In association with the International Commission of Jurists

National Security Law

29 Sep

Society has historically ---unjustifiably and blindly---granted religion immunity. That immunity has been expanded to include religious extremism; doing so, presents an imminent danger to civil society. In many ways the failure to adequately protect society falls squarely on the shoulders of society; the refusal to directly address religious extremists is purely self-imposed. Religious extremists manipulate society’s sensitivities which, in large...

|
29 Sep

We are very pleased to host for the next three days a discussion of Amos Guiora's new book, Freedom from Religion: Rights and National Security(Oxford 2009).  Amos is probably well known to many readers of this blog, a professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law and a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Israel Defense Forces Judge...

|
28 Sep

Ben Wittes at Lawfare and Adam Serwer at TAPPED traded posts today on the government's motion to dismiss the ACLU/CCR lawsuit.  I think the exchange -- particularly Wittes' response to Serwer -- illustrates perfectly why discussions about national security between conservatives and progressives always seem to have a Pinteresque quality.  Here is the point to which Wittes responded: I think it's...

|
25 Sep

The Obama administration recently filed its motion to dismiss the ACLU/CCR lawsuit that seeks to enjoin the government from using lethal force against Anwar al-Aulaqi.  Predictably, the motion relies on a potpourri of reasons why no court should ever review the lawfulness of Obama's determination that an American citizen abroad should be summarily executed, including everyone's favorite "state secrets" privilege. ...

|
25 Sep

Bobby Chesney has graciously responded at Lawfare to my post about detention in non-international armed confilct (NIAC). Unfortunately, I think Chesney's response not only misconstrues what Steve Vladeck and I have been arguing, but also demonstrates some important misconceptions about IHL. To begin with, we need to understand exactly what we are arguing about. As Steve pointed out in one of...

|
21 Sep

The following is a guest post from Chimene Keitner, Associate Professor of Law at Hastings.  My thanks to her for contributing it! The Second Circuit’s recent panel opinion in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum has justifiably spurred much talk in the blogosphere, including posts by Trey Childress, Ken Anderson, Julian Ku, and Kevin Jon Heller. Here are my preliminary thoughts. First, it...

|
19 Sep

OK, I never thought I'd write a post tying international arbitration, chess federation elections, and post-Soviet politics together.  Nor did I think that I'd follow that up with a post expanding on the post-Soviet politics issue and also throwing allegations of UFO abductions into the mix. And now, in the midst of all this other drama, World Chess Federation President (and...

|
18 Sep

It's always dangerous to opine on a judgment you have only skimmed, so I'll phrase my thought as a question instead.  Here is what the ATS Statute says: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the...

|
16 Sep

Ben Wittes has a post at Lawfare today discussing ways in which the Obama administration might be able to avoid litigating the ACLU/CCR lawsuit challenging Al-Aulaqi's targeting.  One of his preferred responses is the "political question" doctrine; in his view, "enemy targeting" is a classic example of a political question with which the judiciary should not interfere. I would not be...

|
07 Sep

I have no desire to have the final word with Ken.  But I would like answers to two questions. First, where does Melzer or the ICRC say that armed conflict is a geographically-bounded concept, such that a participant in an armed conflict ceases to be targetable as soon as he leaves the battlefield?  I cited pages in Melzer's book on targeted...

|