This is the podcast series from Lawfare, the web's leading multimedia web site devoted to national security law and policy. Visit us at www.lawfareblog.com.
Listeners of The Lawfare Podcast that love the show mention: rational security, lawfare podcast, ben wittes, susan hennessey, national security law, lawfare blog, benjamin wittes, vindman, susan hennessy, national security issues, mueller report, mueller investigation, shane harris, emergency podcasts, vladeck, national security podcast, brookings, indictments, authoritative, law and politics.
On May 19, the Department of Justice announced a new policy concerning how it will charge cases under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or CFAA, the primary statute used against those who engage in unlawful computer intrusions. Over the years, the statute has been criticized because it has been difficult to determine the kinds of conduct it criminalizes, which has led to a number of problems, including the chilling of security research.Stephanie Pell sat down with Andrea Matwyshyn, professor of law and associate dean of innovation at Penn State Law School to discuss DOJ's new charging policy and some of the issues it attempts to address. They talked about some of the problems created by the CFAA's vague terms, how the new charging policy tries to protect good faith security research, and the significance of the requirement that prosecutors must now consult with the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property section at main Justice before charging a case under the CFAA.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
An interesting subplot of the Russian invasion and subsequent war in Ukraine has been the rush of fighters from other countries to join the Ukrainian foreign legion and to fight as legionnaires on behalf of the Ukrainian government. The phenomenon of legionnaires is an interesting one that crops up all throughout history yet has remained relatively understudied. What role do legionnaires play in conflicts? How does their impact differ from that of typical soldiers? How can we distinguish them from contractors or mercenaries or other categories of fighters? And what can legionnaires tell us about the ways that states like to conduct international affairs and international conflict?To talk through these issues, Jacob Schulz spoke with Elizabeth Grasmeder, a researcher and author of an international security article entitled “Leaning on Legionnaires: Why Modern States Recruit Foreign Soldiers.” They talked about the historical practice of use of legionnaires and what it can reveal about conflicts today. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Chatter, a podcast from Lawfare, features weekly long-form conversations with fascinating people at the creative edges of national security.This week on Chatter, Shane Harris talked with historian Tim Naftali about the legacy of Watergate and how we tell stories, fifty years later, about America's most notorious presidential scandal. What is it about Watergate that still captures our attention? What do historians, journalists, and citizens misremember about the events? And how does the scandal shape our understanding of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol?Naftali was the first federal director of the Richard Nixon library and earned accolades from historians—and criticism from Nixon loyalists—for his efforts to truthfully tell the story of Watergate in the Nixon museum. Naftali has written about intelligence, counterterrorism, national security, and the American presidency in the modern era. He is currently a professor at New York University.Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Learn more and subscribe to Chatter.Among the works discussed in this episode:Naftali's recent article in The Atlantic about a controversial proposal from the National Archives on presidential librariesNaftali on TwitterNaftali's book on the secret history of U.S. counterterrorism, “Blind Spot”Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
From May 4, 2021: 2020 was a remarkable year in so many ways, not least of which was the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects. Why did so many countries bungle their responses to it so badly? And what should their leaders have learned from earlier disasters and the pathologies clearly visible in the responses of their predecessors to them?Niall Ferguson is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of more than a dozen books, including, most recently, "Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe." David Priess sat down with Niall to discuss everything from earthquake zones, to viruses, to world wars, all with a mind to how our political and social structures have or have not adapted to the certainty of continued crises.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
It was Day Five of the House select committee hearings on Jan. 6. This time, the committee was focused on the president's efforts to pressure, and one may even say decapitate, the Justice Department to get it to put pressure on states on voter fraud matters and overturn the results of the 2020 election. In front of the committee were senior Justice Department officials who threatened to resign if an obscure environmental lawyer was made acting attorney general. It was another dramatic day of testimony, and to chew it all over, Benjamin Wittes sat down on Twitter Spaces with Lawfare senior editors Quinta Jurecic and Roger Parloff, and New York Times reporter Katie Benner, who broke the whole story of the coup attempt at the Justice Department shortly after it happened. They talked about whether they learned anything new. They talked about how the department officials came off: are they heroes or are they apparatchiks? And they talked about how all of it fits into the committee's larger story. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
