Skip to content

Posts by Jennifer Daskal

Jennifer Daskal is a fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on National Security and the Law, and adjunct professor there. From 2009-2011, she was counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and served on the joint Attorney General and Secretary of Defense-led Detention Policy Task Force. Prior to joining DOJ, Jen was the senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch, and also previously worked as a staff attorney at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. Jen has degrees from Harvard Law School, Cambridge University, UK (where she was a Marshall scholar), and Brown University. From 2001-2002, she was a law clerk to Jed S. Rakoff in the Southern District of New York.

Sunsetting the AUMF: Rep. Schiff’s Proposal

By and
Monday, June 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Pardon the interruption from all-things-surveillance, but pursuant to our back and forth with Bobby, Jack, Matt, and Ben on the merits of a new AUMF, Representative Adam Schiff, a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, is planning to introduce legislation tomorrow that we think is worth taking a look at.  It sunsets a repeal of . . .
Read more »

Libya(?) and the Case for a New AUMF

By and
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM

While we appreciate Ben’s answer to our question (and share his view that we’re reaching the point of the conversation where everything has been said and everyone has said it), we still fail to understand how the Libya example illuminates what Ben—and Bobby, Jack, and Matt—think are the “problematic” aspects of an approach that requires . . .
Read more »

A Question for Ben

By and
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Ben writes that it is the “political reality” that “any president is going to feel obliged to maintain counterterrorism on offense,” i.e., counterterrorism through military means, “and Congress—whining, carping, complaining all the way both that the president is being too aggressive and that he is not being aggressive enough—will go along with it, indeed, will insist . . .
Read more »

After the AUMF, III: A Surreply to Jack

By and
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 12:28 AM

It’s quickly becoming apparent that we and Jack appear to be talking past each other on the merits of the Chesney/Goldsmith/Waxman/Wittes (CGWW) proposal for a new framework statute for “extra-AUMF threats.” In Jack’s final response, for example, he frames “the fundamental disagreement” between us and CGWW as the fact that we “believe that when the . . .
Read more »

After the AUMF, II: Daskal and Vladeck Reply

By and
Monday, March 18, 2013 at 7:16 PM

We appreciate Jack’s quick and comprehensive clarification of his views—and of what the CGWW proposal we critiqued last night seeks to achieve. Like Jack, we want to start by emphasizing the many areas of agreement between us and CGWW in order to help illuminate the key points of disagreement. (We’ve also had the benefit of . . .
Read more »

After the AUMF: A Response to Chesney, Goldsmith, Waxman, and Wittes

By and
Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 10:31 PM

In the very first days after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration asked Congress for broad statutory authorization to use military force to “deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States”—that is to say, for statutory authorization of what that Administration called a “Global War . . .
Read more »