The NSL Podcast is a weekly review of the latest legal controversies associated with the U.S. government’s national security activities and institutions, featuring Professors Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas at Austin. They bring different perspectives to these issues, but always in a friendly spirit. The program is fast-paced but detail-rich, and is meant for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. If you’ve been looking for a thoughtful yet enjoyable way to keep up with and better understand these issues, this is the show for you.
Latest in The National Security Law Podcast
In this week’s episode, Professors Chesney and Vladeck zero in on four recent developments involving law and national security.
If you have ever wondered what statutes, constitutional principles, and judicial precedents come into play when the U.S. government contemplates transferring an American citizen from our military custody to the custody of another government, this is the episode for you.
Seriously, how did they manage not to say “posse comitatus” during this episode? Sigh. In this week’s episode, Professors Vladeck and Chesney do talk at length about various legal issues raised by the devastation in Puerto Rico, including the possibility of an invocation of the Insurrection Act. In addition, they renew attention to the as-yet-unnamed U.S. citizen who apparently remains in U.S.
In this week’s episode, Professors Chesney and Vladeck explore three big national security law developments from the past few days.
First up: The news that the FISC, on two separate occasions, issued orders authorizing surveillance of Paul Manafort’s communications.
Second: The news late last week that an as-yet-unnamed American citizen fighting for the Islamic State in Syria is now in US military custody and being held as an enemy combatant.
And third: An update on the travel-ban litigation as it moves into the Supreme Court.
We have a special treat in this off-cycle episode! NSA GC Glenn Gerstell is in Austin to speak to our students here at UT, and (no doubt against his better judgment) he agreed to sit for an interview with Professors Chesney and Vladeck. The conversation focuses in particular on the nature, operation, and criticisms of Section 702 collection authority. As you probably know, Section 702 is scheduled to expire at the end of December, and there is certain to be a fascinating, high-stakes Congressional fight over its renewal in the months ahead.
Will this year’s Supreme Court term be packed with cases relating to military courts? In this week’s show, Professors Chesney and Vladeck explore the possibility. The Supreme Court currently has before it an array of petitions for review involving military court questions.
In today’s episode, Professors Chesney and Vladeck spend time with three legal topics (before spiraling off into some ill-informed commentary on the college football season). First, building off a report that FBI arrests of Islamic State supporters inside the US have declined significantly recently, they discuss why such a change may have occurred and what it signifies for the role of law enforcement in counterterrorism policy.
In this week’s episode, Professors Chesney and Vladeck take advantage of a relatively quiet week for national security law developments in order to range across a number of topics. Being in Texas, we are all quite focused on the terrible tragedy unfolding thanks to Hurricane Harvey, and so your hosts open with a survey of various legal issues that could have arisen in the context of this emergency (though, fortunately, none seem to have).
Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck discuss the President's Afghanistan speech, a possible executive order on GTMO, and the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling requiring Judge Silliman to recuse from the CMCR.
In this week’s episode, Professors Chesney and Vladeck make a whole series of blatantly un-Mirandized statements about some of the latest national security law developments. First, they take up a number of questions relating to the events in Charlottesville. Was the murder an act of “domestic terrorism”? What does federal criminal law have to say about domestic terrorism?