If you've been watching the hearings convened by the House select committee on Jan. 6, you've seen a great deal about how the Trump campaign generated and spread falsehoods about supposed election fraud in 2020. As the committee has argued, those falsehoods were crucial in generating the political energy that culminated in the explosion of the January 6 insurrection. What shape did those lies take, and how did social media platforms attempt to deal with them at the time? Today, we're bringing you an episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on the online information ecosystem. In fact, we're rebroadcasting an episode we recorded in November 2020 about disinformation and the 2020 election. In late November 2020, after Joe Biden cemented his victory as the next president but while the Trump campaign was still pushing its claims of election fraud online and in court, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Alex Stamos, the director of the Stanford Internet Observatory. Their conversation then was a great overview of the state of election security and the difficulty of countering false claims around the integrity of the vote. It's worth a listen today as the Jan. 6 committee reminds us what the political and media environment was like in the aftermath of the election and how the Trump campaign committed to election lies that still echo all too loudly. And though it's a year and a half later, the problems we're discussing here certainly haven't gone away.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Tuesday was day four of the Jan. 6 committee hearings, this time on Donald Trump's efforts to coax, cajole, and threaten state election officials and legislators into overturning their state election results in 2020. To go over it all, Benjamin Wittes sat down in Twitter Spaces with Lawfare senior editors Roger Parloff, Quinta Jurecic, and Molly Reynolds. They talked about where this story fits in with the larger narrative the committee is trying to spin, about what is working and what is not working in the committee's presentation, and they took live questions from the audience.The committee's next hearing is currently scheduled for Thursday, June 23, at 3pm Eastern. We'll be hosting these events on Twitter Spaces after every hearing. Find us on Twitter @lawfareblog for more details.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Asfandyar Mir of the U.S. Institute of Peace and Daniel Byman of Lawfare, Brookings, and Georgetown, are both analysts of al-Qaeda and terrorist groups. They have a different analysis, however, of how al-Qaeda is faring in the current world. Rather than argue about the subject on Twitter, they wrote an article on it, spelling out where they agree and where they disagree, and they joined Benjamin Wittes to talk it all through. Where is al-Qaeda strong and resilient? Where is it weak and failing? And where has it disappeared altogether? Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Today we're bringing you another episode of Lawfare No Bull, a podcast featuring primary source audio from the world of national security law and policy. Today's episode features audio of the third of a series of public hearings held by the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The committee heard in-person testimony from former Vice President Pence's general counsel Greg Jacob and retired federal judge Michael Luttig. Learn more and subscribe to Lawfare No Bull.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Today we're bringing you another episode of Lawfare No Bull, a podcast featuring primary source audio from the world of national security law and policy. Today's episode features audio of the second of a series of public hearings held by the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The committee heard in-person and video testimony, including from former Attorney General William Barr and former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien.Learn more and subscribe to Lawfare No Bull.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Today we're bringing you an episode of Lawfare No Bull, a podcast featuring primary source audio from the world of national security law and policy. This episode features audio of the first of a series of public hearings held by the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The hearing included testimony from documentarian Nick Quested and Capitol police officer Caroline Edwards, as well as video footage of interviews from a number of Trump aides.Learn more and subscribe to Lawfare No Bull.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On Thursday, June 16, the Jan. 6 committee held its third day of public hearings. Afterwards, the Lawfare team convened once again in Twitter Spaces for a live recording of the podcast. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic talked with editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, executive editor Natalie Orpett, and senior editor Alan Rozenshtein about the substance of the day's hearing, which focused on President Trump's efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence into overturning the results of the 2020 election.The committee's next hearing is currently scheduled for Tuesday, June 21, at 1pm Eastern. We'll be hosting these events on Twitter Spaces after every hearing. Find us on Twitter @lawfareblog for more details.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
