General

AG Holder to Address Al-Awlaki Targeted Killing

Bobby Chesney reports:

In late January, Daniel Klaidman reported that the administration was inclined to have Attorney General Holder give a major speech specifying additional details regarding the legal framework governing the use of lethal force against Anwar al-Awlaki. That time has now arrived. DOJ released a statement last week indicating that the AG will give a major address on national security at Northwestern Law (congrats to NW’s new dean–and my former colleague–Dan Rodriguez for landing this rather big fish) at 3:30 central time this Monday (the 5th). Once the text is available, we will certainly have a link to it, and commentary, here [at Lawfare].

I imagine us folks here at OJ will have some commentary on this as well.  Stay tuned.  Update: Also at Lawfare, Rick Pildes argues that government silence undermines terrorism policies - an observation that I agree with, and which I make in similar terms at Lawfare as part of a comment on the possible operational role of the CIA in Afghanistan once US combat forces are formally gone.  As Pildes says:

In an earlier post, I explained why the credibility and sustainability of government policies on terrorism require government to be more forthright about the bases and explanations for its actions in this arena. In that post, I argued that the general dynamic of terrorism policy requires government to accept greater responsibility to explain its actions: “government actors need to recognize that these kinds of coercive and less familiar powers will understandably and predictably trigger concerns in many quarters about whether what is being done is justified; whether the actions rest on sound reasons; and whether the government is using these powers in appropriately restrained ways, including showing appropriate respect for the interests and values that these policies sometimes override (that is, are these values being compromised no more than necessary to accomplish the government’s legitimate aims). If government is going to use these powers, yet maintain credibility, it needs to “give back” to these understandable concerns by being more forthcoming than has typically been the case. In this post, I want to explain why the political economy of public discourse on terrorism policy provides a further reason government must recognize the need to engage with the public. Government today is in a constant battle for its own credibility. In the context of terrorism policies, numerous non-governmental organizations now exist (unlike many decades ago) whose essential purpose is to reflect distrust of government; to monitor government; and to criticize and challenge government, in part, as these groups would see it, to keep government honest. Precisely because these groups have no direct political power, one of their main roles is to seek to mobilize public opinion, including through a strong media presence. But few if any countervailing non-governmental organizations are devoted, of course, to the opposite perspective — that is, to defending government action as their raison d’etre. And modern journalistic culture, too, is based on the view that the media needs to turn a constantly skeptical or demanding eye on government policies, particularly coercive and less familiar ones. Partisan political actors, too, have their own incentives to seek to undermine the credibility of their opponents in power, including with arguments alleging lawless action. In this larger context, government simply has to be an active, full, constant participant in order to defend and justify the credibility of its actions, including their legal basis. An occasional government spokesperson offering a few words in explanation is far from sufficient.

I put a related argument this way, referring to an AP story by Kim Dozier reporting government discussions (denied by the Pentagon) that, following the formal exit of US combat forces from Afghanistan, elite units of SEALS, Rangers, JSOC forces, Afghan proxy forces, etc., might be tasked under CIA command, in the way that the attack on Bin Laden was carried out by SEALS but under operational command of the CIA:

One More Kiobel Post: The Importance of Sosa

Here is the final post in my conversation with Prof. David Weissbrodt on Kiobel and corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute. It is worth emphasizing why I think the "choice of law" question is so crucial to resolving this case (and why Justice Breyer agrees with me on this point). In its 2004 decision, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, the Supreme Court decided...

Sovereigntism (Straight-Up), Courtesy of John Fonte

The Hudson Institute's John Fonte has a new book out, Sovereignty or Submission: Will American Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? (Encounter Books).  From the title you don't have to know John to know what his answer would be.  Fonte is an unabashed sovereigntist, vaunting its "Philadelphian" strain (located in the people, as opposed to the Westphalian variant based...

One More Almost Forgotten Argument Against Corporate Liability

Anton Metlitsky, an attorney that is defending Rio Tinto from a similar ATS lawsuit as Kiobel's, drops me this useful reminder about another hurdle facing the Kiobel plaintiffs. In a recent post, you say that “the only way plaintiffs will prevail is if they convince a majority of the Court (meaning Justice Kennedy), that the question of corporate liability is really...

VJIL’s New Online Digest

For those interested in expanding their international law reading and/or writing horizons, the Virginia Journal of International Law is now welcoming submissions to its new online companion, the Virginia Journal of International Law Digest (VJIL Digest). The idea, which seems part of a useful trend among a number of the student edited law journals, is to publish short pieces focusing...

How to Win the Kiobel Public Relations War

The Kiobel oral arguments have spawned lots of media coverage and commentary. I think this matters more than usual because the way this case plays out in the court of public opinion is going to have an effect on the justices.  For instance, Dahlia Lithwick at Slate concludes that.. The skepticism of the court’s conservative bloc notwithstanding, this is a case...

The “Crucial” Choice of Law Question in Kiobel

Here is the second round of my exchange with Professor David Weissbrodt over at Pointoflaw. I begin by citing the following exchange during Kiobel's oral argument yesterday.   SULLIVAN: ...

Parsing the Oral Arguments in Kiobel and Mohamad

[Chimène Keitner is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.] The oral arguments in Kiobel and Mohamed will doubtless generate a new round of commentary on these cases. A “quick response” panel is planned for Thursday, followed by a Georgetown Law symposium on March 27 and an ASIL annual meeting panel on March 31. Since I...

Kiobel and Mohamad Oral Argument Transcripts

... from this morning's hearing:  Kiobel and Mohamad.  I would be curious as to readers' prognostications of how the Justices will rule based on the oral arguments today. (Thanks for comments, interested in more.  For example, where did this extraterritoriality question suddenly materialize from and does it portend something different from what was originally thought?  You can also see John...

Kiobel and Unattractive Legal Arguments Against Corporate Liability Under the Alien Tort Statute

I am participating this week in a discussion on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the case on corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute that will be argued tomorrow at the Supreme Court, at the Manhattan Institute's Point of Law Blog.  My interlocutor will be Professor David Weissbrodt of the University of Minnesota.  Here is a snippet of my opening...