies Ruth Ben-Ghiat for a conversation about the book followed by questions from the audience. 

Just Security?s Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, introduced Barbara and Ruth. This event was co-sponsored with the NYU Institute for Public Knowledge and the American Constitution Society.  

Show Notes: 

Barbara McQuade (@BarbMcQuade)Ruth Ben-Ghiat (@ruthbenghiat)Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) NYU Institute for Public KnowledgeAmerican Constitution SocietyJust Security excerpt of Barbara?s book, Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America published by Seven Stories PressJust Security?s Disinformation coverageJust Security?s Rule of Law coverageMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Feb. 29, 2024, Just Security welcomed the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, to NYU School of Law for an event in celebration of Just Security?s 10th anniversary year.

Just Security?s Co-Editors-in-Chief, Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman, introduced Director Haines who delivered remarks regarding strategic declassification, the role of law, and transparency in the intelligence community. Director Haines then joined NYU School of Law Dean Troy McKenzie for a question and answer fireside chat. 

Show Notes: 

Avril HainesTroy McKenzieTess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) Just SecurityReiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of LawMusic: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Late one evening in January 2013, a group of men carrying Kalashnikov rifles approached another man. Their faces were hidden behind balaclavas and they smelled of alcohol. It was the height of the Syrian civil war, and the group of men were supporters of President Bashar al-Assad?s regime. They arrested the man and handed him over to Syrian Air Force intelligence officials who detained and tortured him. 

A Dutch court recently convicted one of those masked men involved in the arrest, known in court papers as Mustafa A., of war crimes and crimes against humanity.  

The verdict is the first time that a Dutch court has convicted a defendant who supported Assad?s regime during the civil war, and it is the latest example of how courts across Europe are playing an active role in holding perpetrators of atrocity crimes to account. 

Joining the show to discuss the case and its implications are Fritz Streiff and Hope Rikkelman. Fritz and Hope work with The Nuhanovic Foundation, a nonprofit organization which helps to secure justice and reparations for civilian victims of war and conflict. The Foundation played an active role in this case. 

Show Notes: 

Fritz Streiff (@fritz_streiff) Hope Rikkelman (@HRikkelman) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Fritz and Hope?s Just Security article on the Syria war crimes prosecutionJust Security?s atrocities coverageJust Security?s Syria coverageJust Security?s universal jurisdiction coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Vladimir Kara-Murza is one of Russia?s most famous political prisoners. He is a longtime opposition leader and prominent guest columnist for The Washington Post who was poisoned twice in incidents that are widely attributed to the Kremlin. And yet, like another famous opposition leader currently imprisoned in Russia, Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza was determined to return to his homeland to continue his human rights work after recovering from attempts on his life. In April 2022, Russian authorities arrested him and charged him with ?high treason.? He was eventually sentenced to 25 years in prison. 

In late January, Vladimir?s wife, Evgenia, reported that he had been moved from his prison and that his whereabouts were unknown. Though he has now resurfaced at a new prison in Siberia, Vladimir is being held in the strictest form of isolation and his situation remains dire. 

In Russia and other repressive countries, the situation is also dire for the lawyers trying to defend those political prisoners. The lawyers often face threats to their lives or threats of prosecution themselves simply for doing their jobs. 

Joining the show to discuss Vladimir Kara-Murza?s case, and the broader risks facing political prisoners and lawyers in Russia, are Vladimir?s wife, Evgenia Kara-Murza, and his lawyer for more than 10 years, Vadim Prokhorov. Evgenia is Advocacy Director of the Free Russia Foundation and has tirelessly advocated for the rights of her husband and other political prisoners in Russia, and Vadim has represented a range of Kremlin critics who?ve been targeted by the regime, including opposition politicians and anti-corruption campaigners. He was forced to flee Russia last April, just days before Vladimir?s sentence was handed down, because the prosecutor and the judge in the case threatened to prosecute him, too.

Show Notes: 

Evgenia Kara-Murza (@ekaramurza)Vadim ProkhorovVladimir Kara-Murza (@vkaramurza)Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Free Russia FoundationThe American Bar Association?s Justice Defenders ProgramVadim?s Just Security article ?A Lawyer for Political Prisoners on Why He Fled Russia?Just Security?s Russia coverageJust Security?s Rule of Law coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Caravan? by ?Arend? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)

From products like ChatGPT to resource allocation and cancer diagnoses, artificial intelligence will impact nearly every part of our lives. We know the potential benefits of AI are enormous, but so are the risks, including chemical and bioweapons attacks, more effective disinformation campaigns, AI-enabled cyber-attacks, and lethal autonomous weapons systems. 

Policymakers have taken steps to address these risks, but industry and civil society leaders are warning that these efforts still fall short. 

Last year saw a flurry of efforts to regulate AI. In October, the Biden administration issued an executive order to encourage ?responsible? AI development, in November, the U.K. hosted the world?s first global AI Safety Summit to explore how best to mitigate some of the greatest risks facing humanity, and in December European Union policymakers passed a deal imposing new transparency requirements on AI systems. 

Are efforts to regulate AI working? What else needs to be done? That?s the focus of our show today. 

