The DOD airstrike that may have killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour is interesting, from a legal perspective, at many levels. From an international law perspective, as Marty Lederman explains here, it looks to be another example of action under color of the much-discussed unwilling/unable principle (unless of course there was conse
Bobby Chesney is the Charles I. Francis Professor in Law at the University of Texas School of Law, as well as a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution. His scholarship encompasses a wide range of issues relating to national security and the law, including detention, targeting, prosecution, covert action, and the state secrets privilege; most of it is posted here.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Oversight of DOD Kill-Capture Missions Outside Theaters of Major Hostilities: What May Change Under the Next NDAA?
Despite the substantial overlap between counterterrorism activities undertaken by the CIA and JSOC, we tend to pay a lot more attention to the details of the congressional oversight framework for the former as compared to the latter. The NDAA often addresses CT oversight relating to DOD activities, however, and this year is no exception. What follows below is an attempt to provide a user-friendly guide to the proposals on the table.
I. Increasing the pace of quarterly operational briefings regarding CT:
The Intelligence Studies Project of the University of Texas at Austin announces the second round of an annual competition recognizing outstanding student research and writing on topics related to intelligence and national security.
Until now, Belgium's contribution to the air campaign against ISIS has been limited to strikes on targets in Iraq. This constraint reflected, at least in part, a sense that the legal case for strikes in Iraq (from a UN Charter perspective) was clear (in light of the consent of the Iraqi government), whereas the legality of strikes in Syria (where the Assad regime did not consent) was murkier.
Apple v. FBI is over, for now. But with exceptional access to data back in the headlines, we have a question for Apple in its role as an employer.
Last Wednesday, the Intelligence Studies Project at the University of Texas-Austin hosted a conference on “Intelligence in American Society”. The conference focused on the supervision and oversight of U.S. intelligence activities. The luncheon keynote speaker was Lisa Monaco, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Morning and afternoon discussions involved current and former officials involved in intelligence oversight by all three branches of government, the media, and non-governmental organizations.
Could both of the magistrate judge rulings in the dueling Apple-FBI disputes in Brooklyn and San Bernardino to date be wrong? We believe that the answer is "yes," and explain why the best reading of the All Writs Act compels that counterintuitive result.