Jack Goldsmith

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith and Matthew Waxman. Tomorrow is the fifteenth anniversary of the beginning of the longest armed conflict in American history. But another significant anniversary in the “Forever War” is today, September 10, for two years ago on this date President Obama announced his “comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy” to defeat the Islamic State. The United States had been bombing the Islamic State sporadically throughout the summer of 2014, under the President’s Article II Commander-in-Chief power. But at about the time on September 10 when President Obama announced the United States’ ramped-up efforts “to degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State, he also shifted the legal basis for the effort to the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that had been the foundation for the conflict against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Associates since a few days after the 9/11 attacks. Obama “welcome[d] congressional support for this effort” in that address while making clear that he did not require it. One month later, the Pentagon named the campaign “Operation Inherent Resolve.”

By Jack L. Goldsmith: The 'Forever War' has posed enormous challenges to our constitutional system, which assumes that war will be exceptional, not perpetual. Continue Reading »

Analysts largely agree that the hacking of various arms of the Democratic Party, and the release of hacked emails that deepened divisions within the party just ahead of its presidential convention, is a big deal. But there’s less agreement about whether what we’re witnessing is fundamentally old or new. The answer to that question could shape not just the Obama administration’s response to the hack, but international norms on the limits to foreign influence in democratic elections...As U.S. authorities investigate who was behind the hack, legal scholars and cybersecurity experts have been scrambling to sort the old from the new. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former George W. Bush administration official, says there’s something novel about the mechanisms and scale of the intervention, in that it seems to have involved not just cyber operations, but also partnering with a third-party organization to publish a massive amount of data. That last step is what made ordinary espionage extraordinary—and what potentially invites more ambitious interventions in American democracy in the future. The U.S. government, he fears, may be unprepared for the onslaught.

...To discuss the DNC hack, I corresponded over email with Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution...But the truth is that there is no public evidence whatsoever tying Russia to the hack. Attribution for cyberoperations of this sort is very tricky and tends to take some time. Even if the hack can be linked to computers in Russia, that does not show that the hack originated there (as opposed to being routed through there). And even if it originated in Russia it does not show who was responsible. That said, it would not be surprising if the Russians were behind this.

The F.B.I. investigation into the suspected state-sponsored Russian theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee’s computer networks has expanded to determine if aides and organizations considered close to Hillary Clinton were also attacked, according to federal officials involved in the investigation...“There is nothing new in one nation’s intelligence services using stealthy techniques to influence an election in another,” Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote on the Lawfare blog on Monday. He noted that the United States had engaged in covert actions to influence elections in Indonesia, Italy, Chile and Poland during the Cold War. But he added that “doing so by hacking into a political party’s computers and releasing their emails does seem somewhat new.” It could foretell an era of data manipulation, in which outsiders could tinker with votes, or voter data, or “lose” electronic ballots.

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. On Tuesday FBI Director Jim Comey stated that Hillary Clinton and her State Department colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” but concluded that “[a]lthough there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” It is highly unusual for the FBI Director to publicly summarize the nature and conclusions of a major investigation, and then announce the FBI’s recommendation to the Justice Department that the focus of the investigation should not be prosecuted. So why did Comey do it?

War poses special threats to democracy, but the most pernicious challenges often come from within. History reveals that nothing has more power to undermine democratic institutions than the boundless fear of a foreign enemy. Rogue Justice is Karen Greenberg’s splendid new book about all the ways liberty was assaulted in America in the decade after the cataclysm of 11 September 2001. In these years, she writes, America came “perilously close” to “losing the protections of the bill of rights”...After Ashcroft made Jack Goldsmith the head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, Goldsmith concluded that Yoos’s memo seemed “designed to confer immunity for bad acts” and made arguments “wildly broader than was necessary to support what was actually being done”.

A 28-year-old Army officer on Wednesday sued President Obama over the legality of the war against the Islamic State, setting up a test of Mr. Obama’s disputed claim that he needs no new legal authority from Congress to order the military to wage that deepening mission...Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who has criticized the administration’s use of the 2001 war authorization to cover the Islamic State but is not involved in the suit, said the case was significant because it could overcome a major hurdle to getting a court to review that theory. But Mr. Goldsmith said Captain Smith faced many other hurdles, including precedents that suggest that when Congress appropriates money for a conflict it has implicitly authorized it. He also predicted that if a court did rule that the conflict was illegal, Congress would authorize the fight to continue – perhaps giving it broader scope than Mr. Obama has wanted. “We’re in a terrible equilibrium where Congress doesn’t want to step up and play its part in this military campaign and so the president has basically gone forward and done what he thinks he needs to do,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “It would be a lot better for everyone, including the president, if Congress got more involved.”

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley. There has been much debate about whether a bill advancing through Congress that aims to expose Saudi Arabia to lawsuits in American courts for its alleged connection to the 9/11 attacks would unduly harm diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries. But the bill’s potential for harm extends far beyond bilateral relations with one ally. It would also violate a core principle of international law, and it would jeopardize the effectiveness of American foreign aid and the legitimacy of the United States’ actions in the war on terrorism.

