The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Bryce Klehm
Bryce Klehm is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying History. Tags: Russia, International Relations, Lobbying, Trump The Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, passed into law in 2012, has proven to be one of the United States’ most effective tools for fighting human rights abusers. The story behind the act began when the largest foreign investor in Russia, William Browder, hired Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky to investigate possible corruption and extortion in various Russian companies in 2007. When Magnitsky uncovered a $230 million corruption scandal directly linked to the Kremlin, he was harassed, arrested in front of his family, imprisoned, and beaten to death. [1] His death was a blatant example of corrupt policing within Russia. A July 2011 report by the Human Rights Council also found a conflict of interest because Magnitsky’s captors were the same police officers he had exposed for corruption. [2] William Browder vowed to avenge Magnitsky’s death and expose deep-rooted corruption within the Kremlin. The story of the Kremlin’s endemic corruption begins in 2003, when President Vladimir Putin began to control Russia’s oligarchs. Putin dramatically imprisoned the richest oligarch in Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and then demanded payments from the rest of Russia’s richest men. Since then, the wealthy in Russia have been unwaveringly linked to the Kremlin, creating a massive corruption system. [3] Though Browder’s efforts to expose corruption within Russia were effective, he felt he needed to do more to punish Sergei Magnitsky’s murderers.
0 Comments
 By Bryce Klehm
Bryce Klehm is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying History. On December 31, 2017, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will be subject to congressional reauthorization. Section 702 allows the government to intercept various communications of foreigners located outside of the United States. It is mostly used by the National Security Agency (NSA) to gather signals intelligence on terrorist threats. The House Intelligence Committee claims it does not allow bulk collection targeting Americans. [1] The intelligence and law enforcement agencies may only use Section 702 with the approval of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The House Intelligence Committee views its as crucial in tracking and finding various terrorists, including the recently deceased ISIS leader, Haji Iman. The controversy regarding its renewal centers on a loophole in Section 702, which allows for “backdoor” searches of electronic communications data. Using the “backdoor search” loophole, various government agencies can query the data collected under FISA and gather information about US citizens “accidentally” swept in. [2] For example, if the FBI is looking for evidence on a domestic target, they can search the communication data collected by the NSA. If it contains communications by a U.S. target to a foreign target, the agency is free to use the data as evidence. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recently seen an increase in the number of cases pertaining to digital privacy and Section 702.  By Bryce Klehm
Bryce Klehm is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying History. After nearly fifteen years of detention, on January 17, 2017, Abd al-Rahim al-Nahsiri petitioned for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear his case. He was captured by the CIA in 2002 and sent to several black site prisons, including Guantanamo Bay. [1] He has been awaiting capital trial by a military commission since 2008 for his alleged involvement in planning the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. The legal question is whether al-Nashiri should be tried before a military commission or a federal court. [2] The 2009 Military Commissions Act states that an offense should be tried by a military commission “only if the offense is committed in the context of and associated with hostilities.” [3] Although this may seem like a clear definition, the MCA defines the term “hostilities” as “any conflict subject to the laws of war.” [4] |
|
|
