nationalsecuritylaw forthcoming scholarship

October 28, 2013

Law at the End of War

Deborah N. Pearlstein (Cardozo)

As the United States begins to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in the coming year, courts will increasingly face the task of interpreting the dozens of federal laws whose operation depends on the existence of war. The 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), for instance, makes offenses triable by military commission “only if the offense is committed in the context of and associated with hostilities.” The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) empowers the President to target or detain certain individuals only “for the duration of these hostilities.” Scholars have long assumed that the determination whether or not the United States is at war is a political question, beyond the power of the courts to consider. This Article challenges that view, demonstrating that courts have repeatedly engaged such questions in statutory interpretation in conflicts past, and arguing that the temporal limits of the AUMF and MCA pose similarly justiciable questions. Yet while questions of war’s existence may be susceptible of judicial resolution, the possibility that a court’s answer may prevail over a differing view of the executive seems instinctively troubling. Separation of powers theory has long recognized interests in allocating decision-making authority among the branches so as to promote political accountability and take advantage of comparative institutional expertise. Such interests would seem to require that courts at least defer to executive determinations of war’s existence. Recognizing the constitutional salience of such interests, this Article contends that courts should only defer when doing so will in fact serve them. And those goals are not invariably advanced by deference to the executive in interpreting the AUMF and MCA. Active judicial participation in statutory interpretation may create incentives for congressional action that had previously been absent, making it harder for Congress to shirk participation in democratic debates in which the Constitution expects it to engage. Likewise, while some aspects of the existence-of-war inquiry may turn on predictive judgment, best reserved to executive expertise, other aspects of the inquiry turn on objective factual assessments – the kind the judiciary regularly undertakes. These dynamics, coupled with the equally salient separation-of-powers purpose of protecting individual rights, suggest a broader role for the judiciary in interpreting existence-of-war conditions than has been previously understood.

Duck-Rabbits and Drones: Legal Indeterminacy in the War on Terror

Rosa Brooks (Georgetown)

Stanford Law and Policy Review, Forthcoming

In the days and weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks, “the law” offered little to lawyers or policy-makers looking for guidance. Indeed, for many the events of 9/11 became the legal equivalent of a Rorschach test: depending on the observer, the 9/11 attacks were variously construed as criminal acts, acts of war, or something in between, thus fitting into (or triggering) any of several radically different legal regimes.

Divergent interpretations of the law are common, of course. Legal rules often contain an element of ambiguity, and the “facts” to which law must be applied can frequently be construed in multiple ways. But in the wake of 9/11, lawyers and policy-makers faced an even more profound problem: different conceptualizations of what happened on 9/11 didn’t simply reflect or suggest a different interpretation of legal rules, but actually triggered radically different legal regimes. The “facts” could be described, with equal plausibility and honesty, in substantially different ways. As a result, there was no clear “legal” basis for choosing one legal regime over another, and law became not merely ambiguous, but effectively indeterminate.

Targeted Killings and the Interest Convergence Dilemma

Sudha Setty (Western New England)

Western New England Law Review, Forthcoming

In the 1980s, Professor Derrick Bell posited a theory of interest convergence as part of his critical race theory work, arguing that the major strides forward in civil rights law and policy that benefited African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s only occurred because of the perceived benefits of those changes to white elites during that time. In Bell’s view, it was only at the point at which the interests of powerful whites converged with those of marginalized racial minorities that significant changes in civil rights law could occur. Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, numerous lawmakers, scholars, activists, and policy makers find themselves entrenched in a different struggle for civil and human rights: combatting counterterrorism laws and policies that overreach in their efforts to detain, interrogate, surveil and kill suspected terrorists. In this symposium essay, the Author uses Professor Bell’s theory of interest convergence to frame the debate over an increasingly common counterterrorism tool: the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (“drones”) to target and kill individuals suspected of encouraging or planning terrorist acts. 

Interest convergence theory can help us examine the shifting parameters of the drone program in several ways: first, to map the areas of interest convergence between politically powerful groups and those interested in protecting marginalized groups such as Muslims and Arabs, which can help explain why certain limitations on the use of targeted killings have been put into place already; second, to consider the plausibility of the fulfillment of the promises made by President Obama in his May 2013 speech on the administration’s national security policies, in which he stated that the parameters of the targeted killings program will be narrowed; and third, in a limited fashion, to consider whether interest convergence can offer guidance on pushing for further limitations on the use of targeted killings.