It?s clear we are at an inflection point in AI governance ? where innovation is outpacing regulation. But while States face a common problem in regulating AI, approaches differ and prospects for global cooperation appear limited. 

There is no better expert to navigate this terrain than Robert Trager, Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University?s Blavatnik School of Government, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, and International Governance Lead at the Centre for the Governance of AI. 

Show Notes: 

Robert Trager (@RobertTrager) Brianna Rosen (@rosen_br)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s Symposium on AI Governance: Power, Justice, and the Limits of the LawJust Security?s Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security?s Autonomous Weapons Systems coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

On Friday, January 26, the International Court of Justice issued its Opinion granting provisional measures in South Africa?s genocide case against Israel.  At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court did not determine whether Israel?s conduct amounts to genocide ? that potential determination is left for what is known as the ?merits? phase of the case, which will likely occur years from now. 

Instead, today the Court held that Israel?s actions to minimize harm to civilians did not sufficiently remove the risk of irreparable harm and ordered Israel to take specific actions including refraining from acts under the Genocide Convention, preventing and punishing incitement to genocide and taking effective measures to allow for the provision of humanitarian assistance, among others. 

Joining the show to discuss the Court?s Opinion and its implications are law professors Adil Haque, Oona Hathaway, and Yuval Shany. They have each written extensively about the case and its potential impact, including on Just Security. 

Show Notes: 

Adil Ahmad Haque (@AdHaque110)Oona A. Hathaway (@oonahathaway) Yuval Shany (@yuvalshany1) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s South Africa v. Israel coverage  Just Security?s Israel-Hamas war coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?The World Between Us? by Cory Alstad from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cory-alstad/the-wound-between-us (License code: GMVY1M06I3QWDKJJ)

This week, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders used a little-known, decades-old law to force the Senate to vote on whether to request an investigation of potential human rights abuses by Israel in its war against Hamas. The obscure process that Sanders used is known as Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act. The law allows Congress to request a mandatory human rights report from the State Department on a specified country. And if the State Department does not provide a report within 30 days of the request, U.S. security assistance to the target country stops. 

While the resolution ultimately failed on January 16, it shows that Section 502B has the potential to become a powerful tool for forcing public discussion about alleged human rights and the United States? role in facilitating them. 

Joining the show to unpack how Section 502B works, along with its history and new efforts to use it, is John Chappell. John is an Advocacy & Legal Fellow at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC). He?s an expert on Section 502B. 

Show Notes: 

John Ramming Chappell (@jwrchappell) Paras Shah (@pshah518) John?s Just Security article on Senator Sanders? Section 502B resolution Just Security?s arms sales coverageJust Security?s Congressional oversight coverageJust Security?s Israel-Hamas War coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

This year?s version of the U.N. climate meeting, or COP, concluded last week in the United Arab Emirates. Nearly 200 nations from around the world agreed to a historic deal to transition away from fossil fuels in a ?just, orderly and equitable manner? and leaders pledged $700 million in funds to address the loss and damage from climate change. 

But as with any global agreement, now comes the hard part of turning words on paper into reality as countries decide how to implement their new commitments. 

Joining the show to discuss the developments at COP28 and what comes next is Mark Nevitt. Mark is a professor at Emory Law School and an expert on climate change.

Show Notes: 

Paras Shah (@pshah518) Mark P. Nevitt (@MarkNevitt) Mark?s Just Security article ?Assessing COP 28: The New Global Climate Deal in Dubai? Just Security?s COP28 coverageJust Security?s climate change coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Breathing Water (Solo Piano)? by Cedric Vermue from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cedric-vermue/breathing-water-solo-piano (License code: MH0XYFEO1YABWIMJ)

The 2024 U.S. presidential election is less than a year away and the primary process starts in January.

The election will serve as a stress test for American democracy: Will candidates accept the results? Will voters? Are governments and social media platforms ready for a barrage of disinformation? And can election administrators maintain confidence in free and fair elections as they work with constantly shifting election laws, court rulings, and voter suppression efforts?

Joining the show to discuss how election administrators are preparing for 2024 and the risks they are confronting now is Allison Mollenkamp. Allison is a Fellow at Just Security and recently interviewed election officials from eight states around the country.  

Show Notes: 

Paras Shah (@pshah518) Allison MollenkampAllison?s Just Security article ?America?s Election Officials Fight Disinformation and Death Threats Ahead of 2024?Just Security?s U.S. election protection coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Breathing Water (Solo Piano)? by Cedric Vermue from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cedric-vermue/breathing-water-solo-piano (License code: MH0XYFEO1YABWIMJ)

On Monday, Dec. 4, 2023, the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law and Just Security co-hosted an expert discussion entitled ?Toward a Goldilocks Deal on Section 702 Surveillance Reform.? 

This Podcast episode is the audio from that discussion, which was co-moderated by Senior Counsel at Perkins Coie LLP and former Justice Department counterespionage prosecutor and FISA oversight attorney David Aaron and Just Security Co-Editor-in-Chief and former Deputy Legal Adviser to the National Security Council and Special Assistant to the President Tess Bridgeman.