If you loaded up the internet or turned on the television somewhere in the United States over the last two months, it's been impossible to avoid news coverage of the defamation trial of actors Johnny Depp and Amber Heard—both of whom sued each other over a dispute relating to allegations by Heard of domestic abuse by Depp. In early June, a Virginia jury found that both had defamed the other. The litigation has received a great deal of coverage for what it might say about the fate of the Me Too movement—but the flood of falsehoods online around the trial raises questions about how useful defamation law can really be in countering lies. This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with RonNell Andersen Jones, the Lee E. Teitelbaum Professor of Law at the University of Utah College of Law and an expert on the First Amendment and the interaction between the press and the courts. Along with Lyrissa Lidsky, she's written about defamation law, disinformation, and the Depp-Heard litigation. They talked about why some commentators think defamation could be a useful route to counter falsehoods, why RonNell thinks the celebrity litigation undercuts that argument, and the few cases in which claims of libel or slander really could have an impact in limiting the spread of lies.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On Monday, the Brookings Institution hosted a panel discussion titled, “Allies: How America failed its partners in Afghanistan.” The event featured comments from Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, a preview clip of Episode 6 of the podcast Allies, and a moderated discussion with an all-star panel.Lawfare associate editor Bryce Klehm sat down with Shala Gafary, the managing attorney for Project: Afghan Legal Assistance at Human Rights First; Col. Steven Miska, who serves on the steering committee of the Evacuate Our Allies Coalition; and Matt Zeller, a U.S. Army veteran, co-founder of No One Left Behind, and an advisory board chair of the Association of Wartime Allies. They discussed some of the past failures that led to a situation where tens of thousands of the U.S.'s allies were left behind in Afghanistan. They also discussed current resettlement issues and relocation for those still in Afghanistan or other third countries. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Recorded almost immediately after the Jan. 6 committee conducted its second public hearing, Benjamin Wittes sat down on Twitter Spaces with Lawfare's Quinta Jurecic, Natalie Orpett, and Rohini Kurup. They talked about what the committee accomplished in this second hearing, what evidence it put forth, and whether Donald Trump actually knew that the election lies were false or whether he had convinced himself that they were true.We'll be hosting these events on Twitter Spaces the morning after every hearing. Find us on Twitter for more details.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff has been following in a way that just about nobody else has the litigation to keep people off ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment—the part of the amendment that says that if you engaged in an insurrection, you're excluded from public office. It was the subject of a recent major Fourth Circuit opinion, and the state of Section 3 litigation is also the subject of a significant new Roger Parloff piece on Lawfare entitled, “After the Cawthorn Ruling, Can Trump Be Saved From Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?”Roger joined Benjamin Wittes to talk through the piece. What are the major legal arguments that people involved in Jan. 6 are using to keep themselves on the ballots? How strong are the factual cases against different gubernatorial and congressional actors? And why is Donald Trump uniquely vulnerable to a challenge on this basis?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
When the term "intelligence" comes up regarding an organization, most of us immediately think of government institutions. And there's a good reason for that: nation-states have become the centers of the most prominent intelligence collection, analysis, and direct action. But that's far from the whole story. Increasingly, corporations are developing intelligence units of their own to uncover and assess threats to their personnel and facilities, analyze geopolitical and environmental risks that might affect their business prospects, and even take actions traditionally associated with governments.In this episode of Chatter, David Priess chats about all of this and more with Lewis Sage-Passant, who has built on his experiences in British military intelligence, private sector intelligence, crisis management, and related PhD research to explore the history, evolution, and ethics of this intriguing and challenging domain. They discuss the long history of private sector intelligence efforts, the difficulty disentangling early commercial efforts from government purposes, the fabled Pinkertons in the United States, the development of intelligence around modern corporations, the ethical issues that arise in this realm—and James Bond.Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Learn more and subscribe to Chatter.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On Thursday, the House select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol attack held the first in a series of public hearings that they will use to present the findings of its ongoing investigation. The hearing laid out the evidence of Trump's culpability in bringing about the attack and also heard from witnesses about the role of the Proud Boys and the experience of law enforcement officers guarding the Capitol that day.On Friday, June 10, the morning after the hearing, Benjamin Wittes sat down on Twitter with Lawfare's Quinta Jurecic, Molly Reynolds, and Roger Parloff to discuss their impressions and answer questions from the audience. We'll be hosting these events on Twitter Spaces the morning after every hearing, and you can join us for the next one on Tuesday, June 14, at 8:30 AM Eastern. Find us on Twitter for more details.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Oleksandra Matviychuk is the head of the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine. She founded the organization to work on internal reform in her own country, but for the last eight years, she has spent a great deal of her time investigating and documenting Russian war crimes. She began this in the wake of the 2014 Russian invasion of the Donbas and Crimea, but the work has really accelerated since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February of this year. While in Washington to talk to U.S. policymakers about her vision of a hybrid tribunal to try Russian war crimes, she took some time to speak with Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes. It's a wide-ranging conversation covering her own history as a war crimes investigator and documenter, the current challenge of documenting and prosecuting Russian war crimes on a scale we haven't seen in a very long time, and how the Ukrainian war effort relates to the project of defending civilians and preventing further war crimes.