Hackback: Permitting Retaliatory Hacking by Non-State Actors as Proportionate Countermeasures to Transboundary Cyberharm

Jan Messerschmidt (Independent)

Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Forthcoming

Cyber-espionage has received even greater attention in the wake of reports of persistent and brazen cyber-exploitation of U.S. and Canadian firms by the Chinese military. But the recent disclosures about NSA surveillance programs have made clear that a national program of cyber-defense of private firms intellectual property is politically infeasible. Following the lead of companies like Google, private corporations may increasingly resort to the use of self-defense, hacking back against cross-border incursions on the Internet. Most scholarship, however, has surprisingly viewed such actions as outside the ambit of international law. This note provides a novel account of how international law should govern cross-border hacks, and especially hack-backs. It proposes that significant harm to a State’s intellectual property should be viewed as “trans-boundary cyber-harm” and can be analyzed under traditional international legal principles, including the due diligence obligation to prevent significant harm to another State’s territorial sovereignty. Viewing cyber-espionage within this framework, international law may presently permit States to allow private actors to resort to self-defense as proportionate counter-measures. By doing so, this note offers a prescription for how States might regulate private actors to prevent unnecessary harm or vigilantism while preserving the right of self-defense.

The Observer Effect: National Security Litigation, Executive Policy Changes, and Judicial Deference

Ashley Deeks (University of Virginia)

Fordham Law Review, Forthcoming

The national security deference debate has reached a stalemate. Those favoring extensive deference to executive branch national security decisions celebrate the limited role courts have played in reviewing those policies. The executive, they contend, is constitutionally charged with such decisions and structurally better suited than the judiciary to make them. Those who bemoan such deference fear for individual rights and an imbalance in the separation of powers. Yet both sides assume that the courts’ role is minimal. Both sides are wrong.

This Article shows why. While courts rarely intervene in national security disputes, the Article demonstrates that they nevertheless play a significant role in shaping executive branch security policies. Call this the “observer effect.” Physics teaches us that observing a particle alters how it behaves. Through psychology, we know that people act differently when they are aware that someone is watching them. In the national security context, the executive is highly sensitive to looming judicial oversight in the national security arena, and establishes or alters policies in an effort to avert direct judicial involvement. By identifying and analyzing the observer effect, this Article provides a more accurate positive account of national security deference, without which reasoned normative judgments cannot be made. This Article makes another contribution to the literature as well. By illustrating how the uncertain, but lurking, threat of judicial decisions spurs increasingly rights-protective policy decisions by the executive, it poses a rejoinder to those who are skeptical that law constrains the executive.

Domestic Humanitarian Law: Developing the Law of War in Domestic Courts

Ashley Deeks (University of Virginia)

Applying International Humanitarian Law in Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Bodies: International and Domestic Aspects (2014) (D. Jinks, J. Maogoto, S. Solomon (eds.),

Several states have been engaged for years in armed conflicts against non-state actors outside their territory. These conflicts implicate a wide array of difficult questions related to international humanitarian law (‘IHL’). Yet for structural and political reasons, the international community has not attempted to craft a new treaty to regulate these armed conflicts, and state practice is not yet sufficiently robust to crystallize new rules of customary international law.

Although we have no new international rules to guide states’ conduct in these contexts, that is not to say that we have no new rules at all to regulate these types of armed conflict. The new rules simply stem from non-international sources. Domestic courts of certain states have played a significant role in establishing new rules to govern how those states must conduct themselves during these armed conflicts. These courts have stepped in to interpret, extend, and craft laws applicable in armed conflict, producing what this chapter terms ‘domestic humanitarian law’ (‘DHL’).

DHL is important for two reasons. First, it establishes detailed, legally binding rules by which particular states’ militaries must conduct themselves in extra-territorial conflicts. Second, the existence of DHL will have a significant effect on future IHL developments. DHL will affect the production and content of customary rules, the likelihood of future agreements about IHL, and the substance of those future rules in the event such an agreement emerges. The proliferation of DHL has the propensity to reduce international calls for a new treaty and complicates the initial negotiating positions of states whose courts have produced DHL. But DHL has advantages as well for IHL development, akin to the U.S. constitutional idea that U.S. states serve as experimental ‘laboratories’ in which different approaches to problems are tested.

