Skip to content

Tag Archives: David Barron

Why Imminence? The Assassinations Ban and that OLC Al-Aulaqi Memo

By
Thursday, June 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM

The other day, I tried to read the tea leaves and figure out where the notion of “imminent threat” comes from in the administration’s legal views of targeted killing. I speculated that the source of the “imminent” threat standard may well be language in the presidential covert action findings authorizing the CIA’s broad campaign against Al Qaeda . . .
Read more »

Whence Imminence in that Drone Memo? A Puzzle and a Theory

By
Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at 11:19 AM

On May 27, a unanimous Supreme Court—to little notice from just about anyone—handed down a case called Plumhoff v. Rickard, which dealt with a police shooting and a claim of excessive force during a high-speed car chase. Donald Rickard had led police in Arkansas on a highway chase, at the end of which officers shot him and . . .
Read more »

The Al-Aulaqi OLC Memo: A Quick and Dirty Summary

By
Monday, June 23, 2014 at 4:07 PM

I have this feeling that a lot of people are going to mischaracterize the just-released OLC memo on the Anwar Al-Aulaqi strike. Just a guess. So before expressing any opinions on the subject or arguing with anyone about it, I thought I would start things out with a straight summary of the memo, which I am writing . . .
Read more »

Rand Paul Announces Filibuster of David Barron

By
Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 6:25 PM

How very unpleasant: Rand Paul announces, only semi-coherently, that he is filibustering David Barron’s First Circuit nomination. The statement reads: “I’ve read David Barron’s memos concerning the legal justification for killing an American citizen overseas without a trial or legal representation, and I am not satisfied. While the President forbids me from discussing what is in . . .
Read more »

David Barron, Targeted Killing, and Rand Paul’s Wrongheaded Oped

By
Monday, May 12, 2014 at 8:10 AM

“I believe that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate,” writes Sen. Rand Paul in an oped in the New York Times this morning. “I can’t imagine appointing someone to the federal bench, one level below the Supreme Court, without fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial . . .
Read more »

The New York Times on David Barron

By
Thursday, May 8, 2014 at 8:36 AM

This was bound to happen eventually, I suppose: the New York Times editorial page has gotten behind the effort to hold up David Barron’s judicial nomination. Sort of. Calling Barron, whom Obama has nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, “The Lawyer Behind the Drone Policy,” the Times notes that: . . .
Read more »

Thoughts on Yesterday’s NYT NSA Story

By
Friday, August 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM

I was sufficiently puzzled by Charlie Savage’s story yesterday about NSA email monitoring that I waited a day to write anything about it. I’m still pretty puzzled by it, so I’m going to use this post to try to think through it. Savage is not a bomb thrower but a serious guy, so let’s assume . . .
Read more »

Some Answers for Steve on Harold Koh

By
Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Steve has responded to my post on Harold Koh’s sudden discovery of inviolable commander in chief powers. He asks me two questions, which I address below: Would you take seriously anyone who denied the existence of any and all indefeasible presidential power (and who would, therefore, think that Congress did have the power to enact the Command of . . .
Read more »

Why a “Drone Court” Won’t Work–But (Nominal) Damages Might…

By
Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 5:12 PM

There’s been a fair amount of buzz over the past few days centered around the idea of a statutory “drone court”–a tribunal modeled after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that would (presumably) provide at least some modicum of due process before the government engages in targeted killing operations, but that, like the FISC, would . . .
Read more »

Klaidman Post #1: Where that March 13 Brief Came From

By
Sunday, June 10, 2012 at 4:37 AM

Memo to Eric Holder and President Obama: Next time you decide to break big news on a Friday afternoon, can you please check with me to make sure I’m not getting on a 24 hour flight first? It seemed like a quiet Friday afternoon when I left Dulles for Singapore. By the time I arrived, . . .
Read more »

My Reponse to “Norwegian Shooter”

By
Saturday, October 29, 2011 at 10:14 AM

Mark Erickson, who blogs under the most-unfortunate handle Norwegian Shooter, recently published some correspondence with me concerning his claim that the reported OLC memo reflects Lord Acton-style corruption on the part of its authors. Erickson–who, to be fair, he has been calling himself “Norwegian Shooter” since long before events in Oslo made the name horrifying–is . . .
Read more »

John Yoo on the Al-Aulaqi Memo

By
Monday, October 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Reading the blogs today, you might think Marty Lederman and David Barron had gotten deeply in touch with their inner John Yoo when they wrote the Al-Aulaqi memo. Spencer Ackerman, to cite a typical example, puts it this way: I seriously question how this memo reflects anything but the ratification of a forgone conclusion. Its arguments . . .
Read more »

Kenneth Anderson on Charlie Savage’s Story and Secrecy

By
Sunday, October 9, 2011 at 8:20 AM

I was planning to write a piece this morning pointing out that Charlie Savage’s story–to which I linked last night and which describes in some detail the legal rationale in the OLC opinion authorizing the Al-Aulaqi strike–actually heightens the problem of the administration’s refusal to discuss the drones program in public. But Ken Anderson has . . .
Read more »

Liveblogging Session 6: The Presidency in the Post-9/11 World

By
Saturday, September 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Prof. David Barron kicks off the last panel discussion of the conference, focusing on the Presidency in the Post-9/11 World.  He begins by noting that it is not surprising that a serious national security crisis will change the presidency.  Second, he thinks there is a great deal of agency with respect to the presidency.  Lastly, . . .
Read more »

Steven Bradbury on Cybersecurity

By
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 12:02 PM

The Harvard National Security Journal has just posted a very interesting essay by Steven Bradbury entitled The Developing Legal Framework for Defensive and Offensive Cyber Operations. (Steve was my successor in running the Office of Legal Counsel for the last four and a half years of the Bush administration.)  Steve says he is “not a . . .
Read more »