The proverbial gavel sounds; the military judge, resplendent as ever in his robes, returns; Al-Nashiri’s case resumes.  He is in the courtroom, seated at the far left of counsel table.

With all the recent discussion of surveillance law and policy, it is easy to forget that we had recently been focused on other matters such as the scope of the still-operative 2001 AUMF. On that topic, ...

Pardon the interruption from all-things-surveillance, but pursuant to our back and forth with Bobby, Jack, Matt, and Ben on the merits of a new AUMF, Representative Adam Schiff, a senior member of the Ho...

This memorandum from the Secretary of Defense, came across my screen the other day.  It will give the reader some insight into how DoD is trying to build its cyber capabilities. MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARIE...

The Lawfare Book Review is pleased to announce that this weekend, we are publishing not one but two reviews of John Fabian Witt, Lincoln's Code: The Laws of War in American History (Free Press 2012; the ...

President Obama and his team pledged in 2009 to work hard with Congress to close GTMO.  There appeared to be little White House follow-up for the next four years, however.  And indeed, the administration...

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit heard argument in Hamad v. Gates and Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald, two civil cases involving Guantanamo.

Apropos of Jack's post: here's the Chairman's mark of the National Defense Authorization bill for 2014. Among many, many other things, the draft legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to notify c...

One point of common ground in the debate at Lawfare over the continued viability of the AUMF (at least among Bobby and Matthew, Jen and Steve, and me – not sure about Ben) is that Congress should engage ...

The following guest post is from Professor Geoffrey Corn (South Texas College of Law), in response to a post in which I raised the possibility that, in light of the non-battlefield targeting standards ar...