Because states will continue to face serious challenges in developing new IHL treaty rules on the international stage, the production of new interpretations and norms in U.S. and other domestic courts represents a potentially important phase in the development of IHL. As importantly, the phenomenon of DHL allows us fruitfully to explore the nature of domestic court decisions more generally in the project of international law creation.

nationalsecuritylaw forthcoming scholarship

October 24, 2013

Debates and Dichotomies: Exploring the Presumptions Underlying Contentions about the Geography of Armed Conflict

Laurie R. Blank (Emory)

Boundaries of the Battlefield (TMC Asser Press, 2014)

An examination of the growing literature on the topic of the geography of armed conflict, including chapters in this volume, suggests that the differences of opinion, between and among academics, policymakers and military lawyers, for example, are nearly intractable. Statements about the propriety of a certain target under the law of armed conflict are often met by pronouncements regarding the role of jus ad bellum in cabining the use of force in the territory of another state or the restrictive parameters of the international human rights/law enforcement regime for addressing individuals who pose a threat or danger to others. Indeed, one might easily conclude that the participants in these debates are simply operating in entirely separate analytical paradigms, leading to interesting and challenging intellectual discussions but not to productive conversations that advance the analysis and move beyond the debate to effective potential resolution of a complicated and multi-layered issue. However, unlike pornography or terrorism, where notwithstanding a myriad of different definitions, “you know it when you see it,” little agreement exists even on whether there is a specific, definable geography of armed conflict at all.

To help move beyond this impasse, this chapter explores the presumptions underlying the ongoing debates regarding the geography of armed conflict, in an effort to untangle the debates and provide new opportunities and venues for discussion — and thus to help advance the development of the law of armed conflict (LOAC) and other relevant bodies of law. These presumptions appear in particular in four dichotomies that inherently help drive the debates but are brushed aside or not taken into consideration: law vs. policy; authority vs. obligation; territory vs. threat; and submission of the collective enemy vs. elimination of an individual threat. For each or any of these dichotomies, the lens through which one views the contrasting positions will then have a significant — if not determinative — effect on considerations and conclusions regarding questions of geography and the battlefield. As a result, recognizing these dichotomies and understanding how they impact the current discourse is critical to any effective conversation, whether in the academic or policy arenas.

Wound, Capture, or Kill? A Reply to Professor Ryan Goodman’s ‘The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants’

Michael N. Schmitt (Exeter)

24 European Journal of International Law 855 (2013)

This article explores the international humanitarian law rules that govern whether enemy combatants must be captured on the battlefield whenever possible. It replies to Professor Ryan Goodman’s piece on the same topic in the European Journal of International Law. It argues that no such duty exists, although it also acknowledges that doing so is typically done for operational reasons.

What Future for Australia’s Control Order Regime?

Lisa Burton and George Williams (University of New South Wales)

Public Law Review, Vol. 24 (2013)

Control orders restrict the liberty of an individual in order to protect the community from future terrorist acts. Australia introduced control orders following the example of the United Kingdom, the first and only other nation to enact such measures. Yet in 2011 the UK abolished its control order regime, and replaced it with a more targeted system of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs). In light of these reforms, what future is there for the Australian control order regime? This article compares the design and use of the Australian control order regime with the UK regime on which it was based, and the new system of TPIMs. The authors question whether there was, or is now, any adequate justification for the Australian control order regime.

Under the UN Security Council’s Watchful Eyes: Military Intervention by Invitation in the Malian Conflict

Karine Bannelier and Theodore Christakis (University Genoble-Alpes)

Leiden Journal of International Law (2013)

Responding to an urgent request by the authorities of Mali, France launched in January 2013 “Operation Serval” against several terrorist armed groups. The French troops were assisted by a Chadian contingent and by forces progressively deployed by other African countries within a UNSC authorized African force (resolution 2085). While the French and African military Operations in Mali were clearly legal, they raise important questions of jus ad bellum in relation with the two legal arguments put forward to justify them: intervention by invitation and UNSC authorization. In this paper we first discuss the general rules of international law applying on intervention by invitation. We explain that such an intervention could sometimes be contrary to the principle of self-determination and we propose a purpose-based approach. We then apply these rules to the situation in Mali and conclude that the French and Chadian interventions were legal because, on the one hand, the request was validly formulated by the internationally recognised government of Mali and, on the other hand, their legitimate purpose was to fight terrorism. The UNSC approved this legal basis and “helped” France and Chad appeal validly to it by listing the enemy as “terrorist groups”. It gave its “blessing” to these interventions, without authorizing them and observed the events with relief. The adoption of resolution 2100 on 25 April 2013 raises new legal questions. The Council creates a UN peace enforcement mission in Mali, MINUSMA, which has a robust use of force mandate. Created just a few weeks after the DRC “Intervention Brigade”, this force seems to indicate an ongoing evolution (revolution?) in UN peacekeeping, notwithstanding the assurances by some UNSC member States that MINUSMA will avoid “offensive counter-terrorism operations”. At the same time resolution 2100 gives a restricted use of force mandate to France (to protect MINUSMA), without challenging the legal validity of intervention by invitation for all other tasks! The conflict in Mali might thus remain for some time yet between the latitude of UNSC authorization and the longitude of unilateral intervention by invitation.