The panelists were: Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein the Senior Director of the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice; Andrew McCabe the Former Acting Director and Deputy Director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Mary McCord the Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center. 

Show Notes: 

David Aaron (@davidcaaron) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter)Elizabeth (Liza) Goitein (@LizaGoitein) Andrew G. McCabeMary B. McCordParas Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s FISA Section 702 coverageReiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of LawMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Eyes Closed? by Tobias Voigt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/eyes-closed (License code: XTRHPYM1ELYU8SVA) 

This week, world leaders, diplomats, climate activists, journalists, and fossil fuel executives will meet in Dubai for the United Nations? annual Climate Change Conference. While many discussions will build on last year?s COP, where nations agreed to fund loss and damage from climate change, another focus will be on who is sidelined from the discussions. 

The United Arab Emirates has reportedly hired an army of public relations experts to help manage its reputation during the two-week event and to keep international attention away from its crackdown on civic space. Meanwhile, some of the world?s largest democracies, including governments that have traditionally championed human rights, lack a clear vision for protecting civic space in the climate talks, even though Indigenous communities, social justice movements, and human rights defenders are at the forefront of fighting climate change.

Joining the show to discuss the role of civil society at COP 28 is Kirk Herbertson. Kirk is a Senior Policy Advisor at EarthRights International, a nonprofit organization that ?combines the power of law with the power of people in defense of human rights and the environment.? 

Show Notes: 

Kirk Herbertson (@KirkHerbertson) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Kirk?s Just Security article ?To Avert Climate Crisis, Democracies Need to Protect Civic Space?Just Security?s climate change coverageJust Security?s civil society coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?The World Between Us? by Corey Alstad from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/cory-alstad/the-wound-between-us (License code: DBNNNNMVJSCUU65C)

Some of the biggest risks to human rights in the twenty-first century come from governments misusing surveillance technology originally designed to combat counterterrorism. These spyware tools are manufactured around the world, including in the United States, the European Union, China, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates. 

The technology is difficult to detect and allows access to a target?s communications, contacts, and geolocation and metadata. It can even delete information or plant incriminating data on a person?s phone. Now, nations are using it to spy on politicians, journalists, human rights activists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens with no links to terrorism. 

As a reminder, this is Part 2 of a conversation with Fionnuala Ni Aoláin. Fionnuala recently completed her tenure as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism.

For nearly six years, she examined global and country counterterrorism practices and how they do or don?t comply with human rights standards. To hear Part 1 of our discussion, including Fionnuala?s insights from her experience documenting the conditions at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in prisons and sprawling camps in Northeast Syria, please tune in to last week?s episode, which you can find in the show notes and on our website. 

Show Notes:

Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (@NiAolainF)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Part 1 of our conversation with Fionnuala Fionnuala and Adriana Edmeades Jones? Just Security article ?Spyware Out of the Shadows?  Just Security?s Ending Perpetual War Symposium Just Security?s counterterrorism coverageJust Security?s technology coverageThe U.N. Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights? website (including reports during Fionnuala's term, which ended Oct. 31)Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Gnome? by Danijel Zambo from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/danijel-zambo/gnome (License code: MIZAQ1JSL9JRTUN8)

More than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, counterterrorism still dominates most security policies and practices around the world, including at the United Nations.

And yet, the problem of terrorism persists around the world ? from southwestern Pakistan, to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, to the Sahel.

Across the board, nations are failing to address the root causes of extremism. 

What might alternative approaches to counterterrorism look like? 

Perhaps no one is better equipped to consider the impact of counterterrorism on human rights than Fionnuala Ní Aoláin. This is Part 1 of a special two-part conversation. Please join us next week for Fionnuala?s insights into the human rights implications caused by spyware and personal data collection. 

Fionnuala recently completed her tenure as the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism. She was the first U.N. expert to visit the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and issued a landmark report on how Guantanamo deprives both the detainees and the 9/11 victims of the justice they all deserve. She assessed the conditions in prisons and camps in northeast Syria that still hold over 50,000 people more than 5 years after the defeat of the Islamic State. She raised awareness of the role of gender in counterterrorism and of the repressive effect of counterterrorism tactics on civil society, and she enumerated the ever-expanding counterterrorism mandate at the U.N. 

Fionnuala is a law professor at the University of Minnesota  and at Queens University School of Law in Belfast, Northern Ireland and an executive editor at Just Security.

Show Notes:  

Fionnuala Ní Aoláin (@NiAolainF)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Part 2 of our conversation with FionnualaFionnuala?s Just Security article ?Rethinking Counterterrorism? Just Security's Ending Perpetual War Symposium Just Security?s counterterrorism coverageJust Security northeast Syria coverageJust Security?s Guantanamo coverageThe U.N. Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights? website (including reports during Fionnuala's term, which ended Oct. 31)The Guantánamo Artwork and Testimony of Moath Al-Alwi: Deaf Walls Speak (Alexandra S. Moore and Elizabeth Swanson, Editors)Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Moving? by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/moving (License code: JIUYKTT0FITX2S4X)

Across the United States, book bans, and attempted book bans, have hit a record high. Driven in part by newly passed state laws, public schools have seen a thirty-three percent increase in banned books. 

