The Lawfare Podcast

Discussing the use of torture evidence at Guantanamo Bay, including recent cases and the Biden Administration's stance. Exploring the status of individuals in custody and the failure of the commission system. Examining the government's reinterpretation of the Military Commissions Act and its impact on specific cases. Analyzing the judge's decision to allow torture evidence in military commissions and potential government actions. Exploring the government's reinterpretation in Guantanamo litigation and its potential impact on sentenced cases. Examining the use of torture evidence in Guantanamo cases and potential actions of the Biden administration.

Meghan Conroy, Research Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Jon Lewis, Research Fellow at George Washington University's Program on Extremism, discuss the alarming rise in anti-LGBTQ+ hate and extremism. They explore the role of far-right extremist groups in perpetrating violence, the spread of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and conspiracy theories, and the alliances formed in the domestic extremist landscape. They also analyze the factors contributing to the spike in violence against the queer community and the evolving nature of far-right extremism in the US.

This week on Rational Security, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by co-host emeritus Benjamin Wittes to talk through the week's YUGE national security news, including:“So THAT’s What the Insurrection Act is For.” Former President Trump has been indicted for conspiring to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, including through the insurrection on Jan. 6. And while they haven’t been charged, the indictment names six co-conspirators who were allegedly willing to go to the mat—including former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, who, in one of the darkest moments in the indictment, suggested that the Insurrection Act would be used to deploy the military against anyone who protests the Trump administration’s actions. What does this indictment mean, historically and politically? And where will the trial go from here?“The Spy Who Nagged Me.” The intelligence community is knocking on Congress’s door, hat in hand, asking once again for the renewal for the controversial-but-essential section 702 surveillance authority. But odds seem slimmer than ever this year, not least because the political dynamics around federal law enforcement and intelligence changed so dramatically over the course of the Trump administration. What are the odds of renewal? And what conditions are likely to come if it happens?“Hunter and the Fox.” President Biden’s son Hunter, who has wrestled with substance abuse and mental health issues, is back in the news for at least attempting to plead guilty to an array of criminal offenses—and for congressional testimony alleging that he parlayed access to his father into lucrative business deals. The stories have become a mainstay in conservative media circles and right-wing attacks on President Biden. But how much is smoke and how much is fire?For object lessons, Alan recommended the period thriller “Operation Mincemeat” and its focus on Colin Firth's double-breasted period suits. Quinta sang the praises of the Star Wars section at Disneyland, Galaxy's Edge. Scott endorsed “The Thief Collector,” a charming documentary about a real-world heist and a retired couple's dark double-life. And Ben celebrated his decision to bring "The Orb" out of retirement for the big Trump indictment.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

With the indictment and arraignment of former President Donald Trump this past week, Jan. 6 and its aftermath are very much on people's minds. So for today's Lawfare Podcast archive episode, we're bringing you the first episode of our narrative podcast series on precisely that topic. It's called The Aftermath.In this first episode, we looked at the events of Jan. 6 itself and all of the questions about accountability that followed. We recorded this first episode in 2021, long before we knew that Trump would eventually be indicted for his role in all of this. It's a reminder of how things looked at the time.You can listen to the whole first season of The Aftermath on our website, or wherever you get your podcasts.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On July 27, the Justice Department announced a sprawling civil rights investigation, also known as a pattern or practice investigation, into the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department. The announcement came just weeks after the department’s Civil Rights Division released a report of a similar investigation into abuses at the Minneapolis Police Department. Both investigations were motivated, at least in part, by the murder of black men at the hands of police—Tyre Nichols in Memphis and George Floyd in Minneapolis. In a recent article for Lawfare about the Minneapolis report and another report looking at the Louisville Metro Police Department, Christy Lopez wrote: “As with past police investigations, the abuse these reports document is chilling, partly in its frequency and perhaps even more so in conveying how casually abuse can occur in policing.” And yet she remained hopeful, writing that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department “heralded what could be a new era in police reform.”   Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Christy, a Professor from Practice at Georgetown Law and former Deputy Chief in the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, to talk about her extensive experience conducting pattern or practice investigations into police departments and negotiating consent decrees. They talked about the history of these investigations stretching back to the Rodney King beating, the common trends of police abuse that pattern or practice investigations find, and whether or not we’re in the midst of a broader reckoning with ideas of policing and public safety. Please note that this episode contains content that some people may find disturbing, including graphic depictions of police violence. Listener discretion is advised.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In June 2017, FBI agents arrived at the home of Reality Winner, a translator working for the NSA, to question her about an unauthorized leak of classified information concerning Russian interference in U.S. elections. Six years later, Tina Satter’s new film, “Reality,” tells the story of that fateful day, which led to Winner’s imprisonment. Satter’s screenplay relies almost entirely on a verbatim transcript of Winner’s conversations with the FBI agents. The dialogue is by turns quotidian and suspenseful. "Reality" is partly a psychological thriller as well as an exploration of the mind and motivations of Winner herself. She received the longest prison sentence ever given by a federal court for the unauthorized release of government information to the media. Shane Harris talked with Satter about her film, which is based on her stage play, “Is This a Room.” Satter says she became fascinated with Winner after reading about her arrest in the press. She thought the transcript had dramatic potential. To Satter, it read like the script for a play, with a list of characters and dialogue. “Is This a Room” received critical praise and won important theatre awards. The movie, “Reality,” is streaming on Max. Satter began her theatrical career in Portland, Oregon, and has worked with some of the biggest names in experimental theatre. She now lives and works in New York. Among the works mentioned in this episode:“Reality” on Max: https://www.hbo.com/movies/reality “Is This a Room” review: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/theater/is-this-a-room-review.html The New York magazine article that first got Satter interested in Winner's story: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/12/who-is-reality-winner.html Satter’s production company, Half Straddle: http://www.halfstraddle.com/ Reality Winner’s interview with Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/reality-winner-interview-prison-nsa-1261844/ Chatter is a production of Lawfare and Goat Rodeo. This episode was produced and edited by Noam Osband and 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.

