Skip to content

Tag Archives: Kevin Jon Heller

Putting A Lot of Distance Between Lawfare and the Lawfare Project

By
Thursday, August 1, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Back when we founded Lawfare nearly three years ago, I got a call from a woman named Brooke Goldstein, who runs a group called The Lawfare Project based in New York. She was interested in possible collaboration, having noticed our name. We were trying to stand up Lawfare as its own independent voice, so this was not . . .
Read more »

My Last Word on the New Bahlul Amicus

By
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Thanks to his “sur-reply”, I finally understand the premise of Peter Margulies’s argument—and his amicus brief—in al Bahlul with regard to why the en banc D.C. Circuit can affirm Bahlul’s conspiracy conviction even though conspiracy is not a war crime under international law: Because Bahlul was actually tried for murder, even though no one in . . .
Read more »

Sur-Reply to Heller on al Bahlul

By
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Kevin’s most recent posts (here and here) continue to demonstrate his seriousness and salutary concern for defendants’ rights; the same is true for Steve.  However, Kevin and Steve’s posts don’t undermine Former Government Officials and Military Lawyers’ amicus brief asking the en banc D.C. Circuit to uphold the military commission conviction of former bin Laden . . .
Read more »

Three Questions for Peter Margulies on the New Bahlul Amicus Brief

By
Monday, July 29, 2013 at 12:15 PM

There’s a lot to say about Peter Margulies’ reply to my and Kevin Heller’s criticisms of the “former government officials’” amicus brief in al Bahlul–the military commission appeal currently pending before the en banc D.C. Circuit, where the central question is whether the commission lawfully had jurisdiction to try and convict Bahlul of “conspiracy.” To put . . .
Read more »

A Response to Steve Vladeck and Kevin Jon Heller

By
Saturday, July 27, 2013 at 8:40 AM

In recent posts both on Lawfare and at Opinio Juris, Steve and Kevin Jon Heller (here and here) sharply critiqued the brief that Jim Schoettler and I filed on Thursday for Former Government Officials, Former Military Lawyers and Scholars of National Security Law asking the en banc D.C. Circuit to uphold the military commission conviction . . .
Read more »

The Two Fundamental Flaws in the New Bahlul Amicus Brief

By
Friday, July 26, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Raff already flagged yesterday’s filing of an amicus brief in support of the government in the Al Bahlul military commission appeal before the en banc D.C. Circuit by “former government officials, former military lawyers, and scholars of national security law,” a group that includes Ben, Ken, and two of my casebook co-authors–among others. At the . . .
Read more »

The White Paper, the Public Authority Defense, and “Five Truths About the Drone War”

By
Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Earlier this week—at the Week, naturally enough—Marc Ambinder posted this piece, “Five Truths about the Drone War.”  Of the five, the second of Ambinder’s verities struck me as most noteworthy.  I’ve supplied the emphasis to Ambinder’s words: 2. The CIA does not “fly” drones. It “owns” drones, but the Air Force flies them. The Air Force coordinates (and . . .
Read more »

The Capture-or-Kill Debate #10: Goodman Responds to Heller

By
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 1:13 PM

The following guest post is the latest in a series comprising a debate as to whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances.  The debate involves Professor Ryan Goodman, on one hand, and both Professor Kevin Heller and a group consisting of Professors Geoff Corn, Laurie . . .
Read more »

NYT on Al-Aulaqi Operation and Underlying Legal Analysis

By
Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM

[UPDATED 4:53] Scott Shane, Mark Mazzetti, and Charlie Savage of The New York Times have this lengthy article on the hunt for Anwar Al-Aulaqi.  Their piece describes, among other things, the legal analyses that approved of Al-Aulaqi’s killing. Interestingly, the article says that OLC’s legal workup was influenced by “a legal blog that focused on a statute that . . .
Read more »

