Jack Goldsmith

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.

When President Obama vetoed the 2016 defense authorization bill five weeks ago — in part because it wouldn’t let him close the military prison at Guantanamo — he did it with broad publicity and a photo op. Last week, he quietly signed the $607 billion bill, along with five others, just before the Thanksgiving holiday. But in his statement accompanying his signature, he signaled the fight’s not over yet. ... Obama might, for example, issue an “at the buzzer” executive order in January 2017. “But can he really do it as he’s walking out the door? I don’t think so,” said Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, who served in the Bush administration as assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel from 2003 to 2004, and before that, special counsel to the Defense Department. Goldsmith told Defense One the administration would have to start preparations in “early 2016, if not sooner…You can’t just put people on an airplane on Jan. 18.”

After the terror in Paris, most Democrats and Republicans agree that America should end the Islamic State. Even the socialist Democrat, Bernie Sanders, has called on America to lead a coalition to rid the world of this caliphate. ...So far, Congress has been too divided on exactly what it wants this war to be. When Obama presented his AUMF in February, Congress couldn't agree on key questions like the war's duration, scope and ground troops. But this was largely what Harvard Law professor Jack Goldsmith has called a "faux debate." Obama never proposed scrapping the 2001 AUMF, which already gave him and his successors broad authorities to wage a war on terror with no temporal or geographic limit. Nor did Obama's AUMF limit his Article II constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military. Goldsmith says the safest course would be to use the 2001 AUMF as a model, but include the Islamic State in addition to al-Qaida.

President Barack Obama repeatedly promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba after he took office in 2009, but that hasn't worked out so well. Now, as he approaches his final year in office in the wake of last week's terror attacks in Paris, his pledge seems as doomed as ever — but he insists he's undeterred...In testimony this week before the House Judiciary Committee, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that she is unaware of any effort by Obama to act unilaterally on Guantanamo. In response, Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which provides legal guidance to the president, wrote on the blog Lawfare, "Nothing in Lynch's remarks would preclude the President from later concluding that the transfer restrictions are unconstitutional."

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. Friday’s gruesome terrorist attacks by the Islamic State in the heart of Paris mark the latest setback in President Obama’s seven-year effort to end the wars and reverse the counterterrorism policies of his predecessor. Many will claim that the attacks are traceable to the President’s failed policies against the Islamic State, and to his related hesitancy in managing the implosion of Syria. The day before the attacks, the President sanguinely told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the Islamic State had been “contained.” That claim having been repudiated in dramatic fashion, the President immediately faced pressure to ratchet up the fight against the Islamic State.

Describing something as the Harvard of its field is usually a compliment. But that wasn’t quite Donald Trump’s intent when he called Iraq the “Harvard of terrorism” during a recent appearance on CNN...Harvard Law Professor and terrorism expert Jack Goldsmith – perhaps the person best equipped to respond to the presidential candidate’s analogy – said he had no words for the analogy. “It is a silly comment,” he wrote by email.

As President Obama approaches his final year in power, a political impasse over the Guantánamo prison appears increasingly likely to force him to choose between two politically unsavory options: Invoke executive power to relocate the remaining detainees in defiance of a statute, or allow history to say he never fulfilled his promise to shutter the prison....Against that backdrop, Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former Justice Department lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said Mr. Obama was heading toward a dilemma at the end of his term. “Not closing Gitmo eight years after he pledged to do so would be a failure for his legacy, plus whatever continuing costs it has to national security in his eyes,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “But the only way to close it is to use an extraordinarily aggressive interpretation of executive power to act against the will of Congress and not obviously in a way that the American people support, just as he is walking out the door.”

As first reported by Bloomberg's Josh Rogin, a group of 47 Republican senators signed a letter addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," warning them not to be too optimistic about ongoing negotiations with the Obama administration over Tehran's nuclear program...On the Lawfare blog, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith describes the letter as "embarrassing," because it's technically wrong: The letter states that “the Senate must ratify [a treaty] by a two-thirds vote.” But as the Senate’s own web page makes clear: “The Senate does not ratify treaties."

A political eternity ago, back in May 2013, President Barack Obama felt able to boast that the core of al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan was on a path to defeat, allowing America to declare an end to the global war on terror that began after the September 11th 2001 attacks...Jack Goldsmith, a former Pentagon lawyer who teaches national-security law at Harvard Law School, says the draft AUMF amounts to a striking expansion of presidential authority. The 2001 AUMF is already being interpreted broadly to allow strikes on IS. But rather than supersede that old authorisation or place time limits on its validity, this new 2015 AUMF “builds on and adds to it”, he says.

In seeking authorization for his six-month-old military campaign against the Islamic State terrorist group, President Obama on Wednesday did something that few if any of his predecessors have done: He asked Congress to restrict the ability of the commander in chief to wage war against an overseas enemy...“In a way, that’s been the story of his presidency,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who, as a top lawyer in Mr. Bush’s Justice Department, was at the heart of the last administration’s debates about presidential power. “He’s been talking during his entire presidency about wanting to restrain himself. But in practice, he’s been expanding his power.”

Tuesday's State of the Union address was the first since 2001 to not mention al-Qaeda. It opened with the promise of a post-post-9/11 era...Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former Bush administration official, believes Obama's call for Congress to authorize force against ISIS isn't sincere. Writing the morning after the State of the Union, he noted that the administration hasn't submitted draft language for a new AUMF to Congress, as the Bush administration did in 2001. But he also speculated that the U.S. government's expansive use of the 2001 AUMF since 9/11 may have had a chastening effect on Obama, who is wary of releasing another vaguely worded authorization into the wild:

It’s been a little over two weeks since the U.S. government blamed North Korea for the cyber-attack against Sony Pictures, and Cybersecurity firms and hackers have continued to express doubts as to the legitimacy of these claims. Two cyber security firms, Norse Corporation and Cloud Flare, conducted independent investigations into the hack. Their results are in stark contrast to the FBI’s claim that Pyongyang carried out the hack....After examining the malware used to infiltrate the studio, the FBI said it found similarities between that software and software used in previous cyber-attacks carried out by North Korea. But Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law Professor, who serves on the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law, is unconvinced.