The NYT's Scott Shane notes that "The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes...
Roger blogged below about how Kagan called in 1995 for substantive questioning of Supreme Court nominees. Just in time to avoid being asked such questions herself, she's changed her mind: The White House Monday said that Supreme Court nominee won’t follow her own advice from 1995 in answering questions on specific legal cases or issues, supporting Kagan’s flip flop...
That is what Mike Allen is reporting at Politico. If he's right, our next Supreme Court Justice will likely be the woman who recently argued this (h/t: my friend Steve Vladeck): [W]ith regard to the material support statute, there are substantial (pending) issues with regard to its scope, given that the Ninth Circuit invalidated the "service," "training," and "expert...
Michael Kearney at the University of York has written a long and interesting response to Julian's post, which I have posted below to make sure people see it. I'm far from expert about the law of statehood, so I'm reluctant to comment on the international-law debate. I continue to believe, though, that accepting the Palestinian declaration would be disastrous for...
Whoops, spoke too soon about the WSJ's anti-ICC editorial. It does indeed contain a lie -- and its a doozy: What’s more, no amount of reform of the founding treaty will change the ICC’s inherent flaw. The ICC is a child of the doctrine of “universal jurisdiction,” which holds that courts can adjudicate crimes committed anywhere in the...
My UN Dispatch friend Mark Leon Goldberg notes today that a group of Representatives are circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter urging their colleagues to support a resolution "opposing the United States joining the Rome Statute or participating in the upcoming review conference." Reading the letter is an infuriating experience, not only for its ridiculously bad grammar -- how does one...
Julian beat me to the punch regarding the new Council on Foreign Relations report, From Rome to Kampala: The U.S. Approach to the 2010 International Criminal Court Review Conference. Not surprisingly, I don't share Julian's enthusiasm for it. On the contrary, I think it's extremely disappointing, little more than a reiteration of the same tired talking points that the...
Eli Lake has a fantastic essay at Reason.com on the myriad ways in which Obama has replicated the worst excesses of the Bush administration with regard to national security. He rightly identifies the source of the problem -- the AUMF, which was passed in a fit of hysteria three days after 9/11 and has no natural expiration date. Here is...
In interests of being "fair and balanced," I thought I'd post Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen's rebuttal to Jane Mayer's "devastating" New Yorker review of his book on Bush-era interrogation policies. At this point, neither side is really arguing the law much, but both seem focused on policy. Thiessen's rebuttal looks pretty strong (as was Mayer's review). (see below for excerpts) Here's Mayer: His...
Harold Koh's ASIL speech drew lots of attention for his defense of the legality of U.S. use of aerial drones. But Koh also spent much of the speech explaining and defending the U.S. decision to reorient its relationship toward the International Criminal Court. He noted U.S. attendance (as an observer) at the ICC Assembly of States Parties in November, and U.S....
Eric Posner has an editorial today in the Wall Street Journal today that uses the recent indictment of Judge Garzon in Spain as an opportunity to dust off the traditional far-right attack on the concept of universal jurisdiction and the existence of the ICC. It's a remarkably misleading editorial, one that deserves a thorough response. Mr. Garzon wanted to prosecute Pinochet...
That very trendy and useful legal concept - the right of self-defense -- is not just for targeting U.S. citizens to be killed. The U.S. military's new "Cyber Command" chief has asserted that the U.S. government's right of self-defense almost certainly permits it to take offensive "cyber" attacks. ...