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On May 31, by a five-four vote, the Supreme Court blocked a Texas law from going into effect that would have sharply limited how social media companies could moderate their platforms and required companies to abide by various transparency requirements. We've covered the law on this show before—we recorded an episode right after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed Texas to implement the law, in the same ruling that the Supreme Court just vacated. But there's enough interesting stuff in the Supreme Court's order—and in Justice Samuel Alito's dissent—that we thought it was worth another bite at the apple. So this week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic invited Genevieve Lakier, professor of law at the University of Chicago and Evelyn's colleague at the Knight First Amendment Institute, to walk us through just what happened. What exactly did the Supreme Court do? Why does Justice Alito seem to think that the Texas law has a decent chance of surviving a First Amendment challenge? And what does this suggest about the possible futures of the extremely unsettled landscape of First Amendment law?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
What does the American public actually know concretely about the effectiveness of U.S. drone strikes? Jack Goldsmith sat down with Mitt Regan, a professor at Georgetown Law School and the co-director of its Center on National Security and Law, who seeks to answer this question in his new book, “Drone Strike—Analyzing the Impacts of Targeted Killing.” They discussed his deep analysis of the empirical literature on the effectiveness of targeted strikes outside active theaters of combat against al-Qaeda and affiliates and the impact of these strikes on civilians. They also explore the theoretical challenges to real empirical knowledge of these questions, the extent to which drone strikes have contributed to security within the United States, and what his findings imply about the consequences of the impact of the Afghanistan withdrawal.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
What, if any, theory of international relations best explains U.S. foreign policy outcomes? Why, for example, did President Biden withdraw American forces from Afghanistan, re-engage Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, impose harsher than expected sanctions on Russia, and give more than expected support to Ukraine following the Russian invasion? Jack Goldsmith sat down with Richard Hanania, the president of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, whose new book, “Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy,” seeks to provide answers to these types of questions. They discussed Hanania's view that academic theories about American grand strategy cannot explain important U.S. foreign policy outcomes, and his argument that these outcomes are better explained by public choice theory, especially by the dominant influences on the presidency of government contractors, the national security bureaucracy, and foreign governments. They also discussed whether realistic complaints about these influences are consistent with realistic premises about how to discern the national interest and the value, if any, of international relations theorizing.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The business of offensive cyber operations and intelligence gathering increasingly requires the military and intelligence community to exploit networks, hardware, and software owned or produced by American companies and used by American citizens. Sometimes this exploitation occurs with the use of zero-day vulnerabilities. In order to determine when zero-day vulnerabilities should be exploited versus disclosed to the relevant vendor so that the vulnerability can be patched, the United States government engages in an interagency process known as the Vulnerabilities Equities Process or VEP.Stephanie Pell sat down with Dr. Lindsey Polley, director of defense and national security at Starburst Aerospace, to talk about her recently defended dissertation, “To Disclose or Not to Disclose, That Is the Question: A Methods-Based Approach for Examining & Improving the US Government's Vulnerabilities Equities Process.” They discussed the purpose of the VEP, how it is structured to operate, and how its current state and structure impedes its ability to promote longer-term social good through its vulnerability adjudications. They also talked about some of Lindsey's recommendations to improve the VEP. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
This week on Chatter, Shane Harris talks with journalist Jamie Kirchick about his new book Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington. Kirchick's story unfolds over several decades and reveals the secret history of gays and lesbians in the capital, as well as the history of secrecy in which they played pivotal roles. The book is a set of personal stories as well as an exploration of the national security bureaucracy at the heart of power and influence in Washington. And Kirchick explores a provocative idea: Were gays and lesbians, already accustomed to living secret lives, well-suited to work as intelligence officers? Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Cara Shillenn of Goat Rodeo. Podcast theme by David Priess, featuring music created using Groovepad. Learn more and subscribe to Chatter.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
