This past Saturday, the terrorist group Hamas launched an unprecedented raid from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel that left more than 1000 people—most of them Israeli civilians, many of them women, children, and the elderly—brutally murdered. Dozens more were taken as hostages back into Gaza. A shocked Israel has in turn responded with missile attacks into Gaza that have killed more than 800 Palestinians there, and is planning a broader offensive there. And as people search for more information on what’s transpired, there are concerns that events may yet spiral out into a broader regional war—one that, among other consequences, might derail efforts at normalization in the Israeli-Saudi relationship that have been a major focus of the United States in recent weeks.

To discuss these tragic events and their potentially seismic consequences, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with a panel of leading experts: Natan Sachs, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Director of its Center for Middle East Policy; Dan Byman from the Center for Strategic & International Studies as well as Lawfare’s Foreign Policy Editor; Ghaith al-Omari of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and Lawfare’s Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes. They discussed the ripple effects the attack is having throughout the region, the role that Iran and other actors may have played, and what it may yet mean for the region and the broader world. 

Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing. Listener discretion is advised.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This morning, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes connected with his old friend Noah Efron about the weekend's events in Israel. Noah is a professor at Bar-Ilan University, a prolific essayist and writer, and the host of The Promised Podcast, a podcast on Israeli life, politics, and culture.

In an interview punctuated twice by missile attacks, they discussed what happened over the weekend, the magnitude and horror of the Hamas attack, the impact on Israeli society, and the coming Israeli response in Gaza. They talked about the weird interregnum between the violence over the weekend and the violence that's to come and how quiet things are right now, about whether Israeli society is coming together or whether it is coming apart, about the implications of Hamas holding many hostages for the way the war is going to play out, and more.

Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing. Listener discretion is advised.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For decades, the United States has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward Taiwan and China. But in recent years, this uneasy status quo has begun to falter, as the Biden administration doubles down on its commitment to Taiwan’s autonomy and China increases provocative military maneuvers aimed at signaling its willingness to use force to assert its claim of sovereignty over the island. Despite the devastation that war between the U.S. and China would surely bring, the two seem to be inching ever closer to conflict. 

At the same time, many policy assessments seem to assume that the president has the domestic legal authority to defend Taiwan in the event of a sudden and unexpected attack by China. But in a recent article for the Virginia Journal of International Law called “Taiwan, War Powers, and Constitutional Crisis,” Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson argues that history paints a much more complicated picture. As Scott writes, “An international crisis over Taiwan could thus … trigger a constitutional crisis at home—one that threatens the legitimacy of the president’s response and risks undermining popular and congressional support for what is certain to be a difficult war to come.” 

Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Scott to discuss his article. They walked through the various legislation, legal opinions, and communiques through successive presidential administrations that have defined the U.S. position towards Taiwan to the present day. They also discussed how tensions between the executive and legislative branches might play out in the event of an attack on Taiwan, as well as how the government as a whole might avoid them. 

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From August 12, 2020: President Trump recently issued executive orders aimed at banning TikTok and WeChat from operating in the United States. To discuss the sanction, Bobby Chesney sat down with Dr. Sheena Chestnut Greitens, an associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and a faculty affiliate with the Strauss Center for International Security and Law and the Clements Center for National Security at UT; and Dr. Ronald Deibert, a professor of political science and the founder and director of The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. In addition to the executive orders concerning TikTok and WeChat, they also discussed the larger U.S.-China relationship and the role of technology competition in that space.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were once again joined by Congress guru Molly Reynolds to discuss the week’s big national security news, including:

• “Master of the House, Doling out the Harm, Ready with a Handshake and a Face Palm.” Over the weekend, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy narrowly avoided a government shutdown. But this week it cost him his speakership, as Democrats joined a bloc of far-right Republicans to vote in favor of a motion to vacate the office. What does this say about the state of the House? And what does it mean for the Biden administration’s legislative agenda moving forward?
• “Serving Life to 20.” As the Supreme Court begins its new term under increased scrutiny for ethical lapses, several members of Congress have once again introduced legislation that would impose 18-year term limits on the Court’s members. But would this proposal fix the problem? And is it constitutional?
• “A Foreign Confluence Operation.” Washington has been in a tizzy this week with scandalizing reports of an Iranian influence operation that purportedly sought to influence U.S. policy through several prominent scholars of Iranian descent—some of whom now serve in the Biden administration or are close to beleaguered Iran Special Envoy Rob O’Malley, whose security clearance is currently suspended. What should we make of this story? 

For object lessons, Alan gave a shout-out to the most recent incarnation of Dune and its soon-to-be-forthcoming sequel. Quinta urged listeners to check out the book “Your Face Belongs to Us,” the creepy-yet-true story of the growth of facial recognition technology and the rise of the start-up that sold it worldwide. And Scott recommended his favorite seasonal cookbook as we get into the cold weather months: Anna Thomas’s “Love Soup.”

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's another episode of “Trump’s Trials and Tribulations,” our weekly live stream on YouTube—and on Zoom for Material Supporters. Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic and Roger Parloff, and Legal Fellow Anna Bower to talk about all kinds of things on a whirlwind tour around four different courts.

The talked about what’s going on in the New York civil case, what’s with all of these gag orders and gag order requests, what’s up in the Mar-a-Lago case in south Florida, who is pleading guilty in Fulton County, and what’s up with this new motion to dismiss in Washington on asserted grounds of presidential immunity.

This is a live conversation that happens online every Thursday at 4:00pm Eastern Time. If you would like to come join and ask a question, be sure to visit Lawfare’s Patreon account and become a Material Supporter.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From December 23, 2017: As the year is coming to a close, Congress has now missed the deadline for reauthorizing FISA Section 702. Molly Reynolds, a Brookings fellow in Governance Studies and expert on Congress, joined Benjamin Wittes and Susan Hennessey for a conversation on the failure to reauthorize and what happens next. They discussed the politics of Section 702, the influence of this year's overall legislative agenda, and what to expect in 2018 for the crucial intelligence apparatus.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The First Amendment protects speech, but what kind? True speech, sure. But what about false or misleading speech? What if it's harmful? After all, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater—or can you?

To answer these questions, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare spoke with Jeff Kosseff, who is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law in the United States Naval Academy’s Cyber Science Department and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare. Jeff is releasing his latest book this month, titled "Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation," in which he describes, and defends, the First Amendment's robust protections for false and misleading speech.

They spoke about the book, why you sometimes can yell fire in a crowded theater, and how new technology both superchargers misinformation and provides new tools to fight it.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week on Chatter, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Ben Wittes sat down with author and journalist Jonathan Rauch, of the Brookings Institution. In a wide-ranging conversation, they spoke about Jonathan's numerous books, his start in journalism, and his focus on liberalism, Madisonian Pluralism, and religion within democratic institutions.

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.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, we’re bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem. And we’re discussing the hot topic of the moment: artificial intelligence. There are a lot of less-than-informed takes out there about AI and whether it’s going to kill us all—so we’re glad to be able to share an interview that hopefully cuts through some of that noise.

Janet Haven is the Executive Director of the nonprofit Data and Society and a member of the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee, which provides guidance to the White House on AI issues. Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic sat down alongside Matt Perault, Director of the Center on Technology and Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, to talk through their questions about AI governance with Janet. They discussed how she evaluates the dangers and promises of artificial intelligence, how to weigh the different concerns posed by possible future existential risk to society posed by AI versus the immediate potential downsides of AI in our everyday lives, and what kind of regulation she’d like to see in this space. 

If you’re interested in reading further, Janet mentions this paper from Data and Society on “Democratizing AI” in the course of the conversation.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.