We Did It!
Ecoflow and Starlink obtained.
Good Afternoon:
We did this. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Living in a war zone sucks. For one family I care about it, it sucks a little bit less today:
We should do more of this stuff. Collecting relatively small amounts of money to help individual families with very specific needs can really make a difference. If folks have suggestions, I am all ears and very happy to coordinate.
Yesterday on #DogShirtTV, the estimable
showed up with some thoughts about Brahms, and I took questions from the Greek Chorus about the Comey prosecution:The Situation
In Monday’s “The Situation” column, I assert that the most recent government shutdown marked a total substantive failure for Democrats but likely earned them some political points.
By any reasonable standard, to put it simply, the Democratic tactics would have to be judged a total failure: They got nothing in exchange for the pain they inflicted. They went to war, with federal workers and recipients of government services bearing the risk of the battle, unprepared to do what it would take to win. They lacked the moral seriousness not to play at all if they weren’t going to have the fortitude to see the matter through.
Yesterday On Lawfare
Compiled by the estimable Isabel Arroyo
Trump’s Immigration Policies Overlook AI Talent
Jakub Kraus warns that the Trump administration’s restrictive posture and mixed policies toward “high-skilled immigration” are hurting U.S. firms’ capacity to recruit top artificial intelligence (AI) researchers. Kraus urges immigration policymakers to promote AI competitiveness by safeguarding pipelines for AI talent.
By making AI talent a priority in immigration policy, the Trump administration can strengthen America’s long-term technological position. Targeted reforms that streamline pathways for AI researchers can be implemented without compromising the administration’s broader immigration objectives. The choice is straightforward: Make it easier for the world’s best AI minds to work in America, or watch them build the future elsewhere.
Reckoning with Bivens
Mary Hampton Mason argues that the power to sue individual federal officers for money damages—established by Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents in 1971—is a poor remedy for federal agents’ unconstitutional conduct. Mason contends that the Supreme Court should overrule Bivens, clearing the way for Congress to protect people in the United States through legislation.
When federal hands violate the Constitution, it makes good sense for the government itself—not some random officer—to pay the price. And not simply the political price—the actual taxpayer dollars-and-cents cost of government abuse. No lone federal agent could possibly remedy any unconstitutional conduct at the South Street Apartments, or anywhere else federal agents may “run amok.” With respect to Chicago, at least some members of Congress seem to have an appetite for oversight. And when government abuse escalates without accountability, or where government programs result in individual harms, history (such as Abu Ghraib, like radiation exposure from nuclear testing, like the passage of the Vaccine Act, or the FTCA itself) suggests that public outcry can fuel actual congressional oversight.
Toward the Oct. 7 Trials
Yotam Berger parses the legal and procedural approaches Israel might take to prosecuting hundreds of Hamas militants accused of participating in the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks.
The Oct. 7 attacks and their aftermath raise an array of complex legal questions. One issue concerns the future prosecution of those captured on Oct. 7. These proceedings are likely to present unprecedented dilemmas for Israel’s justice system on at least four levels: (1) whether criminal prosecution is the appropriate legal avenue; (2) which court should exercise jurisdiction; (3) what charges can and should be filed—and what evidentiary and doctrinal challenges each would entail; and (4) what sentences should be on the table in a country that has generally avoided capital punishment (with one notable exception).
Mum’s the Word on FISA Section 702 Reauthorization
Preston Marquis examines congressional debates over reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a powerful but controversial intelligence collection tool poised to sunset in approximately six months. Marquis also analyzes how Biden-era reforms to Section 702 and various “wild cards”—including President Trump’s stance on the matter—are influencing lawmakers’ priorities during these debates.
Little is known about Section 702’s prospects for reauthorization with less than six months until the provision is slated to sunset. RISAA’s reforms have stemmed some of the underlying compliance issues that plagued the U.S. government last year. Under different circumstances, that success would be a cause for celebration. Here, time will tell whether Congress fixed Section 702 just long enough to let it lapse.
Podcasts
On Lawfare Daily, Kate Klonick and Alan Rozenshtein sit down with Tim Wu to discuss Wu’s new book “The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered the Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity.” The three also discuss the other two books in Wu’s “trilogy,” the evolution of online platforms during the 15 years that have passed since Wu began writing, and the solution set for platform-related problems.
On Scaling Laws, Anton Korinek, Nathan Goldschlag, and Bharat Chandar join Kevin Frazier to discuss AI’s impact on jobs, what a labor transition from humans to AI might look like, and policy interventions to promote shared prosperity.
Today’s #BeastOfTheDay is a monkey with specific banana preferences:
In honor of today’s Beast, cut the crusts off your sandwich if you want. Don’t be ashamed.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Dog Shirt Daily to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.
 | A guest post by
|