Skip to main content

Norm Abrams' Anti-Terrorism and Criminal Enforcement

Go Search
UCLA Law Websites
  

Casebook Table of Contents 

Part I – Introduction and Overview: Anti-Terrorism Legislation and Governmental Cooperation in Anti-Terrorism Enforcement

 

Chapter 1.  Introduction

 

Chapter 2.  Background: Anti-Terrorism Legislation Packages; Federal and State Roles in Anti-Terrorism Enforcement; Information Sharing

 

A.                 Introduction

 

B.                 A time-line of major anti-terrorism and related statutes

 

C.                 The major legislative packages

 

The Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, Public Law 99-399, 100 Stat. 853 (full text of bill available from the Library of Congress legislative page for the 99th Congress)

 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, Public Law 104-132

 

The USA PATRIOT Act (“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act”) of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (115 Stat. 271)

(Very large file - 12mb - use alternate link for online version)

 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296

 

The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (“Patriot Act II”), Section-by-Section Analysis (Leaked draft; not presented to Congress)

 

 

 

Chapter 3.  Terrorism Crimes and Definitions of Terrorism.

 

A.                 Introduction

 

B.                 Selected Criminal Statutes

 

1.                  18 U.S.C. § 2332.  Criminal penalties.

 

2.                  Note on extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction

 

3.                  18 U.S.C. § 2332a.  Use of certain weapons of mass destruction.

 

4.                  18 U.S.C. § 2332b.  Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.

 

5.                  18 U.S.C. § 2332d.  Financial transactions.

 

6.                  18 U.S.C. § 2332f.  Bombing of places of public use, etc.

 

7.                  18 U.S.C. § 2333. Civil remedies.

 

8.                  18 U.S.C. § 2339.  Harboring or concealing terrorists.

 

9.                  18 U.S.C. § 2339a.  Providing material support to terrorists.

 

10.              18 U.S.C. § 2339b.  Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

 

11.              18 U.S.C. § 2339c.  Prohibitions against the financing of terrorism.

 

C.                 The Concept of Terrorism – Definitions and definitional approaches; statutory and policy definitions; enforcement policy

 

Criminal law definition of terrorism

 

18 U.S.C. § 2331.  Definitions.

 

State Department definition of terrorism

 

8 U.S.C. § 1182.  Inadmissible aliens.

 

8 U.S.C. § 1189.  Designation of foreign terrorist organizations.

 

U.S. Department of State, Report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism”, 2001

 

Executive Order 13224.  Terrorist Financing.

 

Comprehensive List of Terrorists and Groups Identified Under Executive Order 13224 and Sec. 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

 

Justice Department definition of terrorism

 

FBI definition of terrorism

 

 

 

Chapter 4.  Statutory Offenses Used in Terrorism Cases

 

A.                 Introduction

 

B.                 18 U.S.C. § 2339b

 

1.  Judicial review of an administrative designation as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” under 8 U.S.C. § 1189

 

People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. United States Department of State, 182 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000)

 

National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State, 251 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

 

32 County Sovereignty Comm. v. Department of State, 292 F.3d 797 (D.C. Cir. 2002)

 

Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development v. Ashcroft, 219 F.Supp.2d 57 (D.D.C. 2002)

 

2.  Criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2339b

 

United States v. Rahmani, 209 F.Supp.2d 1045 (C.D.Cal. 2002)

 

3.  Mens rea and actus reus issues under 18 U.S.C. § 2339b

 

United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541 (E.D.Va. 2002)

 

United States v. Goba, 220 F. Supp. 2d 182 (W.D.N.Y. 2002)

 

Indictment, United States v. Ujaama, Aug. 28, 2002

 

Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1961)

 

Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, 291 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2002)

 

 

 

Part II – Detention, Adjudication Process, and the Legal Category of “War”

 

 

 

Chapter 5.  What kind of war is it?