From October 29, 2020: On this episode of Lawfare's Arbiters of Truth series on disinformation, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Casey Newton, veteran Silicon Valley editor for The Verge who recently went independent to start a newsletter on Substack called Platformer. Few people have followed the stories of platforms and content moderation in recent years as closely and carefully as Casey, so Evelyn and Quinta asked him about what's changed in the last four years—especially in the lead-up to the election. They also spoke about the challenges of reporting on the tech industry and whether the increased willingness of platforms to moderate content means that the name of this podcast series will have to change.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In May, news came out that the U.S. government was thinking of putting the Chinese video surveillance company Hikvision on the Treasury Department's Specially Designated Nationals list, otherwise known as the SDN list. The move would have huge impacts on Hikvision's business prospects in the U.S. and around the world and would represent yet another escalation in the way that the U.S. government handles Chinese technology companies. To talk through the news and why it's so significant, Jacob Schulz sat down with Katrina Northrop, a reporter at The Wire China who wrote a story about the Hikvision saga, and Alex Iftimie, a partner at Morrison & Foerster and a former official within the National Security Division at the Justice Department.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
As transparency reporting about content moderation enforcement has become standard across the platform industry, there's been growing questions about the reliability and accuracy of the reports the platforms are producing. With all reporting being entirely voluntary and the content moderation industry in general being very opaque, it's hard to know how much to trust the figures that companies report in their quarterly or biannual enforcement reports. As a result, there's been growing calls for independent audits of these figures, and last month, Meta released its first ever independent audit of its content moderation reporting systems. This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek sat down with someone who actually knows something about auditing: Colleen Honigsberg, an associate professor of law at Stanford Law School, whose research is focused on the empirical study of corporate and securities law. They talked about how auditors work, the promises and pitfalls of auditing in other contexts and what that might teach us for auditing in the content moderation context, and whether this is going to be a useful regulatory tool. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Non-Fungible Tokens, or NFTs, have captured the attention of thousands over the past few weeks and months. This technology's use has encompassed various forms of digital art such as the popular depictions of cartoon apes. But, one country has begun looking beyond NFT's use as a digital asset toward using it for the creation of a more centralized and restrictive internet ecosystem.Lawfare fellow in cybersecurity law Alvaro Marañon sat down with Yaya Fanusie, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, to speak about the China government's vision for the next iteration of the internet. Yaya is an expert on the national security implications of cryptocurrencies and recently has written Lawfare posts analyzing China's NFT and national digital currency initiatives. They broke down an NFT and the other technical acronyms, what the Chinese government's aspirations are with its national blockchain project, and what the strategic risk to nation-states is if China can implement its technological vision. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
A few weeks ago, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released the latest FISA transparency data. It was notable in at least two major respects: the continued decline of traditional Title I FISA applications—that is, warrants for individual surveillance—and separately, the rather large number of U.S. persons who had been searched under so-called 702 surveillance. To discuss the news, the data and what it all means, Benjamin Wittes sat down on Lawfare Live with Carrie Cordero of the Center for a New American Security and Adam Klein of the Strauss Center at the University of Texas. They talked about the 702 number. Is it really big, or does it just seem big? They talked about what's causing the decline in traditional FISA, about whether reforms in the wake of the Carter Page debacle have gone too far, and they talked about where it is all going from here. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Chatter is a podcast hosted by David Priess and Shane Harris that features in-depth discussions with fascinating people at the creative edges of national security.In this episode of Chatter, Priess sits down with Meredith Henley to discuss the movie “Casablanca,” the city's wartime history, and the veracity of “Casablanca”'s representations about Casablanca. Their conversation covers her advocacy for the humanities and history, unexpected discoveries in archival research, an appreciation of the film, American and French resistance intelligence operations in French Morocco, intersections between wartime Casablanca and personalities from Franklin Roosevelt to Josephine Baker, and what the film got right and wrong about the experiences of refugees, and more.Learn more and subscribe to Chatter.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Rational Security is a weekly roundtable podcast featuring Quinta Jurecic, Scott R. Anderson and Alan Z. Rozenshtein. It's a lively, irreverent discussion of news, ideas, foreign policy and law. And there's always a laugh.This week, Quinta, Scott and Alan were joined by Shane Harris to talk about the week's biggest national security news, including the recent House public hearing on unidentified aerial phenomena, Biden's statement confirming that the United States would defend Taiwan against Chinese aggression and more.Learn more and subscribe to Rational Security.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