The Law of Armed Conflict’s ‘Wicked’ Problem: Levée En Masse in Cyber Warfare

David A. Wallace and Shane R. Reeves (West Point)

International Legal Studies (2013)

The Law of Armed Conflict is often ill-suited for application in the cyber context. One particular example — trying to reconcile the concept of levée en masse with the cyber conflicts between nations and ad hoc assemblages — starkly illustrates this truth. To support this proposition this article begins with a brief discussion on the history of a levée en masse. An explanation of how the law of armed conflict defines and characterizes the individual battlefield status associated with levée en masse follows. The article then explores the unique aspects of hostilities in cyberspace and delves into the impracticality of applying the concept of levée en masse in the context of cyber warfare. It concludes with specific recommendations in terms of the reconceptualising of a levée en masse in cyber warfare and a hope that, by focusing on this nuanced provision of the law of armed conflict, a broader discussion will ensue

Are We Reaching a Tipping Point? How Contemporary Challenges are Affecting the Military Necessity-Humanity Balance

Shane R. Reeves (West Point) and Jeffrey S. Thurnher (United States Naval War College)

Harvard National Security Journal (Online Features) (2013)

The contemporary Law of Armed Conflict is predicated on the existence of a balance between the traditionally recognized principles of military necessity and humanity. This equilibrium permeates the entirety of that field of law, thereby ensuring that force is applied on the battlefield in a manner allowing for the accomplishment of the mission while simultaneously taking appropriate humanitarian considerations into account. This longstanding equipoise is at risk as illustrated by three contemporary examples. The first involves the recently revived claim that the Law of Armed Conflict imposes a strict obligation on a combatant to attempt to capture before employing deadly force against an enemy combatant under a least-restrictive-means of force construct, which is designed to ensure a belligerent uses the least harmful approach to incapacitate an enemy. The second issue concerns the lawfulness of autonomous weapon systems and whether they should be preemptively banned, as has been suggested by some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The third includes the backlash emanating from efforts to establish rules and ways to respond to attacks in the cyber context, including using lethal kinetic responses. The legal and public discourse stemming from these current debates represents a potential tipping point that could upend the historical framework by disproportionally favoring humanitarian considerations thus eroding the ability of the Law of Armed Conflict to effectively regulate warfare.

nationalsecuritylaw upcoming event: November 4th Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Hearing on Sections 215 and 702

October 23, 2013

No registration is required, but request that press notify info

if planning to cover the event



Consideration of Recommendations for Change:

The Surveillance Programs Operated Pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

November 4, 2013

Renaissance Mayflower Hotel – State Room

1127 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington DC


08:45 Doors Open

09:15 – 09:30 Introductory Remarks (David Medine, PCLOB Chairman, with Board Members

Rachel Brand, Elisebeth Collins Cook, James Dempsey, and Patricia Wald)

09:30 – 11:45 Panel I: Section 215 USA PATRIOT Act and Section 702 Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act

§John Carlin (Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, Department of Justice)

§Rajesh De (General Counsel, National Security Agency)

§Patrick Kelley (Acting General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation)

§Robert Litt (General Counsel, Office of the Director of National Intelligence)

11:45 – 1:15 Lunch Break (on your own)

1:15 – 2:30 Panel II: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

§James A. Baker (formerly DOJ Office of Intelligence and Policy Review)

§Judge James Carr (Senior Federal Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio and former FISA Court Judge 2002-2008)

§Marc Zwillinger (Founder, ZwillGen PLLC and former Department of Justice Attorney, Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section)