 

A.                 Introduction

 

B.                 Comparing Past Metaphorical Wars

 

C.                 Sources and Doctrines Relating to Traditional War

 

The U.S. Constitution

 

Art. I, § 8

 

Art. II, § 2

 

Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950

 

Senate Joint Resolution 23, “A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States”, 107th Congress, Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)

 

Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800)

 

The Amy Warwick (“The Prize Cases”), 67 U.S. 635 (1862)

 

Mora v. McNamara, 389 U.S. 934 (1967)

 

 

 

Chapter 6.  Bases for Extended Detention.

 

A.  Introduction

 

United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)

 

Center for National Security Studies v. Department of Justice, 215 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2002)

 

B.  Material Witness Detention

 

18 U.S.C. § 3144.  Release or detention of a material witness.

 

Excerpt, Laurie E. Levinson, “Comment”, 35 Loyola L.Rev. 1217, 1222 (2002)

 

United States v. Awadallah, 202 F. Supp. 2d 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), reversed and remanded by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Nov. 7, 2003

 

In re Material Witness Warrant, 213 F. Supp. 2d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

 

C.  Detention of Aliens (Immigration Law)

 

Kenneth L. Wainstein, Final Report on Interview Project, Office of the Director, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, February 26, 2002.

 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the House Judiciary Committee, House of Rep., 107th Congress, of Joseph R. Greene, Acting Deputy Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations, INS; and Edward McElroy, District Director, New York District, INS, Dec. 19, 2001. (Also see hearing transcript)

 

New Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 308 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir. 2002)

 

Haddad v. Ashcroft, 221 F. Supp. 2d 799 (E.D.Mich. 2002)

 

Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 2002 WL 31317398 (E.D.Mich. 2002)

 

Remarks of Kareem Shora, Panel Discussion, “Perversities and Prospects: Whither Immigration Enforcement and Detention in the Anti-Terrorism Aftermath?”, 9 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y 1, 22-24 (2002)

 

Shirley Huey, et al., Comment, Indefinite Detention with Probable Cause: A Comment on INS Interim Rule 8 C.F.R. § 287.3, 26 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 397 (2001).

 

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)

 

Remarks of Christina DeConcini, Panel Discussion, “Perversities and Prospects: Whither Immigration Enforcement and Detention in the Anti-Terrorism Aftermath?”, 9 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y 1, 17-18 (2002)

 

Lin Guo Xi v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 298 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

8 U.S.C. § 1226a. Mandatory detention of suspected terrorists; habeas corpus; judicial review. (as added to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act by the USA PATRIOT Act, Public Law 107-56)

 

Testimony of David Cole on Civil Liberties and Proposed Anti-Terrorism Legislation, Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism and Property, Senate Judiciary Committee, Oct. 3, 2001.

 

8 U.S.C. § 1531. Definitions.

 

8 U.S.C. § 1532. Establishment of removal court.

 

8 U.S.C. § 1533. Removal court procedures.

 

8 U.S.C. § 1534. Removal hearing.

 

8 U.S.C. § 1227. General classes of deportable aliens.

 

D.  Detention of “Enemy Combatants

 

1.  Introduction

 

Presidential Order, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, November 13, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 57833 (2001 WL 1435652).

 

2.  Prisoner of war or enemy combatant?

 

Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950

 

Press Conference, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 8, 2002.

 

Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers and Professors v. Bush, 310 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2002)

 

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)

 

Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002)

 

Al Odah v. United States, 2003 WL 938861 (D.C. Cir. 2003), cert. grant’d, 2003

 

3.  Unlawful or enemy combatant status: attributes and issues

 

Padilla v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (see also Opinion and order re: Motion for Reconsideration in Part, Mar. 11, 2003) (see also Opinion and order re: Motion for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and for Stay, Apr. 9, 2003)

 

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003)

 

ABA Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants, Preliminary Report, Aug. 8, 2002

 

William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, Statement Rebutting the ABA Task Force Report on Treatment of Enemy Combatants, Oct. 2, 2002.

 

4.  Authority to implement Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) for Terrorism Detainees – monitoring of attorney-client conversations

 

United States v. Reid, 214 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.Mass. 2002)

 

28 C.F.R. § 501.3.  Prevention of acts of violence and terrorism.

 

 

 

Chapter 7.  Military Tribunals.

