FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide; GTMO transfers last week; US v. Boyd; US v. Smadi; US v. Finton; forthcoming scholarship

October 2, 2009

1. FBI, “Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide” (Dec. 16, 2008) (posted this week on FBI’s FOIA site)

The FBI has released a redacted version of its guidelines governing domestic investigations and operations, here.

The FBI today is posting its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). The DIOG was approved on December 16, 2008, and sets policy and procedures to guide the Bureau in implementing the Attorney General Guidelines signed last year. At the time the Attorney General Guidelines and the DIOG were issued, the FBI committed to Congress and the public that it would make as much of the DIOG publicly available as possible, consistent with the need to confidentially maintain information deemed law enforcement sensitive. Read the rest of this entry »

Premier of the Harvard National Security Journal (and accompanying website with news/blog features)

October 2, 2009

* New Journal Announcement: Harvard National Security Journal

The site (note the news feed and commentary features) is here: http://www.harvardnsj.com/

From the press release:

The Harvard National Security Journal is a student-edited, faculty- and practitioner-advised, online academic journal. It will serve both as a contribution to the universe of ideas surrounding national security law and policy and as a resource for developments in the field. The NSJ welcomes article submissions from both academics and practitioners, giving preference to relatively succinct pieces so as to facilitate a broad range of submissions, readership and discourse. In addition to featuring this scholarship, the NSJ website will be updated frequently to provide a central repository of information on developments in national security law and policy.

The students on the NSJ editorial staff will consult as a group and work closely with the Journalʼs Board of Advisors to evaluate the suitability of manuscripts for publication. The current NSJ Advisory Board consists of the following individuals:

  • Ø Gabriella Blum, Harvard Law School
  • Ø Robert Chesney, University of Texas School of Law
  • Ø Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law School
  • Ø Philip Heymann, Harvard Law School
  • Ø Jessica Stern, Harvard Kennedy School
  • Ø Alex Whiting, Harvard Law School
  • Ø Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Institution

The first volume of the Journal will be published online, with limited print distribution. We anticipate the NSJ being widely disseminated in print format beginning with the second volume.


The Journal is targeting a wide variety of articles, ranging from roughly 2,000-10,000 words in length, although longer pieces will be considered as well. Both traditional law journal articles and more concise commentary pieces from lawyers, other national security practitioners and professors are welcome. NSJ will review and publish submissions on a rolling basis with accelerated editing schedules to reflect the timeliness of anticipated submissions. Interested authors should send their manuscripts and all related correspondence to the Submissions Editor at the address below.

Submissions by email should be attached as a Microsoft Word document, and the text of the email should include the author’s complete contact information. It is suggested but not required that footnotes comply with The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation.


Harvard National Security Journal
Journals Office
Harvard Law School
1541 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138

PATRIOT reauthorization – revised proposal in Senate Judiciary; forthcoming scholarship

October 2, 2009

1. Amended version of Senate Judiciary Committee bill on PATRIOT Act reauthorization

As I understand it, the latest version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization legislation (encompassing section 215 orders, roving wiretaps, lone wolf scenarios, and also addressing National Security Letters) is this amended billput forward by Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and a number of others.  (Note that this bill, unlike a Senator Feingold proposal I mentioned in a post last week, does not contain language relating to 18 USC 2339B (the 1996 material support law which is now before the Supreme Court inHolder v. Humanitarian Law Project). Read the rest of this entry »