The vague and subjective language used in these laws leave school boards struggling to figure out exactly what content is prohibited. Some school boards, like the Mason City School District in Iowa, have turned to ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence to comply with these new state laws. 

But, the inconsistency and limitations of AI technology have led to over inclusive results that disproportionately flag content about the experiences of women and marginalized communities, and raise concerns about free speech and censorship. 

Joining the show to discuss AI and its effect on book bans is Emile Ayoub.

Emile is counsel in the Brennan Center?s Liberty and National Security Program where he focuses on the impact of technology on civil rights and liberties.

Show Notes: 

Emile Ayoub (@eayoubg) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Emile and Faiza Patel?s (@FaizaPatelBCJ) Just Security article on using AI to comply with book bansJust Security?s Artificial Intelligence coverageJust Security?s content moderation coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Tunnel? by Danijel Zambo from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/danijel-zambo/tunnel (License code: SBF0UK70L6NH9R3G)

In response to Hamas? brutal attacks that killed at least 1,400 Israeli civilians and continues with 200 hostages in Hamas control, Israel has imposed a ?complete siege? of the Gaza Strip. This includes blocking access to electricity, food, and fuel. While Israeli authorities have restored some access to water in southern Gaza the supply remains limited. 

For the over 2 million civilians in Gaza, the siege has created dire humanitarian conditions. Hospitals are quickly running out of medical supplies, and the International Committee of the Red Cross recently said that humanitarian organizations will not be able to provide life-saving assistance with the siege in place.

Joining the show to discuss the siege, and how international law applies to it, is Tom Dannenbaum. 

Tom is an Associate Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University where he is also Co-Director of the Center for International Law and Governance. Tom is an expert on international humanitarian law, including siege starvation. 

Show Notes: 

Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Tom?s Just Security article on the siege of Gaza and the starvation war crimeMark Zeitoun?s Just Security article on access to water in Gaza Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw), Michael Meier (@MWMeier23), and Tess Bridgeman?s (@bridgewriter) expert guidance on the law of armed conflict Just Security?s coverage of the Israel-Hamas warMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Broken? by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the U.S. Department of Defense is one of the biggest ? and hardest ? jobs in Washington. Colin Kahl served in that role for more than two years. From April 2021 to July 2023, he was the principal adviser to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for all matters related to national security and defense policy, oversaw the writing of the 2022 National Defense Strategy, which focused on the ?pacing challenge? posed by China, and he led the Department?s response to Russia?s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, among other international crises. He also led other major defense diplomacy initiatives, like U.S. efforts to revitalize the NATO alliance. 

Kahl has had a long career in government and public service. During the Obama administration, he served as Deputy Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor to then-Vice President Biden. Before that, he served in the Pentagon as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East for nearly three years.

Just Security?s Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman recently sat down with Kahl, who is now a Senior Fellow at Stanford University?s Center for International Security and Cooperation, for an exit interview.

Show Notes: 

Colin Kahl (@ColinKahl)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Tess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) Just Security?s China coverage  Just Security?s Russia-Ukraine war coverageJust Security?s artificial intelligence coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Lilac? by ?Night Drift? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/night-drift/lilac (License code: CFXEBHMVBA8FXVNC) 

Last week, world leaders arrived in New York for the U.N. General Assembly?s High-Level meetings. They debated the response to Russia?s continued full-scale invasion of Ukraine, made some progress on sustainable development, and considered how to regulate artificial intelligence.  

Returning to the show to discuss what we learned from the U.N.?s High-Level week is Richard Gowan. Richard is U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world. 

Show Notes: 

Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard?s Just Security article recapping UNGA 78Just Security?s U.N. General Assembly coverageJust Security?s Russia-Ukraine war coverageJust Security?s climate change coverageJust Security?s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Hypotheticals? by ?AK? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/ak/hypothetical (License code: ZYWSWAROJNPTCX30) 

In 2018, the Supreme Court created a revolution in the Fourth Amendment. In Carpenter v. United States, the Court found that the government needed a warrant to obtain data about the cell phone towers to which a person connected when using their phone. That data can reveal the digital breadcrumbs of a person?s life ? including where they went and how long they stayed. But cell phone users give that location data to their phone providers, third-party companies like AT&T and Verizon. Those companies don?t have the legal ability to challenge a government?s request for the user?s data. In fact, the companies often can?t even notify the user about a request for information. This creates a paradox. Cell phone users, the people who have a Fourth Amendment right to challenge the government?s request for information, don?t know the government is requesting it and third-party companies know about the request but can?t challenge it in court. 

The third-party paradox has massive implications for privacy rights and raises important questions about how to challenge the government?s request for information that might be protected by the Fourth Amendment. 

Joining the show to discuss the third-party paradox and the Fourth Amendment is Michael Dreeben. Michael argued Carpenter and over 100 other cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the government. He is now a partner at the law firm O?Melveny & Myers, a Distinguished Lecturer from Government at Georgetown University Law Center, and a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. 

