As commentators grapple with the political question of whether a reckless and irresponsible tone is disqualifying for high office, we might also ask whether a cerebral and serious tone compensates for policies that blur legal frameworks and masquerade novel theories as matters of routine interagency review.
Latest in Drones
The Drone Playbook, presidential accountability, and a reminder of what it means to be a morally serious chief executive.
Hot off the press: The new Executive Order concerning pre-strike and post-strike practices and policies is here, ODNI's release of aggregate casaulty information is here, and the official fact sheet concerning them both is
Greg Miller has an interesting and seemingly quite well-sourced article in the Washington Post today documenting (and offering explanations for) a significant decline in CIA drone strikes. To be clear, the claim is not that drone strikes on the whole are in decline.
CENTCOM has just released a summary of publicly-acknowledged airstrikes conducted against AQAP targets in Yemen over the first five months of 2016. The list includes three strikes from February and March that were not previously acknowledged, interestingly, and there is no guarantee that there are not others of that kind still awaiting public disclosure.
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 consent from Pakistan and the denials in the public record are mere
Will offense beat defense in the drone arms race?
Dave Blair proposes a reassessment of the way we think about "drones" and why this categorization matters for U.S. security policy.
Excellent! Make sure you watch to the end to see the countermeasures that defeat this menace.
Run -- don't walk, run -- to your nearest movie theater and see Eye in the Sky. Its approach to law and war will be of interest to anyone who reads this blog. Plus, its a good movie (as it's 92% positive on Rotten Tomatoes will attest).