From November 19, 2016: At this week's Hoover Book Soiree, Benjamin Wittes sat down with Bill Banks, Professor of Law at Syracuse University and the Founding Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, to talk about Bill's book, “Soldiers on the Homefront: The Domestic Role of the American Military,” with Stephen Dycus. The book examines how both law and culture has shaped and constrained the military's domestic activities, reviewing the legal history of the various different roles that soldiers have played at home, from law enforcement to martial law. Given the widespread concern over the strength of the next administration's commitment to civil liberties and the rule of law, it's a conversation that's unfortunately more relevant than ever.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Bryce Klehm sat down with Phil Klay, the author of the new book, “Uncertain Ground: Citizenship in an Age of Endless Invisible War.” Klay is a winner of the National Book Award for fiction and a veteran of the war in Iraq. His latest book is a collection of essays from the past ten years that deal with the consequences of America's endless wars. His essays cover a number of topics, ranging from the concept of citizen soldier, to a history of the AR-15. Phil and Bryce talked about a number of themes in the book, including Phil's experience as a public affairs officer in the Marine Corps, the way that America chooses to exercise its power and the obligations of citizenship.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On May 14, a shooter attacked a supermarket in a historically Black neighborhood of Buffalo, New York, killing ten people and wounding three. The streaming platform Twitch quickly disabled the livestream the shooter had published of the attack—but video of the violence, and copies of the white supremacist manifesto released by the attacker online, continue to circulate on the internet. How should we evaluate the response of social media platforms to the tragedy in Buffalo? This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Brian Fishman, who formerly worked at Facebook, now Meta, as the policy director for counterterrorism and dangerous organizations. Brian helped lead Facebook's response to the 2019 Christchurch shooting, another act of far-right violence livestreamed online. He walked us through how platforms respond to crises like these, why it's so difficult to remove material like the Buffalo video and manifesto from the internet, and what it would look like for platforms to do better.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Finland and Sweden have made the historic choice to apply to NATO, but there's a lot of misunderstanding out there about the context for these decisions. To talk through it all, David Priess sat down with Emanuel Örtengren, the acting director of the Stockholm Free World Forum, a Swedish foreign and security policy think tank; Minna Ålander from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, where she focuses on northern Europe and Nordic security; and Henri Vanhanen a foreign policy advisor to Finland's center-right National Coalition Party. They discussed the history of Finnish and Swedish nonalignment, the shift in public and government opinion toward NATO in recent months, and both countries' processes for applying to the alliance.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
For years, Russia has both officially and unofficially used cyber tools to ruthlessly advance its international agenda. For this reason, many expected Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine to also kick off a new and brutal era of international cyberwar. Instead, cyber measures have only played a small part in the overall conflict compared to more conventional capabilities, leading many to ask whether Russian cyber capabilities and the role of cyber in the future of warfare more generally might well have been exaggerated. To dig into these issues, Scott R, Anderson sat down with University of Virginia law professor Kristen Eichensehr, who wrote a recent article on the topic for the American Journal of International Law. They discussed possible explanations for the limited role that cyber capabilities have played in the conflict, whether that might change in the next stage of the conflict and what it all means for the future of cyber measures in warfare.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, known by its initials as SIGAR, released an interim report last week on the reasons for the collapse of the Afghan army. To break down the report's findings, Bryce Klehm spoke with Dr. Jonathan Schroden, the research program director at the Center for Naval Analysis. Dr. Schroden is a longtime analyst of the Afghan military and has deployed or traveled to Afghanistan 13 times since 2003. He is quoted and cited several times in the latest report. They spoke about a range of topics covered in the report, including the U.S.'s efforts to build an Afghan army, the Afghan government's decisions that contributed to the collapse and the Taliban's highly effective military campaign.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Rational Security is Lawfare's weekly roundtable podcast, featuring Quinta Jurecic, Scott R. Anderson and Alan Z. Rozenshtein. It's a lively and irreverent discussion of news, ideas, foreign policy and law—and there's always a laugh.In this episode, Jurecic, Rozenshtein and Anderson were joined by Lawfare associate editor Bryce Klehm to hash through some of the week's big national security news, including the recent mass shooting in Buffalo, NY, and the House select committee investigating Jan. 6's decision to subpoena five house Republicans. They also encouraged listeners to check out the newest podcast series from Lawfare and Goat Rodeo, Allies, which does a deep dive into how the decades-long failure of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program led the United States to leave so many allies behind following its withdrawal from Afghanistan.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