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. Last week the State Department’s top lawyer, Brian Egan, gave an important but underreported speech that marked the final stage of the Obama administration’s normalization of once-controversial Bush-era doctrines about the conduct of war. Before a gathering of geeky international law-loving lawyers in Washington, D.C., Egan announced the Obama administration’s official embrace of the same preemption doctrine that justified the invasion of Iraq. Egan’s speech marks the culmination of a continuity project that began, to many people’s surprise, at the beginning of Barack Obama’s first term. Since 2009, Obama has adopted the notion of a global war against al-Qaeda and associates; he expanded the legal basis of that war to include ISIS; he embraced military detention without trial, military commissions, state secrets and large-scale secret surveillance; and he ramped up drone strikes, deployment of Special Forces and cyberattacks.

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. On Thursday the Justice Department indicted seven Iranians for distributed denial of service (“DDoS”) attacks in 2011-2013 against 46 companies (mostly in the financial sector). The indictment alleges that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard sponsored the attacks. David Sanger of the New York Times reports that intelligence experts have long speculated that attacks “were intended to be retaliation for an American-led cyberattack on Iran’s main nuclear enrichment plant.” Sanger adds that “Iran’s computer networks have been a primary target of the National Security Agency for years, and it is likely that in penetrating those networks — for intelligence purposes or potential sabotage — the N.S.A. could have traced the attacks to specific computers, IP addresses or individuals.” Assuming these experts’ speculations are right, the Iranians were indicted for retaliating against U.S. cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure, and they got caught because the NSA had penetrated Iranian networks. On its face this seems hypocritical. Might the U.S. indictments nonetheless be justified?

Is Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a judicial progressive or a moderate? One way to judge is to look at his many opinions that defer to administrative agencies and that are a hallmark of his jurisprudence during his nearly 20 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In disputes over union power, his opinions nearly always benefit unions. According to the onlabor.org website, which is run by Harvard Law professors Benjamin Sachs and Jack Goldsmith, Judge Garland wrote the majority opinion in 22 cases that considered appeals of decisions made by the National Labor Relations Board. In 18 of these decisions, Judge Garland sided with the NLRB’s judgment against a company for unfair labor practices. In all of those cases, the blog notes, “deference to the NLRB has had favorable consequences for labor and unions.”

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. One unmistakable sign of the stellar reputation of Merrick Garland, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, is the praise he received from the President’s most conservative critics. Ed Whelan, an influential opponent of President Obama’s judicial nominees, expressed “very high regard” for Garland, whose “intellect and decency” he admires. His National Review colleague Andrew McCarthy, another sharp critic of the President’s judicial choices, thinks “very highly” of Garland and says “there is no doubting Garland’s intellect and integrity.” Both men, however, oppose Garland and urge the Senate not to consider the nomination. And Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell announced that Garland would not in fact receive a hearing.

Even by the standards of an epically polarized Washington, the political talk about President Obama’s effort to close the Guantánamo Bay prison is starkly divorced from facts. On both sides of the debate, many claims collapse under scrutiny....“Both the Republicans and the president are significantly exaggerating the threats and harms posed by the other side’s positions,” said Jack Goldsmith, a top Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration, now at Harvard Law School. “The moral and national security arguments on both sides mostly serve other agendas — political advantage for the Republicans, and legacy burnishing for the president.”

But, for these reasons, several prominent legal scholars—Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School, Ryan Goodman of New York University Law School and Steve Vladeck of American University's Washington College of Law—have suggested that any new authorization of force against ISIS include a sunset provision which would "force the next Congress and president to decide after several years of experience whether and how the authorizations should be updated, or whether, if conditions warrant, they should be allowed to expire."

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. For months the Obama administration has raised the stakes on its seven-year pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. In November three former senior Obama administration attorneys argued that the president had the constitutional power to ignore the legal restrictions Congress has placed on bringing dangerous detainees to the United States. Presidential aides suggested that the White House was taking the argument seriously. And then last week, in preview interviews for the President’s State of the Union address, Chief of Staff Denis McDonough put down a marker about Guantanamo.

Political scientists need a new sub-specialty to describe the end-of-year extravaganzas that influence peddlers and special interests have combined to make a Capital Christmas tradition: the racket of wholesale plundering of the government's treasury. Paraphrasing Willie Sutton, that's where the (tax-farmed and public-debt) money is. ... And then, barely worth remarking in the Bush/Obama permanent state of discretionary imperial war, there is a constitutionally required declaration of warhidden in there somewhere, according to Harvard's expert on such things, Jack Goldsmith. "Congress is not calling its funding an authorization for the use of force against ISIL, much less debating the authorization. But make no mistake: The funding to continue the war against ISIL is an authorization of force against ISIL, albeit a quiet one, designed not to attract attention." "Authorization of force" is bureaucratic euphemism for "declaration of war."

Congress has avoided authorizing the war against the self-described Islamic State for nearly a year and a half, but it had no problem voting Friday to spend billions more on it. Wait -- did lawmakers also just vote to authorize it? Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who previously served in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says that because lawmakers voted for a $1.1 trillion government spending bill that clearly appropriates money for the fight against the Islamic State, they also voted to approve the war itself. Goldsmith explained his reasoning in a Thursday post on the legal blog Lawfare: A 2000 Justice Department opinion states that Congress can "authorize hostilities through its use of the appropriations power" if a spending bill is directly focused on a specific military action. The year-end spending bill that lawmakers passed Friday includes $58.6 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations for military activities. House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) has specifically said some of those funds will be used to "combat the real-world threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)." That means that, at least for the period of time covered by the funding bill -- it goes through Sept. 30, 2016 -- lawmakers just voted to authorize the war against the Islamic State, Goldsmith said.