Latest in Lawfare
We are excited to announce a new partnership between Lawfare and Foreign Policy magazine. Starting today, FP will be launching a new “[email protected]” feed, featuring analysis and commentary from Lawfare contributors. Some of this material will be cross-posted from Lawfare.
We've got big plans, and we want to make sure that we are both serving our core readership and serving the many folks who have discovered the site over the past year. Please take a few moments to give us your thoughts.
We couldn't risk it.
We've cut down the testimony by Director Comey and Admiral Rogers before HPSCI yesterday down to less than an hour, giving you only what you need to know.
Lawfare doesn’t take institutional positions. What the site’s writers all share is an interest in the rigorous, disciplined discussion of national security law and a belief that those on the other side of an issue are interlocutors, not enemies.
We need a new editor. It could be you.
Things have been busy at Lawfare these past few months, both from the editorial side and in terms of new readers.
If you are one of the many readers who has donated to Lawfare this year, thank you. If you are not one of the readers who has already donated to Lawfare this year but you're a regular reader of the site, please consider making a contribution.
Has Lawfare changed? It turns out quite a few people think so, judging both by the private messages that have been coming to the founders of the site (me, Jack, and Ben) and by the post that Brett Max Kaufman put up at Just Security earlier today. The perceived change pleases some and disappoints others.
Last week, the courts once again restricted the ability of terrorism victims to collect compensation, this time on grounds of personal jurisdiction.
Recap