From September 21, 2020: Elizabeth Neumann served as the assistant secretary for threat prevention and security policy at the Department of Homeland Security. She has recently been speaking out about President Trump and, among other things, his failure of leadership with respect to the threat of white supremacist violence. In the course of doing so, she made reference to a book by Kathleen Belew, a historian at the University of Chicago: "Bring the War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America," a history of violent white power movements in the modern United States.Elizabeth and Kathleen joined Benjamin Wittes to discuss the interactions of policy and the history that Belew describes. Why have we underestimated this threat for so long? How has it come to be one of the foremost threats that DHS faces? And what can we do about it, given the First Amendment?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Congress this week held its first public hearing on unidentified flying objects in more than 50 years, as the House Intelligence Committee's Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence and Counterproliferation hosted two Department of Defense officials to discuss military encounters with unexplained objects.David Priess sat down with the Washington Post's Shane Harris—who has been watching this issue for quite some time and who watched the hearings quite closely—to talk about the long U.S. government history with UFOs (now called unidentified aerial phenomena), the recent move toward more transparency, and the legitimate reasons, having nothing to do with aliens, why some things will remain classified.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed an aggressive new Texas law regulating social media to go into effect. The law, known as HB20, seeks to restrict large social media platforms from taking down content on the basis of viewpoint—effectively restricting companies from engaging in a great deal of the content moderation that they currently perform. It also imposes a range of transparency and due process requirements on platforms with respect to their content moderation. A group of technology companies challenging the law have filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking to put HB20 back on hold while they continue to litigate the law's constitutionality under the First Amendment. This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Scott Wilkens, senior staff attorney at Knight. The Institute, where Evelyn is a senior research fellow, filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, taking a middle ground between Texas—which argues that the First Amendment poses no bar to HB20—and the plaintiffs—who argue that the First Amendment prohibits this regulation and many other types of social media regulation besides. So what does the Texas law actually do? Where does the litigation stand—and what will the impact of the Fifth Circuit's ruling be? And how does the Knight First Amendment Institute interpret, well, the First Amendment?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In October 2021, the House of Representatives voted to find Trump associate Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress after Bannon refused to comply with a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. In November 2021, the Justice Department indicted Bannon, and the trial is currently scheduled to begin this summer. So what's been happening in the interim?To catch up, Quinta Jurecic spoke with Lawfare senior editors Roger Parloff and Jonathan David Shaub. Roger has been following the Bannon prosecution closely and wrote about it in a recent Lawfare article—and Jonathan has written a great deal on Lawfare about the Office of Legal Counsel's positions on executive privilege, including how they might affect prosecutions for contempt of Congress. Bannon recently filed a motion to dismiss, making the argument that he believed Donald Trump's supposed invocation of executive privilege made it unnecessary for him to comply with the subpoena—relying heavily on memos from OLC. What should we make of Bannon's arguments? How is the Justice Department navigating a legally tricky situation? And what, if anything, might this case tell us about the other contempt of Congress cases coming out of the Jan. 6 committee, which the Justice Department has yet to bring?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Bryce Klehm is an associate editor at Lawfare. Max Johnston is a creative producer at Goat Rodeo. Together, they are the creators of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo's newest podcast series, Allies, which launched on Monday and covers the history of the Special Immigrant Visa Program in Afghanistan. It's an amazing story. It covers a lot of time, a lot of action and a lot of people, all through the lens of the efforts—legislative and administrative—to get visas for Afghan translators to come to the United States to protect them from Taliban retaliation. Benjamin Wittes sat down with Bryce and Max to talk about the creation of the podcast, and how you take a wonky visa program and turn it into drama. Following the conversation, we're bringing you the entirety of Episode One of Allies. Learn more and subscribe to Allies at https://pod.link/1619035873.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
During the past couple of months, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there have been several claims that Russia was invading its neighbor to seize its oil and gas resources. And even in the cases where pundits were claiming that Russia was not doing this, they would often phrase it as, “This is not yet another oil war.” But do oil wars happen at all? David Priess sat down with the woman who has literally written the book on this: Emily Meierding, assistant professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. She has argued that countries do not launch major conflicts to acquire hydrocarbon resources because the costs of foreign invasion, territorial occupation, international retaliation and damage to oil company relations deter even the most powerful countries from doing so. They talked about the myth of oil wars, about the logic behind why they will not happen and about why it is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine probably has very little to do with hydrocarbons at all. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
