Brown presents the nuances of cyberespionage versus cyberattacks that are becoming more pervasive in the national security context. He defines the differences between the two, and proposes a method of analyzing cyberspace operations to properly categorize them. Then, using an extended hypothetical and several real-life examples, Brown illustrates how dangerous cyber operations can be, and the need to properly define them so as to respond most effectively.
At JNSLP’s Feb. 11, 2015 symposium on “Trial and Terrorism: The Implications of Trying National Security Cases in Article III Courts,” an expert panel was convened to discuss trends in sentencing considerations in Article III terrorism prosecutions, and what the implications for these cases portend for american foreign policy. The panel consisted of a judge, a government official and former prosecutor, academics, and sentencing experts.
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan draws on his voluminous experience on the federal bench to illuminate some of the special concerns that attend terrorism and national security cases. Kaplan reviews several judicial challenges unique to terrorism cases, including classified information issues and the use of defendants’ statements in the course of prosecution. He concludes that Article III courts not only are capable of trying such cases, but they are the forum most consistent with our American values of fairness and transparency.