Ben quotes from this morning’s Washington Post editorial on AUMF reform, the last two sentences of which assert that “Countering the jihadists with intelligence and law enforcement tools manifestly failed before Sept. 11, 2001. Congress would be wise to … Read more »
For those who’d prefer the shorter version of Jen Daskal and my draft paper on life “After the AUMF,” we’ve got a short op-ed out in today’s New York Times with a far less alliterative title: “Don’t … Read more »
In advance of Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Jen Daskal and I have expanded upon our exchanges with Bobby, Jack, Matt, and Ben in a new (draft) working … Read more »
As Andrew Rosenthal noted in yesterday’s New York Times, things seem to be heating up in Congress with respect to whether–and to what extent–the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) needs to be updated, repealed, and/or … Read more »
Earlier today, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh gave a talk at the Oxford Union, entitled “How to End the Forever War?” His remarks begin as follows:
Thank you, Mr. President and Members of the Union, for inviting me
While we are on the subject of Mark Mazzetti’s The Way of the Knife, and for that matter while we are speaking of Mali, check out this Washington Post report on U.S. boots being on the ground in … Read more »
For those who wish to understand the organizational boundaries of the AUMF these days, Lashkar-e-Taiba provides an interesting and important test case. Grist for the mill is found in this piece in Long War Journal, which discusses a recent raid … Read more »
Philip Carter and Deborah Pearlstein have posted a thoughtful essay at Foreign Policy that emphasizes the utility of civilian criminal prosecution as a counterterrorism option. I very much agree with their positive take on DOJ’s track record, and I agree … Read more »
The WSJ has a story (behind paywall, I think) about the CIA “expanding its role in the campaign against the Syrian regime by feeding intelligence to select rebel fighters to use against government forces.” The point of the CIA aid … Read more »
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 … Read more »
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 … Read more »
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 … Read more »
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 … Read more »
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 … Read more »
The more I reflect on last week’s drone contretemps–and what effect the efforts of Senator Paul and his followers has had / may still have on U.S. policy–the more I have a profound and distressing sense of déjà vu. After … Read more »
Amidst all the hubbub earlier this week, we neglected to note the filing of a new cert. petition in a Guantánamo habeas case–in Obaydullah v. Obama, filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Our coverage of the D.C. Circuit’s … Read more »
Several years ago, in a prescient op-ed in the Washington Post, our colleague John Bellinger argued that the September 2001 AUMF was an increasingly poor fit for the evolving threats facing the United States. It is a theme to which … Read more »
For those who can’t get in to the Supreme Court oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, and who aren’t otherwise enticed by the Journal of National Security Law & Policy‘s inaugural symposium, “Swimming in the Ocean … Read more »
As is now familiar to everyone, rather difficult questions arise when we discuss the scope of the AUMF, the current scope of “al Qaeda,” the meaning of “associated forces,” and the circumstances under which the president may have inherent authority … Read more »
What is the United States actually doing so far, and what else reportedly is on the table?
1. So far we have agreed to provide airlift support to the French, on their dime. That is, France is going to pay … Read more »
Steve has already noted (and critiqued) this Washington Post story about continued “renditions” by the United States government. The term “renditions” is used in so many ways (often, as Steve suggests, with connotations of harsh interrogation), and this article defines … Read more »
Below the fold, I’m pasting in a reply by Jon Hafetz from Seton Hall to last Friday’s post by Marty Lederman and me on the new Feinstein Amendment and the military detention of non-citizens apprehended within the United States–which was … Read more »
As Wells and Steve noted last week, the Senate approved the “Feinstein Amendment” to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Amendment, if enacted, would impose a clear statement rule for the detention of U.S. citizens and … Read more »
Wells is exactly right–and Senators Levin and Graham are exactly wrong–about the implications of last night’s Senate vote approving Senator Feinstein’s amendment to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Wells linked to the amendment, but here is the relevant … Read more »
The government has filed its its opening brief in the Second Circuit Hedges appeal. The introduction reads:
This suit is brought by a handful of journalists and activists who, based on their stated activities, are in no danger whatsoever of
Readers probably won’t be surprised that, as Professor Andrew Kent noted at the end of his guest post, I’ve already drafted a longer response to Andrew’s important and provocative new essay, “Do Boumediene Rights Expire?” — which … Read more »
Splayed across the front page of the Washington Post this morning is the headline “U.S. Set to Keep Kill Lists for Years: ‘Disposition Matrix’ Secretly Crafted: Blueprint Would Guide Hunt for Terrorists.” The piece, by Greg Miller, is part … Read more »
Further to Bobby’s and my posts on news reports of US government discussions around ways to address groups such as AQIM taking root in Africa – including discussion of US military and intelligence advisers, among other policy alternatives – Ashley … Read more »
Bobby posted a day ago about an important Wall Street Journal news story talking about the US government considering options for pursuing an increasing active and dangerous branch-franchise-affiliate of Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). They include … Read more »
This article in the Wall Street Journal, by Julian Barnes and Siobhan Gorman, draws attention to US government plans to ramp up counterterrorism efforts in Libya, including in particular efforts targeting al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (“AQIM”), in the … Read more »
Per Ben‘s and Bobby‘s responses to my post from earlier this week, I think one point needs to be made crystal clear: If Ben and Bobby are correct, then the phrase “substantial support” in the March 13 brief… Read more »
I’d like to expand on Ben’s post below in relation to Hedges and the First Amendment, focusing on the “material support”/”substantial support” issue. (I’m having to write quickly, so please excuse any typos in what follows.)
