Law Commons^™

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 …