Show Notes: 

Michael DreebenParas Shah (@pshah518) Resolving Carpenter?s Third-Party Paradox (Part I and Part II) Just Security?s Fourth Amendment coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?The Clock is Ticking? by Simon Folwar from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/the-clock-is-ticking (License code: FY1TG2G1ESDYMSHF)

The U.N. General Assembly?s annual meeting is underway in New York. Leaders from around the world will attend the High-Level Week, which begins on September 18. On the agenda are topics ranging from the continuing response Russia?s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to slow progress on sustainable development, and the looming regulation of artificial intelligence. 

Joining the show to discuss what we expect from this year?s U.N. General Assembly meetings is Richard Gowan. Richard is U.N. Director at the International Crisis Group, an independent organization working to prevent wars and shape policies that will build a more peaceful world.

Show Notes: 

Richard Gowan (@RichardGowan1) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Richard?s Just Security article previewing UNGA 78Just Security?s U.N. General Assembly coverageJust Security?s Russia-Ukraine war coverageJust Security?s climate change coverageJust Security?s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Hypotheticals? by ?AK? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/ak/hypothetical (License code: ZYWSWAROJNPTCX30) 

Two decades ago, leaders from around the world had a moment of reckoning. The images and news reports of genocide in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were still fresh memories, and many countries recognized they hadn?t done enough to respond or prevent the violence. So diplomats at the United Nations had a bold idea. That countries have a collective responsibility to protect their people from war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This responsibility includes using diplomatic, humanitarian, and other peaceful means to help each country protect its own citizens, but nations also agreed that they were ?prepared to take collective action? when peaceful means prove inadequate and national authorities fail to act.  

Today, the responsibility to protect, or R2P as it?s often called, is being tested as mass atrocities occur around the world ? from Ukraine to Myanmar to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But, whose responsibility it is to protect ? or act ? is uncertain.

Even at the U.N., no clear direction has emerged. In June, the U.N.?s top official on R2P, George Okoth-Obbo, said he would resign from his role as Special Advisor after just 17 months. Okoth-Obbo isn?t alone. The previous two R2P Special Advisors left after less than 3 years. The Special Advisor?s short tenure leaves people facing atrocity crimes without an ally and advocate at the U.N. 

Joining the show to discuss the R2P Special Advisor?s role, and why the office has seen so much turnover, is Rebecca Barber. Up until recently Rebecca was a research fellow at the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, and she is also an honorary senior research fellow at the University of Queensland. 

Show Notes: 

Rebecca Barber (@becjbarber) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Rebecca?s Just Security article analyzing the U.N.?s support for the R2P Special AdvisorJust Security?s coverage of the R2P Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?A Simple Life? by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/a-simple-life (License code: WIXYQUFKZO5KP7GO) 

In October 2019, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed during a U.S. military raid on his compound in Syria. Former President Donald Trump called the raid ?impeccable,? and the Defense Department said that no civilians were harmed in the operation. 

But reporting from NPR determined that two civilians were killed and a third lost his arm from U.S. airstrikes. The Defense Department disagreed and dismissed NPR?s claims as ?not credible? based in part on a lack of metadata in images that NPR and Airwars, a watchdog group that monitors the civilian impact of military actions, provided. 

Until now, the U.S. military appears to have never required metadata for images to be considered as evidence. If this new standard continues, it will be much harder for researchers and journalists to collect and submit evidence of civilian harm in U.S. military operations, which erodes accountability when harm occurs.  

Joining the show to discuss the Baghdadi raid and the U.S. response to claims of civilian harm are Airwars Director Emily Tripp and Conflict Researcher Anna Zahn. 

Show Notes:  

Emily Tripp (@Emily_4319) Anna ZahnParas Shah (@pshah518) Anna?s Just Security article on the al-Baghdadi raidNPR?s reporting on Syrian casualties in the raid (also in Arabic) Just Security?s coverage of civilian harm Just Security?s coverage of the Department of Defense?s Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP)Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Abide? by ?Arend? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/abide (License code: OSHRWBZJ90OZARBA)

Former President Donald Trump is now facing his fourth criminal case. 

On Monday, August 14, a grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others, including his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, over their alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia. The indictment charges that the defendants engaged in a sweeping criminal enterprise, which involved submitting false slates of electors, pressuring state officials, breaching voting data, and perjury, among other conduct.  

Joining the show to discuss the most recent Trump indictment, we have Ambassador Norman Eisen. Norm is the former U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic and has also served as special counsel and special assistant to the president for ethics and government reform. In 2019 and 2020, he served as special counsel on the House Judiciary Committee majority during Trump?s impeachment proceedings and trial. Norm has written extensively about the Georgia indictment. 

Show Notes: 

Ambassador Norman Eisen (@NormEisen) Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s Georgia indictment coverage  Just Security?s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Covert Affair? by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR) 

The criminal charges against Donald Trump continue to pile up.

