As part of Lawfare’s Sept. 11 essay collection, Natalie Orpett discussed the torture of detainees following 9/11 and why it still matters today. She explained why existing legal measures have failed to provide justice for victims and accountability for perpetrators. Though the initial shock has faded, Orpett argued that the United States’s failure to confront its legacy of torture exposes a fundamental failure of law—and that the same “pretense of legality” is now enabling abuses against immigrants and other detainees today.
Jack Goldsmith asserted that the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) has outlived its usefulness. He explained that the gradual expansion of the president’s Article II authority has eroded the practical need for an AUMF. At this point, Goldsmith argued, reforming the 2001 AUMF would have little effect and that only Congress can meaningfully rein in the president’s war authorities going forward.
Cindy Cohn and Bruce Schneier weighed the costs of 25 years of expanding mass surveillance since 9/11 and argued that it’s time to reverse course. Cohn and Schneier explained that the increasing surveillance of every American by the government and, increasingly, private companies is both practically harmful for society and legally unsound. They suggested that Congress should consider comprehensive changes to privacy law.
Daniel Byman identified five analytic mistakes regarding 9/11: the U.S. failed to recognize 9/11 as an exceptional event rather than a harbinger of worse attacks to come; officials underestimated how much sustained counterterrorism pressure could diminish the threat; they failed to appreciate how unusual pre-9/11 Afghanistan was as a terrorist safe haven; they overlooked deep divisions among jihadist groups; and they overestimated the U.S.’s ability to reshape political systems in the Middle East.
Peter Beck, Seamus Hughes, and Camden Carmichael discussed terrorist recidivism and what can be done to prevent it. They warned that without a comprehensive plan, more repeat attacks are likely to happen. The authors argued that commitment to extreme ideologies is often worsened by social isolation, which efforts to prevent recidivism can inadvertently reinforce.
On Lawfare Daily, Tyler McBrien sat down with Zoe Kurland and Terence O’Rourke to discuss “A Whole Other Country,” a podcast series hosted and produced by Kurland that tells the story of a secessionist movement in the mid-90s called the “Republic of Texas.” They talked about the group’s claim that the federal government improperly annexed Texas, how its leader appointed himself as the “Ambassador of the Republic of Texas” and sought international recognition, and why that leader asked O’Rourke to represent him.
On Lawfare Daily from last week’s Lawfare Live, Ben Wittes sat down with Beck, Anna Bower, Eric Columbus, Molly Roberts, and Roger Parloff to discuss an Afghan legal permanent resident deported less than two months after case is filed in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, updates in the Grand Conspiracy, a judge allowing the Pentagon to fire Stars and Stripes journalists, developments in President Trump’s attack on mail voting, litigation over the use of SAVE data for elections, and more.
On Lawfare Daily, Michael Feinberg spoke with Julia Curlee and John Sipher about John Ratcliffe’s tenure as CIA director and broader cultural changes within the intelligence community.
On Lawfare Live, Friday, Sept. 18, at 4 p.m. ET, Wittes sat down with Roberts, Bower, Parloff, and Columbus to discuss the latest developments in litigation surrounding the Trump administration, including Trump’s threat to demolish the Kennedy Center, the Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the injunction against the executive order targeting mail voting, and more.
Curlee argued that the Trump administration’s recent claims about Chinese election interference are a part of its broader efforts to manipulate intelligence to discredit election results. Curlee described how the administration’s recent claims that voting machines are vulnerable could be used to later justify blocking unwelcome election results. She recommended steps the pro-democracy coalition can take to push back against such claims by elevating the role of civil society, preparing lawyers, and providing information about the voting process.
On Rational Security, Scott Anderson sat down with Kevin Frazier, Parloff, and Ariane Tabatabai to talk through the week’s big national security news stories, including the turmoil in the tech world after a former Anthropic researcher urged the industry to slow down, Russian provocations in and near NATO territory related to Ukraine, whether a D.C. Circuit judge can investigate who in the Trump administration defied his court order, and more.
Liron Libman argued that nonkinetic countermeasures could serve as a viable alternative to military force against Iran to push back against the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Libman explained potential options for affected states, such as limits on the free passage of Iranian-flagged vessels or UN Security Council action, which could pressure Iran into complying with international law and opening the strait.
On Lawfare Daily, Orpett sat down with Constanze Stelzenmüller to discuss the German political scene, where a far-right party, the Alternative für Deutschland, is making a strong showing in state elections. They talked about what the party stands for, why its emergence is alarming the pro-democracy community, and what it all means for Germany, for Europe, for the United States, and for the future of Western democracies.
Tiziana Melchiorre reviewed Mia Bennett and Klaus Dodds’ book, “Unfrozen: The Fight for the Future of the Arctic.” Melchiorre praised the book’s examination of how military, ecological, and energy dynamics shaped cooperations and tensions between regional states. Melchiorre highlighted the authors’ argument that climate change has prompted new power struggles over the Arctic’s resources.
On Lawfare Daily, Feinberg sat down with Eileen Guo to discuss her research into whether the “censorship-industrial complex” was an actual entity or merely a pretextual justification to dismantle the government’s anti-disinformation apparatus.
Michael FitzGerald explored a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) judgment arising from a French driving-assistance app’s challenge to a decree barring it from distributing content that helps drivers evade police checkpoints. Fitzgerald explained that the court’s controversial ruling removes the exemption that platforms using algorithms to curate or prioritize user content previously held from liability for illegal content that their users post.
In the latest edition of the Seriously Risky Business cybersecurity newsletter, Tom Uren discussed a new dark web service that was selling access to identification documents such as U.S. driver’s licenses, the military’s disabling of ad identifiers to prevent service members from being tracked, white hat hacks, and more.
Eliška Andrš examined whether the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act still governs internal use AI models that never reach the market. Andrš explained that despite exceptions for research and development, most internal AI models may ultimately still be covered by premarket enforcement. Andrš also argued that the European Commission should not ignore AI systems which run behind closed doors.
Marcel Anduiza explained what lessons can be learned from Latin America’s nuclear prohibition treaty, the Treaty of Tlatelolco. He described how existing nuclear deterrence approaches have failed to deliver the stability they promised and argued that Latin America’s innovative prohibition-based strategy reveals how prohibition approaches can be viable as nuclear powers weigh integrating AI into nuclear command, control, and communications systems.
Bharat Chandar and Frazier warned about the dual brain drain of experts leaving academia to join the AI industry and the brain wane of students joining AI firms instead of pursuing further studies. Chandar and Frazier argued that having a robust population of independent experts is critical to regulating and understanding AI and advocated for adjusting incentives to maintain that talent outside the labs.
On Scaling Laws, Frazier and Kate Klonick spoke with Kenji Yoshino to discuss what frontier AI companies can learn from Meta’s Oversight Board. They discussed Yoshino’s recent piece arguing that AI oversight should feature independent overseers, external standards, and transparent decisions. They also considered how the proposal and the experience of the Oversight Board could apply to AI oversight more broadly.
Christopher David LaRoche highlighted an important gap in the mandatory reporting laws for AI safety incidents recently passed by state legislatures in California, Illinois, and New York: They do not clarify what happens after an incident is reported. LaRoche explained why existing investigative powers are insufficient for the unique forensic challenges of AI cases. To address the gap, he suggested regulators require labs to preserve data from incidents and create dedicated teams to assist investigators.