Over the past eighteen months, Ukraine has served as the stage for a proxy battle between superpowers, with the invading Russians on one side and a U.S.-led coalition of Western allies backing Ukraine on the other. As such, it’s the closest thing we’ve yet seen to what many military strategists believe will be the defining challenge of the next strategic era: a near-peer conflict between two or more technologically sophisticated major powers. In this way, the conflict has served as a canary in the coal mine for new military trends, tactics, and technologies that may soon be brought to bear against the West (or by it). Last month, Shashank Joshi, the Defence Editor for The Economist, published a special report in The Economist outlining what lessons military leaders in the West are taking away from the Ukraine conflict as they prepare their own militaries for their next fight. He sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson to talk over his findings and what Ukraine can tell us about the future of war. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Tuesday, a D.C. grand jury voted to indict Donald Trump for a range of crimes that all involve the attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election. For this emergency edition of the podcast, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down on Lawfare Live with Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson, Roger Parloff, and Quinta Jurecic; Executive Editor Natalie Orpett; and Legal Fellow Anna Bower to unpack it all.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In last month’s landmark settlement, the City of New York agreed to pay over $13 million to a group of 1,380 protestors who “were arrested and/or subjected to force by N.Y.P.D. officers” in Manhattan and Brooklyn in the summer of 2020. The proposed settlement marks “the largest total payout to protesters in a class-action suit in the United States,” according to Akela Lacy at The Intercept. The plaintiffs won the case, at least in part, thanks to the work of SITU Research, a group that conducts visual investigations and “merges data and design to create new pathways for justice.” SITU Research’s work supports activists, advocates, and lawyers, bridging the gap between digital evidence and the communities that can best deploy them towards justice and accountability. Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Brad Samuels, a founding partner at SITU who has overseen the team’s visual investigations for legal and advocacy organizations including The International Criminal Court, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, The Associated Press, Frontline, The United Nations, and many others. They discussed why forensic reconstructions and other visual investigations are so useful in the pursuit of justice for war crimes and other abuses, how Samuels and his colleagues build them, and some of the pushback they get. They also talked about the thorny new questions these new technologies raise, including the dangers of retraumatizing victims. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This past week, the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held a spirited hearing on an unusual topic: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs, the more correct term for what are commonly called UFOs, or Unidentified Flying Objects. The witnesses included two military veterans who claimed to have borne eyewitness to UAPs, and an intelligence community whistleblower who claims to have heard secondhand from contacts about a range of government activity relating to extraterrestrials, including the recovery of alien remains and crashed aircraft. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the witnesses’ testimony has triggered an array of strong reactions, from outright scorn and disbelief to an array of boosters eager to tie it into their own worldviews and conspiracy theories. To talk through the revelations at this hearing and the debate over UAPs more broadly, Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson sat down with veteran Washington Post national security reporter Shane Harris, who has closely followed the debate over UAPs for many years. They talked about how the witnesses’ testimony fits into the broader universe of reports relating to UAPs, what parts reflect serious policy problems and which don't, and how to separate the wheat from the chaff in the broader UAP debate.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.