On July 27, a superseding indictment was filed in the classified documents case against Trump, adding three additional charges to the 37 originally filed in June. Five days later, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a new indictment over the former president?s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The superseding indictment in the classified documents case alleges that Trump violated the Espionage Act by retaining a classified document described as a ?presentation concerning military activity in a foreign country,? at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, and that Trump conspired with two associates, Carlos De Oliveira and Walt Nauta, to obstruct justice by attempting to delete security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago in order to conceal it from the FBI and a grand jury. 

Joining the show to discuss the additional charges in the classified documents case is David Aaron. 

David is a Senior Counsel in the Washington, D.C. and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor in the Justice Department's National Security Division, where he prosecuted Espionage Act violations and saw how the process works from the inside. This conversation was recorded on July 30, 2023. 

Show Notes: 

David Aaron (@davidcaaron)Paras Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s Espionage Act coverageJust Security?s classified information coverageJust Security?s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Just Security?s Trump Classified Docs ClearinghouseTess Bridgeman (@bridgewriter) and Ryan Goodman?s (@rgoodlaw) Just Security article on the national security implications of the superseding indictment Brian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben?s Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Covert Affair? by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR) 

Since Russia?s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, diplomats, lawyers, and advocates from around the world have pushed for ways to hold Vladimir Putin and other senior leaders accountable for starting the war. Those efforts include creating a court to prosecute the international crime of aggression ? the illegal use of force by one country against another. 

But 3,000 miles south of the Russia-Ukraine border, another potential act of aggression has received far less attention. Over the past year and a half, Rwandan troops have conducted military operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and engaged in direct combat with the Congolese military and armed groups. According to the United Nations and human rights groups Rwandan troops have actively supported the March 23 Movement, M23, a Congolese armed group with longstanding ties to the Rwandan government. 

Accountability for the crime of aggression nmatters because acts of aggression can lead to other grave crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Punishing the crime of aggression is also essential to protecting the sovereign rights of all States, no matter their size or military strength. 

Joining the show to discuss the situation in the DRC, the arguments that Rwanda is committing acts of aggression against Congo, and Rwanda?s likely responses is Daniel Levine-Spound.

Daniel is a human rights lawyer and researcher. He is currently a Fellow at the Harvard Law School Program on International Law and Armed Conflict. Daniel was previously a U.N. Peacekeeping Researcher covering the DRC and South Sudan at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC) and was based in Goma, DRC.

Show Notes: 

Daniel Levine-Spound (@dlspound) Paras Shah (@pshah518)Daniel?s Just Security article on potential acts of Rwandan aggression against the DRC Just Security?s DRC coverageJust Security?s Rwanda coverageJust Security?s crime of aggression coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Caravan? by ?Arend? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/arend/caravan (License code: QVHYMGIQGD5TGMEP)

Since former President Donald Trump was indicted for retaining sensitive government documents at Mar-a-Lago, the Espionage Act has become a household term. But only a small number of lawyers have seen an Espionage Act trial from the inside. Just Security has assembled an all-star roundtable of experienced federal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have handled high-profile Espionage Act cases. 

Joining the show to share their insights, experience, and views on Trump?s Espionage Act charges are David Aaron, Andrew Weissmann, and Jim Wyda. David and Jim have previously faced off from opposite sides of an Espionage Act prosecution, but they?ve come together for this special discussion. 

Before he joined private practice, David was a prosecutor at the Justice Department?s National Security Division. Andrew has served in many senior Justice Department roles, including on the leadership team for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and as the General Counsel of the FBI. Jim is the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland. 

This episode is hosted by Paras Shah, with co-production and editing by Tiffany Chang, Michelle Eigenheer, and Allison Mollenkamp. 

Show Notes:  

David Aaron (@davidcaaron)Andrew Weissmann (@AWeissmann_) James WydaParas Shah (@pshah518) Just Security?s Espionage Act coverageJust Security?s classified information coverageJust Security?s coverage of Special Counsel Jack Smith Just Security?s Trump Classified Docs ClearinghouseBrian D. Greer (@secretsandlaws) and Wendy Leben?s Just Security Podcast episode on the presidential classification and declassification process Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Covert Affair? by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

Today, July 12, the leaders of NATO member countries are wrapping up a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania. The meeting opened as Turkey?s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ended his opposition to NATO membership for Sweden, and as President Biden said Ukraine still needs to take steps before it can join the Alliance. Biden further said Ukraine shouldn?t be admitted while Russia?s invasion continues because that would pit the Alliance directly against Russia.

In 2008, Alliance members vaguely promised that Ukraine could join NATO, but left the timing unspecified. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has made it clear he believes his country deserves membership, particularly as it fights for its survival against Russian aggression and defends democratic values.

But the agreement NATO members reached this week only offers Ukraine membership ?when allies agree, and conditions are met,? though the Alliance did put together a package of weapons and security assurances in the meantime.

To discuss the summit and unpack its implications, we have Ambassador Daniel Fried. 

During his 40 years in the foreign service, Ambassador Fried played a central role in implementing U.S. policy in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. In several senior roles including, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Ambassador Fried helped craft the policy of NATO enlargement to Central European countries and NATO-Russia relations. Earlier, he served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. He is currently the Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council, which co-hosted a public forum with other think tanks as part of the NATO summit.  

