To clear up reporting on application of the Leahy laws: They are not "sanctions", not in the legal or policy sense. They are not a punishment. No foreign force is entitled to free stuff from the US and no longer getting free stuff isn't a punishment.

nytimes.com/2024/04/21/wor… Further, calling Leahy laws "sanctions" leads to misunderstanding in the public bc (1) the public assumes it's part of the broader, traditional US sanctions regime (esp when reporters link to those sanctions) and (2) they assume it is discretionary. The law is not discretionary.

It might be helpful to walk through some issues related to reports that the USG is finally applying the Leahy laws to Israel--even though reports say it is just one unit.

BLUF: It is symbolically *significant*, but its impact will do *very little* to stem harm to Palestinians🧵 For starters, there are two Leahy laws, one for State and one for DoD. They prohibit US assistance (under the FAA & AECA & w/use of DoD $) to a unit of a foreign security force if SecState or SecDef have credible information the unit committed a gross violation of human rights.

Why is this newsworthy? We know the admin is dodging applying the laws and policies on the books related to cutting security assistance to Israel. Well, I advised on the Leahy laws while at DoD, and I think this is newsworthy and requires congressional scrutiny for two reasons:

https://twitter.com/BrettMmurphy/status/1780697650079388082

(1) Based on the reporting, these cases don't seem to have split memos. Which means, from the lowest levels of State, all the way up to Blinken, officials appear to agree these units should be cut from receiving US assistance. To my knowledge, that has never happened for Israel.

I worked as an attorney in the Office of General Counsel at DoD and advised on US law governing security assistance to foreign countries. Here are my thoughts on NSM-20 and its application in the context of Israel:

whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/… My bottom line: While a step forward, I worry how this doesn't avoid being lipstick on a pig -- another performative measure stirring up busy-bodied lawyers and policymakers in the bureaucracy, ultimately resulting in business as usual w/r/t arms transfers to Israel

In its report on the Nablus raid, @nytimes describes time-stamped footage that appears to show IDF shooting “at least two unarmed Palestinians as they ran away from gunfire.”

nytimes.com/2023/02/22/wor… This kind of footage can be helpful when U.S. government officials assess whether units of foreign security forces (such as the IDF) remain eligible to receive U.S. security assistance under the Leahy laws.

Since there might be a 5th (!) West African #coup developing, below is a thread to help address this question: Why is the U.S. Department of State (State) slow to call a spade a spade/a coup a coup? It's because of Section 7008, "coups d'etat," a provision in the annual Department of State appropriations act (the law that Congress passes to appropriate funding to State). Some (hopefully) helpful notes on Section 7008: