Law Commons^™

Confronting The Wizard Of Oz: National Security, Expertise, And Secrecy, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Aziz Rana’s account of the takeover of American national security by experts, and of the public’s acceptance of that state of affairs, offers an important and novel perspective on what ails us in national security today. In this Comment, I suggest that while Rana is correct to identify our deference to experts as a central aspect of the problem, the problem is more complicated. First, the phenomenon of elite control over foreign and security policy questions is not new, but likely dates back to the founding—when elites ruled not based on expertise but on the basis of status, class, and …

The Taint Of Torture: The Roles Of Law And Policy In Our Descent To The Dark Side, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Was the Bush administration’s decision to employ “enhanced interrogation techniques” a mistake of policy, a violation of law, or both? This essay responds to Philip Zelikow’s insider account of how the decision to use these techniques was reached. The author suggests that while Zelikow makes a strong case that the decision to authorize the CIA to use coercive interrogation tactics was a mistaken policy judgment, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it was also illegal. The latter conclusion demands a different response than the former. In particular, it underscores the necessity for accountability. The author …

Be Careful What You Wish For: Changing Doctrines, Changing Technologies And The Lower Cost Of War, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The collective security structure created by the U.N. Charter is becoming shakier than ever, and two recent trends pose particular challenges to Charter rules on the use of force. The first trend involves a normative shift in understandings of state sovereignty, and the second trend involves improvements in technology--specifically, the rapid evolution of unmanned aerial vehicles, precision weapons, and surveillance technologies. Each trend on its own raises difficult issues. Together, they further call into question international law’s ability to meaningfully constrain the use of force by states.

Train Wreck: The U.S. Violation Of The Chemical Weapons Convention, David A. Koplow

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is one of the most important multilateral arms control instruments; it requires its 188 parties to refrain from producing, acquiring, retaining or using chemical weapons (CW) and to destroy their existing CW stockpiles by a fixed date. The United States and Russia declared the possession of the world’s largest CW inventories and have been working assiduously to incinerate, chemically neutralize or otherwise dispose of their respective caches. Unfortunately, neither country met the treaty’s April 29, 2012 final, non-extendable deadline. The United States managed to destroy 90% of its CW stocks on time, but under …

National Security In The Information Age, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The information environment has been changing right along with the broader security environment. Today, the information environment connects almost everyone, almost everywhere, almost instantaneously. The media environment has become global, and there’s no longer such thing as “the news cycle” —everything is 24/7. Barriers between US and global publics have virtual disappeared: Everything and anything can “go viral” instantly, and it’s no longer possible to say one thing to a US audience and another thing to a foreign audience and assume no one will ever set the statements side by side. The Pakistani military has a very clear idea of …

Assessing The Impeachment Of President Bill Clinton From A Post 9/11 Perspective, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The impeachment of President Clinton was more a circus than a serious effort to remove the President of the United States. The reason is simple: Few people--in the Congress or the country--wanted to remove him or believed the impeachment effort would actually result in his removal. Instead, it was a partisan political effort to embarrass Clinton and "send a message" of disapproval. Congress was attaching a "scarlet letter." But this was an indulgence that posed considerable danger that few in Congress considered. In particular, few tried to assess the potential impact this use of the process would have on the …

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …

Strange Bedfellows: The Convergence Of Sovereignty-Limiting Doctrines In Counterterrorist And Human Rights Discourse, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is hard to imagine two groups with less in common than national security hawks and human rights activists. They represent different cultures with different views on the use of force, the role of rights, and the constraining power of international law. Yet despite their differences, the two groups seem to be converging on an understanding of state sovereignty as limited and subject to de facto waiver—an understanding that appears to legitimize military inter­ventions even in the absence of state consent and Security Council authorization.

This convergence is reached via different routes in each community: for the national security community, …

Islam In The (Inter)National, Lama Abu-Odeh

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Islam, Muslims, and Islamic law have become an intense American pre-occupation since September 11, 2001. Since then, much literature has been written in academia and public culture alike, deciphering the Muslim and the Islamic, bestsellers sold, careers made, and expertise claimed, solicited, and generously offered.

Unsurprisingly, another type of literature coincided with the rise of the literature on Islam and the Islamic, namely, the one on national security. Sometimes, this literature paralleled and intersected with that on the Islamic, with both fields claiming the same experts, though for the most part, the latter commanded its own independent list of bestsellers, …

Technological Leap, Statutory Gap, And Constitutional Abyss: Remote Biometric Identification Comes Of Age, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Federal interest in using facial recognition technology (“FRT”) to collect, analyze, and use biometric information is rapidly growing. Despite the swift movement of agencies and contractors into this realm, however, Congress has been virtually silent on the current and potential uses of FRT. No laws directly address facial recognition—much less the pairing of facial recognition with video surveillance—in criminal law. Limits placed on the collection of personally identifiable information, moreover, do not apply. The absence of a statutory framework is a cause for concern. FRT represents the first of a series of next generation biometrics, such as hand geometry, iris, …

Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society And Individual Rights After 9/11, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Had someone told you, on September 11, 2001, that the United States would not be able to do whatever it wanted in response to the terrorist attacks of that day, you might well have questioned their sanity. The United States was the most powerful country in the world, and had the world’s sympathy in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Who would stop it? Al Qaeda had few friends beyond the Taliban. As a historical matter, Congress and the courts had virtually always deferred to the executive in such times of crisis. And the American polity was unlikely to object …