We are back with the latest national security law news, with your co-hosts Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesney explaining; debating; and–let’s face it–geeking out. This week we’ve got:
Bobby Chesney is the Charles I. Francis Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas School of Law. He also serves as the Director of UT-Austin's interdisciplinary research center the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law. 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. Along with Ben Wittes and Jack Goldsmith, he is one of the co-founders of the blog.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
U.S. Cyber Command and the Russian Grid: Proportional Countermeasures, Statutory Authorities and Presidential Notification
A blockbuster article by David Sanger and Nicole Perlroth in the New York Times reports U.S. Cyber Command operations to hold at-risk at least some aspects of the electric power grid in Russia. The story raises a host of legal and policy questions.
Should the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act be modified so that hacking victims can respond in self-defense outside their own networks? That’s the aim of the new ACDC Act bill, introduced June 13. Here’s what you need to know.
And we are back, after a one-week hiatus, with loads of national security law debate and discussion, not to mention some Grade B frivolity!
On tap for Professors Vladeck and Chesney:
Has the statutory foundation for detention of enemy combatants quietly collapsed thanks to changing circumstances in Afghanistan? Justice Stephen Breyer is urging his colleagues to take up that question.
In a final episode before taking a one-week travel break, we discuss and debate an array of recent developments innational security law, including:
In the run-up to the 2020 election, both political campaigns and platforms should take steps to mitigate the harm from deceptively edited videos—not just sophisticated “deepfakes” but less convincing forms of fraud as well.