Law and Public Policy

Drone Rules and Targeted Killing: Huffington Post Live Segment

Today I appeared on Huffington Post Live on a panel discussing rules for the use of drones in targeted killings.  The panel information and video clip appear below.

In anticipation of the election, the Obama administration started working to codify drone policies. Why did they wait so long and what might the rules look like?  Originally aired on November 27, 2012

Hosted by:
GUESTS:

  • Josh Hersh (Washington, DC) HuffPost Foreign Policy Correspondent @joshuahersh
  • Hina Shamsi (New York, NY) Director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. @hinashamsi
  • Gregory S. McNeal (Malibu) Professor, Pepperdine University @gregorymcneal

 

http://embed.live.huffingtonpost.com/HPLEmbedPlayer/?segmentId=50b3bde302a76052b7000051

Standard
Law and Public Policy

Does the NDAA Permit the Detention of U.S. Citizens?

On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 I will be participating in a debate at The University of Houston Law Center.  I’ve posted details from the flyer below.

Standard
Law and Public Policy

Short Summary of Collateral Damage/Targeting Piece Now Posted at Lawfare

Over at Lawfare I’ve posted a short summary of my collateral damage piece.  You can access the summary here.

To give you a feel for the flavor of the blog post, here is my concluding paragraph:

“Taken together, the CDM process provides predictions about likely effects, and the ROE specifies the decision authority necessary to authorize certain strikes.  The process, as I explain it in the paper, is far more detailed and accountable than that which has been described by most commentators. I should caution that this blog post differs a bit from the article.  I’m making the point here that most critics have largely ignored the levels of accountability and procedural care I describe in the paper, I don’t make that claim in the article mostly because I’m limiting it to an empirical description of the process.  I do think it’s important to highlight that many commentators have not fairly described the military’s process despite the fact that most of the documents I rely upon were available on the internet, were released to the ACLU in the al Aulaqi litigation, or were published by WikiLeaks (although synthesizing them and supplementing them with interviews was a big challenge).  In some respects the military can be faulted for not adequately explaining their very defensible procedures to the public.  In any case, irrespective of your opinion about the merits of targeted killing, I’m hopeful my paper provides the foundation necessary for scholars and commentators to build upon, and I hope it serves as a helpful corrective to the descriptions of state practice currently circulating in public commentary.”

For more on this issue, see my article Kill-Lists and Accountability.

Standard
Law and Public Policy

Terrorism & Counterterrorism Since the Attack

Today at Chapman University School of Law I will be presenting at an event entitled “9/11 Ten Year Anniversary: Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism Since the Attack.”  The event will begin at 11:45am in Room 142 and is sponsored by the Federalist Society.

From the promotional materials:

Gregory S. McNeal, legal scholar and specialist in terrorism and homeland security, will be discussing the decade since 9/11, reviewing U.S. policies as they have developed in response to and in anticipation of a dynamic and interconnected world rife with terrorist threats. We will also explore possible reasons why there have been no successful, major, sophisticated terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11

Standard
Law and Public Policy

Revised FBI Guidelines Will Aid Terrorism Fight

A very helpful post analyzing the pending revisions to the FBI’s guidelines for domestic investigations (DIOG) appears at The Investigative Project’s website. From the IPT:

201106241150.jpg

Pending revisions to an FBI operations guide could help agents more quickly and aptly perform investigations, including counterterrorism-related inquires, according to former FBI officials familiar with older and current guidelines. Agents will soon be able to evaluate informant candidates by using those methods, which are currently unapproved. The changes could help speed up the vetting process for valuable human intelligence, said Bob Blitzer, former Chief of the FBI’s Domestic Counterterrorism Section, in an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Information obtained from informants must always be verified against other types of intelligence. The new policies will not change that fact, but they will help to ensure the integrity of the informant. “The more tools [the FBI] has to verify the honesty of sources, the better off we all are,” said Blitzer. That means the raw intelligence received from the informant could be seen as more reliable from the start. “Vetting [informants’] bona fides is critical so that agents are not fooled into taking actions that pull them away from productive endeavors,” he added.

The whole story is available here.

Standard
Law and Public Policy

Preventing Violent Radicalization in America

Screen shot 2011-06-23 at 10.17.47 PM.png

The Bipartisan Policy Center has released their new report Preventing Violent Radicalization in America. Last September’sreport by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) National Security Preparedness Group, Assessing the Terrorist Threat, concluded that the lack of a coherent approach towards domestic counter-radicalization left America “vulnerable to a threat that is not only diversifying, but arguably intensifying.” The purpose of this report is to provide guidance on ongoing efforts aimed at developing such an approach.

Standard
Law and Public Policy

An Analysis of the National Defense Authorization Bill

201106221353.jpgThe International & National Security Law Practice Group of the Federalist Society has published “An Analysis of the National Defense Authorization Bill” authored by Ben Wittes of The Brookings Institution.   

The article describes the detention and Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provisions in the National Defense Authorization bill, which was passed by the House of Representatives by a 322-96 vote on May 26, how these provisions are different from the provisions in earlier versions of the bill, and where they are likely to generate opposition. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon introduced the bill in early March and provided updated language for the detention and AUMF sections on May 9. For organizational simplicity, Wittes describes the bill in the order in which its sections appear and compares these sections to the analogous ones in the earlier version.

Standard