The Capture-or-Kill Debate #8: Kevin Heller Joins the Conversation

By
Monday, March 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The following guest post is the latest in a series comprising a debate as to whether LOAC requires an attempt to capture rather than a first-resort to lethal force in some circumstances.  The debate up to this point involved Professor Ryan Goodman, on one hand, and Professors Geoff Corn, Laurie Blank, Chris Jenks, and Eric Jensen . . .
Read more »

Ninth Circuit Calls Sea Shepherd Actions “Piracy”

By
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Not all news today is the secret meeting of the Lawfare cabal in plain sight – at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on drones and targeted killing.  There is, for example, the opinion just issued in the Sea Shepherd case by the Ninth Circuit, with these opening sentences from Chief Judge Kozinski: You don’t need . . .
Read more »

In Defense of the Administration on Targeted Killing of Americans

By
Wednesday, February 27, 2013 at 10:00 AM

In writing my testimony for today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on drones and targeted killing of U.S. citizens overseas, I found myself writing a more complete explication of the essential legal rationale underlying the administration’s position on the subject than I have, to date, set down in one place. Some of it was drawn from . . .
Read more »

More on Over-Reading Imminence

By
Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Ever since I wrote my post yesterday morning about how people were over-reading the imminence language of the White Paper, I have received a number of emails and tweets and comments suggesting that I am under-reading it. Then I got this email from someone I will just describe as an informed government official: I think you . . .
Read more »

Are People Overreading the White Paper on Imminence?

By
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 7:25 AM

I received an email yesterday responding to Susan and my post, in which we suggested that that the White Paper had little new in it. Specifically, the email argued that Susan and I had understated the degree to which the White Paper broke new ground on the question of imminence. We have heard this complaint before, . . .
Read more »

The US Government Position on Imminence and Active Self-Defense

By
Thursday, February 7, 2013 at 12:26 PM

(Updated and extended.)  The White Paper’s reference to imminence has occasioned some heated rhetoric about the Obama administration stretching the notion beyond all possible ordinary meaning or bounds, etc.  But it’s worth bearing in mind that there’s nothing new in this from the standpoint of the US government.  The US government has held this view . . .
Read more »

Just Calm Down About that DOJ White Paper

By and
Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 11:56 PM

Okay, everyone, take a deep breath. Chill out. The DOJ’s “White Paper” on targeted killing is no big deal. Really. You wouldn’t know this from reading the somewhat breathless press coverage of the document, much of which offers a reasonable reader some confusion as to what the White Paper actually is. The more responsible reporters have . . .
Read more »

What’s Really Wrong With the Targeted Killing White Paper

By
Tuesday, February 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM

There’s certainly a lot to say about the DOJ white paper on targeted killings, much of which has been said already (and well) by others (see Raff’s “Headlines and Commentary” post for links).  At the risk of being unintentionally repetitive, I offer below the fold my own (exasperated) reactions to last night’s release–and to the . . .
Read more »

What to Make of Judge Pohl’s Ruling? Letter Filings in Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald

By
Friday, January 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM

What, if anything, do developments in the military commission case of United States v. al-Nashiri portend for Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald, an ongoing, civil challenge to the accused’s war crimes prosecution?  The question arises in letters filed in the civil case, one by the United States last Friday, and another by al-Nashiri’s lawyers  today. Some quick background: . . .
Read more »

Kevin Jon Heller’s Interesting and Thoughtful Response

By
Monday, December 31, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Kevin Jon Heller has responded to my earlier comments on his earlier post—which itself responded to my exchange with Glenn Greenwald. I’m not going to respond to Kevin’s latest piece, in large measure because I think it almost entirely sums up the remaining—and relatively narrow difference—between us on this point. Money quote: I think it is . . .
Read more »

Ben Farley on Collateral Damage and Accidents

By
Monday, December 31, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Benjamin Farley writes in with the following comments on my exchange with Kevin Jon Heller and Glenn Greenwald: I just read your post responding to Kevin Jon Heller’s response to your conversation with Greenwald regarding the comparison of children killed in drone strikes versus children killed at Newtown.  As usual, I enjoyed your post but I was . . .
Read more »