Law Commons^™

Cross Border Data Flows: Could Foreign Protectionism Hurt U.S. Jobs?: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On Commerce, Mfg. & Trade Of The H. Comm. On Energy & Commerce, 113th Cong., Sept. 17, 2014 (Statement Of Laura K. Donohue), Laura K. Donohue

Testimony Before Congress

Documents released over the past year detailing the National Security Agency’s telephony metadata collection program and interception of international content under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) directly implicated U.S. high technology companies in government surveillance. The result was an immediate, and detrimental, impact on U.S. firms, the economy, and U.S. national security.

The first Snowden documents, printed June 5, 2013, revealed that the U.S. government had served orders on Verizon, directing the company to turn over telephony metadata under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The following day, The Guardian published classified slides detailing how the NSA had …

Continued Oversight Of U.S. Government Surveillance Authorities : Hearing Before The S. Committee On The Judiciary, 113th Cong., December 11, 2013 (Statement By Professor Carrie F. Cordero, Geo. U. L. Center), Carrie F. Cordero

Testimony Before Congress

My views are informed by this up-front perspective regarding how the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and later the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, vastly improved the Intelligence Community’s ability to protect the nation from another attack on the scale of September 11th. More recently, I have had the added benefit of having spent the past three years outside of government to reflect, and to engage with the academic community, and to some extent the public, regarding some of the issues this Committee is considering today.

Continued Oversight Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act : Hearing Before The S. Committee On The Judiciary, 113th Cong., October 2, 2013 (Statement By Professor Carrie F. Cordero, Geo. U. L. Center), Carrie F. Cordero

Testimony Before Congress

From my perspective, the challenge for members of this Committee is to identify whether there are actual problems with either the law or process, and then craft remedies that address those specific issues. I am here to urge caution in implementing “quick fixes” that may sound appealing based on public or media-driven pressure, but that could have lasting consequences at a practical level that could negatively impact Intelligence Community operations and the nation’s security for years to come.

Continued Oversight Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act : Hearing Before The S. Committee On The Judiciary, 113th Cong., October 2, 2013 (Remarks By Professor Laura K. Donohue, Geo. U. L. Center), Laura K. Donohue

Testimony Before Congress

Congress introduced the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to make use of new technologies and to enable the intelligence community to obtain information vital to U.S. national security, while preventing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal intelligence-gathering entities from engaging in broad domestic surveillance. The legislature sought to prevent a recurrence of the abuses of the 1960s and 1970s that accompanied the Cold War and the rapid expansion in communications technologies.

Congress purposefully circumscribed the NSA’s authorities by limiting them to foreign intelligence gathering. It required that the target be a foreign power or an agent thereof, …

The Law Of Armed Conflict, The Use Of Military Force, And The 2001 Authorization For Use Of Military Force : Hearing Before The S. Committee On Armed Services, 113th Cong., May 16, 2013 (Statement By Professor Rosa Brooks, Geo. U. L. Center), Rosa Brooks

Testimony Before Congress

Mr. Chairman, almost twelve years have gone by since the passage of the AUMF on September 14, 2001. The war in Afghanistan–-the longest war in U.S. history--has begun to wind down. But at the same time, a far more shadowy war has quietly accelerated.

The Constitutional And Counterterrorism Implications Of Targeted Killing : Hearing Before The S. Judiciary Subcomm. On The Constitution, Civil Rights, And Human Rights, 113th Cong., April 23, 2013 (Statement By Professor Rosa Brooks, Geo. U. L. Center), Rosa Brooks

Testimony Before Congress

Mr. Chairman, the mere mention of drones tends to arouse strong emotional reactions on both sides of the political spectrum, and last week's tragic events in Boston have raised the temperature still further. Some demonize drones, denouncing them for causing civilian deaths or enabling long-distance, "video game-like" killing, even as they ignore the fact that the same (or worse) could equally be said of many other weapons delivery systems. Others glorify drones, viewing them as a low- or no-cost way to "take out terrorists" wherever they may be found, with little regard for broader questions of strategy or the rule …

Evolution Of Strategic Communication And Information Operations Since 9/11: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On Emerging Threats & Capabilities Of The H. Comm. On Armed Services, 112th Cong., July 12, 2011 (Statement Of Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks), Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks

Testimony Before Congress

I know that members of this sub-committee are deeply committed to ensuring that reform of strategic communication organizational structures and policies remains a top priority for the executive branch. I have to confess that in my former role as a Defense Department official with responsibility for a range of SC and IO issues, I was not always wholly grateful for your interest: you and your colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee put the Department through the ringer with quite a lot of different reporting requirements. As a citizen, however, I am deeply grateful to you for having kept us on …

What Went Wrong: Torture And The Office Of Legal Counsel In The Bush Administration: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On Administrative Oversight And The Courts Of The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 111th Cong., May 13, 2009 (Statement Of David Luban, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), David Luban

Testimony Before Congress

The mission of the Office of Legal Counsel is to give the President advice to guide him in fulfilling an awesome constitutional obligation: to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Faithful execution means interpreting the law without stretching it and without looking for loopholes. OLC's job is not to rubber-stamp administration policies, and it is not to provide legal cover for illegal actions.

Unfortunately, the interrogation memos fall far short of professional standards of candid advice and independent judgment. They involve a selective and in places deeply eccentric reading of the law. The memos cherry-pick sources of law …

From The Department Of Justice To Guantanamo Bay; Administration Lawyers And Administration Interrogation Rules, Part I: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On The Constitution, Civil Rights And Civil Liberties Of The H. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., May 6, 2008 (Statement Of David Luban, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), David Luban

Testimony Before Congress

Government lawyers have an awesome responsibility. Office of Legal Counsel opinions bind the entire executive branch. They have the force of law inside that branch. The idea that unelected lawyers are writing secret legal opinions that spin the law makes a mockery of democratic government. It means the executive branch is governed by a secret constitution - a constitution written by activist lawyers instead of the constitution written by the Framers.

Without getting too deeply into technicalities which, quite frankly, only a lawyer could love, let me summarize in a bit more detail just how spun the torture memos were.

Military Commissions: Hamdan V. Rumsfeld: Testimony Before The S. Comm. On Armed Services, 109th Cong., July 19, 2006 (Statement Of Neal Kumar Katyal, Prof. Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), Neal K. Katyal

Testimony Before Congress

No abstract provided.