 

A.                 Introduction

 

Presidential Order, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, November 13, 2001, 66 Fed. Reg. 57833 (2001 WL 1435652).

 

10 U.S.C. § 821.  Jurisdiction of courts-martial not exclusive.

 

10 U.S.C. § 836.  President may prescribe rules.

 

B.                 The Question of Legal Authority

 

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)

 

Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)

 

William J. Haynes II, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense, Statement Rebutting the ABA Task Force Report on Treatment of Enemy Combatants, Oct. 2, 2002.

 

 

C.                 Procedures to be Used in Military Tribunals – Due Process Concerns

 

Department of Defense, Military Commission Order No. 1, March 21, 2002

 

 

D.                Potential for Discriminatory Application; Prosecutorial Discretion; Choice of Forum

 

Sec. 7, Department of Defense, Military Commission Order No. 1, March 21, 2002

 

 

E.                 Justifications for the Use of Military Tribunals

 

 

F.                  Military Authority to Detain U.S. Citizens as Enemy Combatants

 

 

 

Chapter 8.  Criminal Prosecution in a Civilian Forum – the Classified Information Procedures Act.

 

A.                 Choice of the Forum

 

Problem – The Zacarias Moussaoui Case

 

B.                 The Classified Information Procedures Act

 

The Classified Information Procedures Act, Public Law 96-456 (94 Stat. 2025), Oct. 15, 1980

 

 

C.                 Determining Relevancy and Related Issues

 

United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617 (D.C. Cir. 1989)

 

United States v. Juan, 776 F.2d 256 (11th Cir. 1985)

 

United States v. Sarkissian, 841 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1988)

 

United States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 1102 (4th Cir. 1985)

 

United States v. Cardoen, 898 F. Supp. 1563 (S.D.Fla. 1995)

 

United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1990)

 

 

D.                Adjudging the Adequacy of Substitutions for Classified Information

 

United States v. Rezaq, 134 F.3d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1998)

 

United States v. Fernandez, 913 F.2d 148 (4th Cir. 1990)

 

 

E.                 Ex Parte and In Camera versus In Camera

 

Definition – “ex parte”

 

Definition – “in camera”

 

Excerpt, Brian Z. Tamanaha, “A Critical Review of the Classified Information Procedures Act,” 13 Am. J. Crim. L. 277, 307-308 (1987).

 

F.                  Security Clearance for Counsel

 

Security Procedures Established Pursuant to Public Law 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025, by the Chief Justice of the United States for the Protection of Classified Information

 

United States v. Smith, 899 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1990)

 

United States v. Jolliff, 548 F. Supp. 232 (D.Md. 1981)

 

United States v. Bin Laden, 58 F. Supp. 2d 113 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)

 

28 C.F.R. § 17.41 (1998).

 

United States v. Musa, 833 F. Supp. 752 (E.D.Mo. 1993)

 

G.                Constitutional Challenges to CIPA

 

United States v. Lee, 90 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (D.N.M. 2000)

 

 

Part III.  Actions by Governmental Agents in the

United States and Abroad.

 

 

 

Chapter 9.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

 

A.                 Introduction

 

50 U.S.C. § 1801.  Definitions

 

50 U.S.C. § 1802.  Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

 

50 U.S.C. § 1803.  Designation of judges

 

50 U.S.C. § 1804.  Applications for court orders

 

50 U.S.C. § 1805.  Issuance of order.

 

Implementing FISA Authority

 

Executive Order 12333 (United States Foreign Intelligence Activities), 46 F.R. 59941, 1981 WL 76054 (Dec. 4, 1981)

 

B.                 Criminal Prosecution Using FISA Material

 

United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)

 

United States v. Nicholson, 955 F. Supp. 588 (E.D.Va. 1997)

 

United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1987)

 

United States v. Sarkissian, 841 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1988)

 

 

C.                 Comparing FISA Surveillance with “Normal Surveillance”

 

18 U.S.C. § 2518.  Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications

 

50 U.S.C. § 1801.  Definitions

 

Rule 41, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

 

50 U.S.C. § 1822.  Authorization Of Physical Searches For Foreign Intelligence Purposes

 