2:30 – 2:45 Break

2:45 – 4:15 Panel III: Academics and Outside Experts

§Orin Kerr (Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School)

§Jane Harman (Director, President and CEO, The Woodrow Wilson Center and former Member of Congress) Invited

§Stephanie K. Pell (Principal, SKP Strategies, LLC; former House Judiciary Committee Counsel and Federal Prosecutor)

§Eugene Spafford (Professor of Computer Science and Executive Director, Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security, Perdue University)

§Stephen Vladeck (Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law)

4:15 Closing Comments (David Medine, PLCOB Chairman)

All Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

PCLOB 4 Nov Hearing Agenda.pdf

nationalsecuritylaw USIP course on IHL and IHRL

October 19, 2013

From friends at the US Institute of Peace:

The United States Institute of Peace is offering a course on International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights as part of its highly regarded Academy for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding. The Academy provides practitioner-oriented education, training, and resources via facilities at USIP’s Washington headquarters, mobile training in conflict zones abroad, and online distance education and training.

This course on IHL and HR runs October 28-30, 2013 and will focus on key questions: Why do we have these bodies of law? How do they apply? What is the practical impact of human rights and humanitarian law in conflict-affected states? How do these two bodies of law interact? How are human rights and international humanitarian law relevant to practitioner’s work in the field? The three-day course will be delivered through a variety of methodologies that seek to maximize the learning experience, with an emphasis on problem-based learning.

Additional course and registration information is available at

nationalsecuritylaw Fwd: Periodic Review Board Process Underway

October 9, 2013

An important development:

Periodic Review Board Process Underway
10/09/2013 01:06 PM CDT

nationalsecuritylaw American Red Cross launches the Clara Barton IHL Competition

October 8, 2013

This is just really, really cool:

From: Sigmund, Eric C. []
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 4:07 PM
Subject: Clara Barton IHL Competition
Importance: High

Dear International Law Practitioners,

The American Red Cross is excited to announce the creation of the 1st Annual Clara Barton International Humanitarian Law Competition. Named after the founder of the American Red Cross, this event is a simulation-based moot court competition for students interested in international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the “law of war” or “law of armed conflict.” Designed to introduce students to real-world challenges experienced in the field during armed conflict, the Competition places participating teams in the shoes of humanitarian law practitioners and tasks competitors with addressing complex legal issues in a number of unique fictional, but realistic, situations. As the only competition of its kind offered within the United States, this experience provides students with a phenomenal opportunity to enhance their understanding of international humanitarian law through practical, experiential exercises. The Competition will be held in the Greater Washington, D.C. area from March 12-15, 2014.

Modeled on the world renowned Concurs Jean-Pictet competition, each round of the Clara Barton Competition will present a new case study building upon a larger hypothetical armed conflict. During each round, teams will be asked to assume various professional roles and accomplish a variety of objectives consistent with the positions of the organizations, groups, or entities that they represent. The competition will test participants’ knowledge of international humanitarian law and international public law, as well as their ability to present, advocate, and defend legal positions with a diverse range of stakeholders in different simulated environments.

The Competition is open to current law students pursuing Juris Doctor (J.D.) or Master of Law (LL.M.) degrees at U.S. law schools, as well as students attending U.S. military academies. Teams are composed of three students, and only one team may represent each eligible academic institution. Prior study in public international law, although not required, is highly recommended. Thanks to the generous support of our donors, the American Red Cross will cover hotel accommodations and meals for participating teams during the Competition. Travel expenses to and from the Competition are not included.

Registration for the Competition opens on October 28, 2013 on the Competition website found below. In order to apply, interested teams must: 1) complete a standard application form; 2) provide a statement of interest; and 3) complete a written legal brief based on an initial hypothetical problem. A $100 non-refundable application fee will also be required upon submitting the application. Applications and statements of interest are due no later than 10:00pm EST on November 29, 2013. Legal briefs must be submitted no later than 10:00pm EST on December 13, 2013. All required Competition materials and further information may be found on the Competition website at

For your convenience you will find a copy of the Competition Flyer and Backgrounder attached to this email. Please assist us in disseminating this information to your student body. Any additional questions can be directed to the Competition Committee at clarabartoncompetition. We hope your institution is represented at the Competition and look forward to receiving your team’s submissions. Good luck!