Specifically, I’d like to … Read more »
Based on the voluminous media and blog coverage of last week’s decision in Hedges v. Obama, in which Judge Forrest permanently enjoined at least part of the detention provision of the FY2012 NDAA [section 1021(b)(2)], one of two things … Read more »
Raha Wala of Human Rights First writes in with the following response to my comments on Hedges. My thoughts follow his critique and very-cautious defense of Judge Forrest:
Ben’s post on Judge Forrest’s opinion in Hedges I think provided
I don’t have a lot to add to Ben’s analysis of Judge Forrest’s decision yesterday in Hedges v. Obama, permanently enjoining section 1021(b)(2) of the FY2012 NDAA (Just to refresh our memories, that section authorizes the detention of “A … Read more »
I haven’t read it yet, but here it is.
I’m happy to report that I’ve recently completed drafting an article that has been much on my mind for the past few years. Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture of Counterterrorism (Michigan Law Review, forthcoming 2013) … Read more »
A few final thoughts on the topic of DC Circuit fidelity to Hamdi and Boumediene, for the three people still paying attention to us (hi Mom!). Steve’s reply to my intervention helps me better understand his position, and I’m … Read more »
At the risk of boring readers who have long-since grown tired of this exchange, let me just offer three quick responses to Bobby’s thoughtful intervention in the back-and-forth between Ben and me on whether the D.C. Circuit really did actively … Read more »
Steve and Ben are having an interesting exchange about an important question: whether the DC Circuit’s caselaw in GTMO habeas proceedings has produced a set of substantive and procedural rules at variance with the positions established by the Supreme Court … Read more »
Ben asks: “What are the specific ‘requirements’ the Supreme Court laid out in Boumediene or Hamdi that the D.C. Circuit has refused to honor such that habeas review is not ‘meaningful’ within the meaning of Boumediene?”
I’ve answered … Read more »
That’s the outcome of orders from the Supreme Court today, an across-the-board denial of review in seven Guantanamo habeas cases: Latif, Al-Bihani, Uthman, Almerfedi, Al-Kandari, Al-Madhwani, and Al-Alwi. For good measure, the Court also voted not to take up … Read more »
By now you’ve gotten the lowdown – from Steve, Bobby, Ben or from some or all of them – about yesterday’s puzzling decision in Hedges v. Obama. I won’t reiterate their points, other than to say that … Read more »
A few reflections on Hedges v. Obama, enjoining at least some aspects of section 1021 of the NDAA:
A Self-Inflicted Wound? Let me begin by saying that I agree with Steve: it does seem from the opinion that … Read more »
I’ve now had more of a chance to read through Judge Forrest’s decision Wednesday in Hedges v. Obama, which (seems to) enter a preliminary injunction against some or all of section 1021 of the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act. … Read more »
Ben is a far better wordsmith than I–”a little cowardly” communicates a lot more in a lot less than my post from Tuesday afternoon about why the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act does … Read more »
I have thus far stayed fairly mum on the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act, if for no other reason than the 150 exams (now 80) that I have to grade. That said, there’s an alarming meme emerging from the House … Read more »
Yesterday I posted a lengthy response to Gabor Rona’s critique of the Brennan speech, and Gabor has now replied to my comments. Alas, we seem to be speaking past one another in various ways (for example, I critiqued what I … Read more »
Over at Opinio Juris, Gabor Rona of Human Rights First offers an extended critique of John Brennan’s speech on the use of lethal force. It is an interesting and provocative post, leading me to share a few thoughts in response.… Read more »
Very glad to have joined the Lawfare team. I look forward to more sustained blogging once the spring grading season is over. For now, I’ll offer just a quick thought on the speech John Brennan delivered yesterday, and on the … Read more »
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Leading the news: President Obama speaks today at the National Defense University on counterterrorism policy. Many are previewing the speech, including John. According to the New York Times’s Charlie Savage and Peter Baker, Obama will announce more stringent targeting criteria for non-battlefield strikes. This approach will govern the use of force against both citizens and non-citizens.
Here are the Washington … Read more »