For today's episode, the team at Lawfare decided to cross-post the latest episode of The Aftermath, a narrative podcast series from Lawfare and Goat Rodeo on picking up the pieces after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Episode 3 of The Aftermath looks at what Congress was doing in the days immediately after Jan. 6. In the episode, you'll hear from experts and from people who were actually on both sides of the proceedings, including Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, and David Schoen, the lead defense lawyer for Donald Trump.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
From April 16, 2021: On Wednesday, President Biden announced a full withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, an announcement that comes as the U.S. and Afghan governments have been trying to reach a power sharing agreement with the Taliban. Prior to the withdrawal announcement, Bryce Klehm spoke with Thomas Gibbons-Neff, a New York Times correspondent based in the Kabul bureau and a former Marine infantryman, who walked us through the situation on the ground in Afghanistan over the last year. Following Biden's announcement, Bryce spoke with Madiha Afzal, the David M. Rubenstein Fellow in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, who talked about the broader implications of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.In May 2022, Lawfare and Goat Rodeo will debut their latest podcast, Allies, a series about America's eyes and ears over 20 years of war in Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghans who worked with the American soldiers as translators, interpreters and partners made it onto U.S. military planes. But despite the decades-long efforts of veterans, lawmakers and senior leaders in the military, even more were left behind. This show will take you from the frontlines of the war to the halls of Congress to find out: How did this happen? Learn more and subscribe to Allies at https://pod.link/1619035873.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
David Fahrenthold is a reporter who works for the New York Times. In his capacity as a reporter at the Washington Post, he reported on misdeeds within the Trump financial universe, and now he's come out with a story in the Times about a peculiar financial scandal at the United Nations. It's about a little known UN agency trusting tens of millions of dollars to a relatively unknown British businessman and the investment not quite working out. Jacob Schulz talked with David about his story and about the broader world at the United Nations that enabled this to happen. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Internet blackouts are on the rise. Since 2016, governments around the world have fully or partially shut down access to the internet almost 1000 times, according to a tally by the human rights organization Access Now. As the power of the internet grows, this tactic has only become more common as a means of political repression. Why is this and how, exactly, does a government go about turning off the internet? This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke on this topic with Peter Guest, the enterprise editor for the publication Rest of World, which covers technology outside the regions usually described as the West. He's just published a new project with Rest of World diving deep into internet shutdowns—and the three dug into the mechanics of internet blackouts, why they're increasing and their wide-reaching effects.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Dmytro Kuzubov is the editor-in-chief of Lyuk Media in Kharkiv, Ukraine. It is a publication that used to be devoted to the culture and people and underground life of the country's second largest city. Then came the war. Dmytro joined Benjamin Wittes from 10 kilometers outside of Kharkiv to talk about his work as a Ukrainian cultural journalist before the war, and about how everything has changed during the war in a Russian-speaking city that has become very Ukrainian.Some of this discussion takes place in English, and some takes place in Russian. Simultaneous translation from Russian to English is provided by Dominic Cruz Bustillos. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Modern life relies on digital technology, but with that reliance comes vulnerability. How can we trust our technology? How can we be sure that it does what we expect it to do? Earlier this month, Lawfare released the results of a long-term research project on those very questions. The report, prepared by the Lawfare Institute's Trusted Hardware and Software Working Group, is titled, “Creating a Framework for Supply Chain Trust in Hardware and Software.” On a recent Lawfare Live, Alan Rozenshtein spoke with three members of the team that wrote the piece: Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes; Lawfare contributing editor Paul Rosenzweig, who served as the report's chief drafter; and Justin Sherman, a fellow at the Atlantic Council.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Many individuals seeking asylum or other forms of immigration relief in the U.S. are subject to a program run by Immigration Customs Enforcement, or ICE, called the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, which uses various kinds of tracking technologies as a way of keeping tabs on individuals who are not detained in ICE custodyStephanie Pell sat down with Sejal Zota, legal director of Just Futures Law, to talk about this program and the kinds of tracking technologies it employees. They discussed what is publicly known about these technologies, the privacy concerns associated with them, as well as some of the harms experienced by individuals who are subjected to the surveillance. Not withstanding these concerns, they also discussed whether the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program is a reasonable alternative to ICE detention, considering ICE's need to keep track of individuals who are both seeking immigration relief and who may be ordered removed from the U.S. if that relief is not granted.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.