Warm regards,

The Competition Committee

Eric C. Sigmund| Legal Advisor, International Humanitarian Law Dissemination | Ë American Red Cross | 2025 E Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 | Tel. + 1 202/303.5001| Mobile +1 443/970.2512

For daily IHL updates, follow the IHL Dissemination Team on Twitter @RulesofWar (; and also see Humanity in the Midst of War, a new blog discussing the laws of armed conflict and their applicability to crises around the world at

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. Any unauthorized disclosure, use or dissemination of this email message either in whole or in part, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail message, please notify the sender and destroy it.

Clara Barton Competition Flyer with Website .pdf

Clara Barton Backgrounder.pdf

nationalsecuritylaw upcoming events: Law at the End of War (Oct. 14) and Leaks (Oct. 15) at Cardozo

October 7, 2013
Jacob Burns Moot Court Room

Cardozo School of Law

55 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10003

Law at the

End of War:

Fighting Terrorism

after Afghanistan

Monday, October 14, 2013

6 p.m.

In a major address on terrorism last May, President Obama reiterated his deter-mination to end U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan in the coming year, and to pursue a counterterrorism policy that avoids "keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing." What might such an approach mean for U.S. detention and targeting operations? What legal constraints and structures will apply?

A panel of distinguished national security experts will consider what counter-terrorism law and policy can and should be after a decade of terrorism wars.


Lt. Gen. David Barno (Ret.)

Senior Adviser and Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security and Former Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan

John Bellinger

Partner, Arnold & Porter LLP and Former State Department Legal Adviser

Mary DeRosa

Distinguished Visitor from Practice, Georgetown Law Center and Former Legal Adviser to the National Security Council under President Obama

Ali Soufan

CEO, The Soufan Group and

Former FBI Supervisory Special Agent

Moderated by:

Professor Deborah Pearlstein, Assistant Professor of Law,

Cardozo School of Law

Please RSVP to:


Breaking News-

Breaking Laws:

Leaks and Journalism

in the Long War

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

7 p.m.

What challenges have journalists confronted in covering U.S. counter-terrorism operations over the past decade?

National security journalists and a newsroom lawyer will discuss their experiences in covering America’s post-9/11 wars, as well as the journalist’s new frontier: leaks, surveillance, and censorship.


Jess Bravin

Reporter, The Wall Street Journal

Cora Currier

Fellow, ProPublica

Amy Davidson

Senior Editor, The New Yorker

David McCraw

Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, The New York Times Company

Gabriel Schoenfeld

Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute and Author,Necessary Secrets: National Security, the Media, and the Rule of Law

Moderated by:

Professor David Rudenstine,

Sheldon H. Solow Professor of Law, Cardozo School of Law

Please RSVP to


A light reception will take place in the Cardozo lobby
at the conclusion of these events.

Image removed by sender. Like us on Facebook Image removed by sender. Follow us on Twitter Image removed by sender. View our videos on YouTube Image removed by sender. Find us on Pinterest

nationalsecuritylaw upcoming event: Caught in the Net: What Does the Government Do with Americans’ Data? (10/8 at 9am, National Press Club)

October 2, 2013
Image removed by sender. Visit our Website
The Brennan Center for Justice presents:

Caught in the Net
What Does the Government Do with Americans’ Data?


Laura Donohue
Georgetown University Law Center

Rachel Levinson-Waldman
Brennan Center for Justice

Julian Sanchez
The Cato Institute

moderated by

Julia Angwin
Wall Street Journal

October 8, 2013
9:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

National Press Club
First Amendment Lounge
529 14th St NW
​Washington, D.C. 20045

9:00 a.m. Breakfast and Registration
9:30 a.m. Program and Discussion

After the attacks of September 11, 2011, the government’s authority to collect, keep, and share information about Americans with little or no basis to suspect wrongdoing dramatically expanded. While the risks and benefits of this approach are the subject of intense debate, one thing is certain: it results in the accumulation of large amounts of innocuous information about law-abiding citizens. What do our intelligence and law enforcement agencies do with this data? In the search to find the needle, what happens to the rest of the haystack?

A new Brennan Center report undertakes an in-depth analysis of the federal government’s policies and practices for the use, retention, and sharing of non-criminal information across multiple types of data. Join us for a discussion in which experts will consider the issues raised by these practices, including whether we need tighter controls on the government’s handling of Americans’ information.

CLICK HERE to RSVP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Brennan Center Events Coordinator, Jafreen Uddin, at or 646.292.8345.