Drones and Due Process

On Wednesday June 5, 2013 I’ll be participating in an event sponsored by the Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society and the Libertarian Law Council.  The event is entitled “Drones and Due Process.

Speakers:

  • Prof. John C. Yoo, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law
  • Prof. Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Ahilan Arulanantham, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU of Southern California
  • Moderator: Jeremy B. Rosen, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLP

At this luncheon, John Yoo (UC Berkeley), Greg McNeal (Pepperdine), and Ahilan Arulanantham (ACLU) will discuss the due-process, privacy, and national-security implications of drone use for targeted killings overseas and aerial surveillance at home.

Location:
McCormick & Schmick’s
4th & Hope Streets
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Registration details:

Please respond by sending an email to la.fedsoc@gmail.com if you wish to attend.

The cost of the luncheon is $25. Public employees, public-interest lawyers, students, and law clerks may pay a discounted rate of $20. Payment (cash or checks only) will be accepted at the door.

MCLE Credit: One Hour

 

Drones and Due Process

On Wednesday June 5, 2013 I’ll be participating in an event sponsored by the Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society and the Libertarian Law Council.  The event is entitled “Drones and Due Process.

Speakers:

  • Prof. John C. Yoo, Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law
  • Prof. Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Ahilan Arulanantham, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU of Southern California
  • Moderator: Jeremy B. Rosen, Partner, Horvitz & Levy LLP

At this luncheon, John Yoo (UC Berkeley), Greg McNeal (Pepperdine), and Ahilan Arulanantham (ACLU) will discuss the due-process, privacy, and national-security implications of drone use for targeted killings overseas and aerial surveillance at home.

Location:
McCormick & Schmick’s
4th & Hope Streets
Los Angeles, CA 90071

Registration details:

Please respond by sending an email to la.fedsoc@gmail.com if you wish to attend.

The cost of the luncheon is $25. Public employees, public-interest lawyers, students, and law clerks may pay a discounted rate of $20. Payment (cash or checks only) will be accepted at the door.

MCLE Credit: One Hour

 

Texas Speaking Tour: Kill-Lists and Accountability

I’ll be on a speaking tour in Texas the week of March 24th, discussing my article Kill-Lists and Accountability, which is forthcoming in The Georgetown Law Journal.

All events are open to the public although some may require pre-registration:

DATE LOCATION SPONSOR
Monday, March 25th at Noon Southern Methodist University School of Law, Dallas, TX The Federalist Society (student chapter)
Monday, March 25th at 7:30pm University of Dallas, Dallas, TX (Lynch Auditorium) The Hamilton Society
Tuesday, March 26th at 5:00pm Baylor University School of Law, Waco, TX The Federalist Society (student chapter)
Wednesday, March 27th at 11:30am Sullivan’s Steakhouse, Austin, TX   Pre-registration required The Federalist Society (Austin lawyers chapter)
Wednesday, March 27th at 3:30pm University of Texas School of Law, Austin, TX The Federalist Society (student chapter)
Thursday, March 28th at 7:45am Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Houston, TX  Pre-registration required The Federalist Society (Houston lawyers chapter)
Thursday, March 28th at Noon Texas A&M University, Bush School of Government and Public Service The Hamilton Society

 

 

National Security vs. International Law

I appeared on a panel sponsored by the International & National Security Law Practice Group of the Federalist society.  The panel was entitled “National Security vs. International Law?” and was held on Friday, November 16, 2012, during the 2012 National Lawyers Convention.

International: National Security vs. International Law?
3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

  • Prof. Kenneth Anderson, American University Washington College of Law
  • Prof. Rosa Brooks, Georgetown University Law Center
  • Prof. Julian Ku, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of International Programs, Hofstra University School of Law
  • Prof. Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Moderator: Prof. John O. McGinnis, Northwestern University School of Law

Ken Anderson had a write-up about the panel at Volokh and a video of the panel is embedded below.

ASIL International Law and Technology Interest Group

I’m pleased to announce that I will be serving in a leadership capacity in the American Society of International Law’s new interest group, the International Law and Technology Interest Group (ILTechIG), which will focus on the implications of technological advances across a range of international law disciplines. The group is co-chaired by Molly Land and Anupam Chander, with (me) Greg McNeal serving as the Secretary/Treasurer. To join this interest group, log in at asil.org, click on “Interest Groups” (left navigation bar), select the “All Interest Groups” tab, go to page 3, and click on “Join Group” next to ILTechIG. If you have any questions about the group or need your login information, please contact ASIL Services here or by calling +1.202.939.6001.

Are Targeted Killings Unlawful? A Case Study in Empirical Claims Without Empirical Evidence

Targeted Killing.pngNow available on SSRN is my newest piece, Are Targeted Killings Unlawful?  A Case Study in Empirical Claims Without Empirical Evidence.  In the piece I argue that critics of the U.S. policy of targeted killing by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) generally lack credible information to justify their critiques. In fact, in many circumstances their claims are easily refuted, calling into question the reliability of their criticisms.  I highlight some of the most striking examples of inaccurate claims raised by critics of the U.S. policy of drone based targeted killing. Specifically, I offer a much needed corrective to clarify the public record or offer empirical nuance where targeted killing critics offer only unsubstantiated and conclusory statements of fact and law.

Section I discusses the decision protocol used by the U.S. military before launching a drone strike, a process that goes to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian casualties. Although this decision protocol was once secret, recent litigation in federal court has resulted in the release of extensive information regarding U.S. targeting protocols. An analysis of this information indicates that the U.S. military engages in an unparalleled and rigorous procedure to minimize, if not eliminate entirely, civilian casualties. Although independent empirical evidence regarding civilian casualties is hard to come by, it is certainly the case that statistics proffered by some critics cannot be empirically verified; their skepticism of U.S. government statements is not backed up by anything more substantial than generic suspicion.

Section II addresses the critics’ unsubstantiated claims about the legal, diplomatic and strategic results of drone strikes. Although the counter observations I raise do not, by themselves, demonstrate that targeted killings are morally or legally justified, they do however suggest that some of the moral or legal objections to targeted killings are based on empirical claims that are either dubious, impossible to verify, or just plain false.  For more on this issue, see my article Kill-Lists and Accountability.

Other contributors to the book Targeted Killing: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World (Oxford 2012) appear in the Table of Contents below:

(more…)