The Authorization for the Use of Military Force: Is an Update Required? International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Thursday, September 28, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force was passed by Congress on September 14, 2001. This authorization is still used today to justify military actions taken by the Trump administration against ISIS and other terrorist organizations around the globe.
On September 15, the Senate rejected Sen. Rand Paul’s proposal to amend the Authorization that would have given it an expiration date of 6 months. Sen. Paul and others hoped that the deadline would force Congress to act and pass legislation to redefine executive and congressional war powers. Prof. Robert Turner and Prof. Steve Vladeck will join us to discuss the AUMF and its future.
Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group Podcast
- Robert F. Turner, Professor, General Faculty Distinguished Fellow and Associate Director, Center for National Security Law
- Prof. Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
In recent years, the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union has become an arena where governments promote rival visions of the future of the organization and, more importantly, how the Internet itself should be governed. These debates reflect a growing tension around a foundational question: to what extent can and should nation-states act to manage the flow of information within their sovereign territory? As the Internet’s importance as a driver for global economic and social growth has grown over the past decade, so too has the interest of some governments to secure for themselves a larger role in regulating the technical, economic, and policy aspects of its management.
Governments are driven by a range of objectives as they consider the future of the Internet, including access and uptake, competition policy, privacy and security, and, in some cases, regime stability. Will it be possible to accommodate some governments’ desire for a more robust role and still maintain essential democratic principles such as the free flow of information between people around the world, universal human rights, and the core belief that has driven the Internet’s exponential growth over the past decade: that users, companies, and civil society – not governments – ought to control the Internet’s future? What are the political, economic, and geopolitical factors driving Internet regulation and policies? Umair Javed moderated a discussion with Will Hudson of Google, Sally Wentworth of the Internet Society, and Patricia Paoletta of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis to explain recent activities at the UN to influence global Internet policy.
International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
- Will Hudson, Senior Advisor for International Policy, Google Inc.
- Patricia J. Paoletta, Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP
- Sally Wentworth, Vice President of Global Policy Development, Internet Society
- Moderator: Umair Javed, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP
Turkey’s President Erdogan has secured authoritarian rule through constitutional restructuring. He does not tolerate dissent and has arrested journalists, prosecutors, judges, military officials, police, academics and civil servants. Turkey would arguably not qualify to join NATO today. Turkey is seeking common cause with Russia and Iran. Erdogan has called America’s Kurdish allies in Syria “terrorists” and launched air strikes against them. NATO has never expelled a member state. When are the risks to NATO countries’ security and intelligence compelling enough to consider expelling Turkey? Are other, lesser sanctions an option? What would be the mechanism to accomplish this?
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Alan Makovsky, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
- Blaise Misztal, Director of National Security, Bipartisan Policy Center
On March 8, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam struck down a Guam law that permitted only those who meet the definition of “Native Inhabitants of Guam” to vote in a future status plebiscite. This decision has been met with opposition from elected officials, protests at the federal courthouse, public rallies, and now an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Supporters of the plebiscite are forcing a reexamination of the role of the United States on this strategically important island and opponents contend they are doing so without giving all citizens a voice in the process. What did the district court decide, and what does the reaction say about the rule of law and respect for the Constitution? Christian Adams joined us to discuss the latest in Davis v. Guam.