Show Notes: 

Ambassador Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried) Viola Gienger (@ViolaGienger)Ambassador Fried?s Just Security article previewing the NATO Summit Just Security?s NATO coverageJust Security?s Russia-Ukraine war coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Underworld? by ?Revo? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/revo/underworld (License code: MWDRAARUCSZNLOLV)

On July 4th a federal judge restricted the Biden administration from contacting social media companies about their content moderation policies. The court found that federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, could not flag specific posts to social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to encourage them to remove content. Though the order provides exceptions for the government to contact or notify social media companies about posts that involve crimes, national security threats, foreign attempts to influence elections, and other similar risks to public safety.

While an appeal in the case, Missouri v. Biden, is pending, the decision is a major development in the legal fight over online speech and the First Amendment. Some elected Republicans have accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube of disproportionately silencing conservative viewpoints, while others argue that content moderation is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation and hate speech. 

To unpack the initial decision in Missouri v. Biden, and what it means for the First Amendment and online speech, we have Mayze Teitler. 

Mayze is a Legal Fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute where they focus on the surveillance of incarcerated people, spyware, and government transparency. 

Show Notes: 

Mayze Teitler (@amteitler)Knight First Amendment Institute (@knightcolumbia) Judge Doughty?s preliminary injunction order in Missouri v. BidenLeah Litman and Laurence Tribe?s Just Security article analyzing the decision Music: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?The Air We Breathe? by Apex Music from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/apex-music/the-air-we-breathe (License code: W8V6DMNKHYYQ26Y8)

From massive floods, to sweeping hurricanes, to raging wildfires, climate disasters seem constant. Last November, the United Nation?s climate conference, COP 27, grabbed global headlines when countries reached a historic deal to compensate vulnerable countries for loss and damage from climate change. It?s easy to see the scale of that loss and damage. Lives are lost, cultural sites disappear, and infrastructure like roads and bridges are destroyed. 

But other aspects of climate change and its impact remain hidden from view. For people with disabilities, climate disasters can mean being abandoned by family and friends. And accessibility barriers can mean people with disabilities lack equal access to basic needs, like food and shelter. 

People with disabilities are the world?s largest minority. And disability doesn?t discriminate ? anyone can acquire a disability at any time, no matter who they are or where they live. Creating inclusive disaster and climate response benefits all of us.  

To explain how climate disasters impact people with disabilities, and how response systems can be improved, we have Professor Michael Ashely Stein.

Dr. Stein is the co-founder and Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Project on Disability, and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School. He is an expert on disability law and policy and was active in the drafting of the U.N.?s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

Show Notes:  

Michael Ashley SteinHarvard Law School Project on Disability (HPOD) Just Security?s coverage of COP27 and climate change18:05 NYU?s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Moving? by Brock Hewitt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/brock-hewitt-stories-in-sound/moving (License code: 6SUZDR0XMAYULP1B)

As the investigations and trials related to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol continue, convictions and sentences have piled up. More than half of those arrested have pleaded guilty, and among those convicted at trial, are leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.

Though these groups became famous for their roles in the January 6th attack, they were active long before efforts to ?Stop the Steal.? The Proud Boys, in particular, are on a mission to undermine the rights of queer and trans people across the country. 

But how have they gone from the insurrection to protests at drag shows? Insight from the hours of depositions and expert statements collected during the January 6th Committee?s investigation show a direct line from the Capitol attack to the Proud Boy?s current views on gay and trans rights. Because, for groups like the Proud Boys, that tout what they call ?western chauvinist? values, securing Donald Trump?s seat in the White House was just part of preserving a power structure that depends on narrow constructions of gender and family structure. It?s a power structure that harms those who don?t fit into the mold of a Proud Boy.

To walk us through how anti-LGBTQ views fit into the Proud Boys? ideology, we have Jacob Glick. Jacob is a Policy Counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law. As an Investigative Counsel on the January 6th Committee, Jacob interviewed Proud Boys members for dozens of hours and heard their views directly.  

Show Notes: 

Jacob Glick (@jhglick)Georgetown Law?s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection?s (ICAP) Pride GuidanceJust Security?s compilation of Expert Statements on Democracy and Political Violence, submitted to January 6th CommitteeMary McCord and Jacob?s Just Security article on anti-democracy schemes and paramilitary violence and Mary?s articleanalyzing seditious conspiracy charges Just Security?s January 6th Clearinghouse27:00 NYU?s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Lion?s Roar? by ?Yeti? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/yeti-music/lions-roar (License code: KKOXDIKNIPMGNR2U)

On Friday, June 9, a federal court in Florida unsealed an indictment charging former President Donald Trump with willfully retaining national defense information, refusing to return it, and obstructing related investigations. The 38 counts allege that Trump violated the Espionage Act, conspired to obstruct justice, withheld and hid documents, and caused false statements to be made to federal investigators and a grand jury.

Espionage Act cases are complex and important. They often require prosecutors to balance the need to protect sensitive intelligence information from being disclosed at trial with a defendant?s constitutional and due process rights not to be convicted by secret evidence. And disclosure of classified information can expose critical sources and methods of intelligence, including human sources, to harm.