50 U.S.C. § 1823.  Application For Order

 

D.                Gathering Foreign Intelligence versus Gathering Information with a view to Criminal Prosecution

 

50 U.S.C. § 1806.  Use of information

 

50 U.S.C. § 403-5d. Foreign intelligence information.

 

18 U.S.C. § 2517.  Authorization for disclosure and use of intercepted wire, oral or electronic communications

 

In Re: Sealed Case No’s 02-001 and 02-002, 310 F.3d 717 (FISA Court of Review, 2002)

 

 

 

Chapter 10.  Political Surveillance and Anti-Terrorism.

 

A.                 Introduction

 

 

B.                 Litigation Against the Army, FBI, City Police Departments

 

Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972)

 

Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2001)

 

C.                 History of the AG’s Guidelines and Executive Order 12333

 

Executive Order 12333 (United States Foreign Intelligence Activities), 46 Fed. Reg. 59941, 1981 WL 76054 (Dec. 4, 1981)

 

“The Ashcroft Guidelines”

 

 

 

 

Chapter 11.  Using the Military in Domestic Law Enforcement.

 

A.                 Introduction

 

18 U.S.C. § 1385.  Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus

 

10 U.S.C. § 331.  Federal aid for state governments

 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296

 

Sec. 876.  Military Activities

 

Sec. 886.  Sense of Congress Reaffirming the Continued Importance and Applicability of the Posse Comitatus Act.

 

B.                 Interpretation of the Posse Comitatus Act

 

United States v. Yunis, 681 F.Supp. 891 (D.D.C. 1988)

 

Gilbert v. United States, 165 F.3d 470 (6th Cir. 1999)

 

Schowengerdt v. General Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1987)

 

United States v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1986)

 

Perpich v. Dep’t of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)

 

 

C.                 Should Any Modifications be made to the Posse Comitatus Rule?

 

Matthew Carlton Hammond, Note: The Posse Comitatus Act: A Principle in Need of Renewal, 75 Wash. U. L. Q. 953 (1997)

 

Phillip Carter, Why Can the Army Help Cops Catch the D.C. Sniper?, Slate, Oct. 17, 2002

 

 

 

 

Chapter 12.  U.S. Agents Acting Abroad

 

A.                 Introduction

 

 

B.                 Investigation and Information-Gathering

 

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)

 

United States v. Rosenthal, 793 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir. 1986)

 

United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1995)

 

United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1987)

 

22 U.S.C. § 2291.  Policy, general authorities, coordination, foreign police actions, definitions, and other provisions (also known as “The Mansfield Amendment”)

 

Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950

 

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, entered into force Jun. 26, 1987

 

18 U.S.C. § 2340. Definitions (of torture)

 

18 U.S.C. § 2340A.  Torture

 

 

C.                 Bringing Suspected Terrorists Back to the U.S. From Abroad

 

United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

 

United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)

 

United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2nd Cir. 1974)

 

United States v. Bridgewater, 175 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.Puerto Rico 2001)

 

U.S./Mexico Extradition Treaty, 31 U.S.T. 5059, 1980 WL 309106, entered into force Jan. 25, 1980

 

U.S. Department of State, Report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism”, 2001

 

D.                Targeted Killing by U.S. Agents

 

Executive Order 11905 (United States Foreign Intelligence Activities), 41 Fed. Reg. 7703, 1976 WL 21308 (Feb. 18, 1976)

 

Executive Order 12333 (United States Foreign Intelligence Activities), 46 Fed. Reg. 59941, 1981 WL 76054 (Dec. 4, 1981)

 

 

 

 

Appendix

 

Indictment, United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

 

Declaration of Michael H. Mobbs, Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, (“The Mobbs Declaration”), given in the case of Padilla v. Bush, Aug. 27, 2002

 

Memorandum Designating Jose Padilla as an Enemy Combatant, The White House, June 9, 2002

 

Declaration of Commander Donald D. Woolfolk, given in the case of Yaser Hamdi, June 13, 2002

 

 

 © 2003, Norman Abrams, All Rights Reserved