Joining us to explain how Espionage Act prosecutions work, and what to expect in Trump?s case, is David Aaron. 

David is a Senior Counsel at the Washington, D.C., and New York offices of the law firm Perkins Coie. Before joining private practice, David was a prosecutor with the Justice Department?s National Security Division. He?s prosecuted Espionage Act violations and has seen how the process works from the inside. 

Show Notes: 

David AaronRyan Goodman (@rgoodlaw)David?s Just Security article on the Classified Information Procedures Act Tess Bridgeman and Brianna Rosen's Just Security article on the national security implications of the indictment Just Security?s Espionage Act coverageMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Covert Affair? by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/covert-affair (License code: Z20AS7IAZ04VZZBR)

From Donald Trump to Joe Biden, presidents have made a lot of news for keeping classified documents in their homes and offices. Presidential classification and declassification is a mysterious process that often unfolds away from public view. President Trump even famously claimed that he could declassify a document just by thinking about it.

Trump's comments raised an important question: What exactly is the process for presidents to classify and declassify information? The answer matters because classified documents can contain some of the United States? most closely guarded secrets, including the location and identities of intelligence sources abroad. Declassification is equally important for promoting government accountability, and helping the public understand government policies and actions. 

To help us understand how the presidential classification and declassification process works in practice, we have Brian Greer and Wendy Leben. For nearly a decade, Brian was an attorney in the CIA's Office of General Counsel. And Wendy was a senior intelligence analyst in the Department of Defense for 13 years, including seven deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Show Notes: 

Brian Greer (@secretsandlaws)Wendy LebenBrian and Wendy?s Just Security article analyzing U.S. government classification and declassification processesJust Security?s classified information coverage19:20 NYU?s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)Music: ?Backed Vibes? by Kevin MacLeod from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/kevin-macleod/backed-vibes (License code: K8XOQNJSNLOU5C8G) 

This year, a key U.S. national security law is set to expire. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has many moving parts, but the gist is that it allows the government to collect the communications of foreigners who are abroad, to gain foreign intelligence information, including when those people communicate with Americans inside the United States. And it can do that without a warrant. 

In practice, this means that intelligence agencies can order email services, like Google and Yahoo, to hand over copies of the messages of targeted foreigners to intercept the phone calls, texts, and internet communications to or from a foreign target.

In the past, reauthorization by Congress was pretty much routine, and some new modifications and procedural safeguards have been added over the years. But this year could be different. A series of recent government reports and court opinions have shown extensive use of Section 702 as a domestic surveillance tool by the FBI. There have been numerous incidents of FBI agents pushing, and sometimes breaking, legal limits on accessing the data of Americans that is ?incidentally? collected as part of a Section 702 search. Politics are also at play. Some members of Congress, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, have said they oppose reauthorization. 

To understand how the Biden administration is thinking about the Section 702 reauthorization, Just Security?s Co-Editor-in-Chief Tess Bridgeman sat down with Chris Fonzone and Josh Geltzer. Chris is the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Josh is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor at the National Security Council. 

Show Notes:

Chris FonzoneJosh GeltzerJust Security?s FISA Section 702 coverage36:55 NYU?s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX) Music: ?Eyes Closed? by Tobias Voigt from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/tobias-voigt/eyes-closed (License code: XTRHPYM1ELYU8SVA) 

This week a U.S. public health measure known as Title 42 came to an end. The U.S. is supposed to allow people fleeing persecution to seek asylum. But Title 42 allowed the Department of Homeland Security to turn away asylum-seekers if detention centers lacked the room to hold them during the asylum vetting process. The policy made it difficult for migrants to even apply for asylum in the first place. They would often be released back into Mexico. But now, the old rules are back in place, and thousands of asylum seekers who have been stuck in limbo are poised to seek asylum again.

The Biden administration is also rolling out a new set of policies designed to address asylum claims before migrants physically reach the U.S. border. It?s created a mobile app which people can use to schedule an appointment with immigration officials and the State Department is working on plans to open regional processing centers throughout the Western hemisphere.  

The new measures could upend a simple idea at the heart of a complex immigration system: that people fleeing violence and persecution have the chance to find refuge in the United States. That change has massive implications for those who live in the U.S. and those trying to reach it.  

To help us understand the end of Title 42 and what comes next we have Adam Cox, Michelle Hackman, and Cristina Rodriguez. Michelle is a reporter who covers immigration at the Wall Street Journal. Adam and Cristina are law professors at NYU and Yale respectively. They wrote a book called ?The President and Immigration Law.?  

Show Notes: 

Adam Cox (@adambcox) Michelle Hackman (@MHackman)Cristina Rodríguez (@cmrodriguez95)Adam and Cristina?s Just Security article analyzing the end of Title 42Just Security?s asylum coverageMichelle?s Wall Street Journal reporting  32:18 NYU?s American Journalism Online ProgramMusic: ?The Parade? by ?Hey Pluto!? from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/hey-pluto/the-parade (License code: 36B6ODD7Y6ODZ3BX)