The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair, that's patreon.com slash

LawFair. Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull, and the aftermath.

Hello and welcome to the LawFair podcast, I'm Benjamin Wittis. Our subject today is

rules for operations under the AUMF away from hot battlefields. We're talking to

Jennifer Daskel, a fellow at the Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law, and

the author of a recent paper entitled The Geography of the Battlefield, a framework for detention

and targeting outside of the hot conflict zone. LawFair readers may already have come

across this article to which Ken Anderson linked the other day and which is forthcoming

in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Gen has served both as a counsel for human

rights watch and as a lawyer in the National Security Division at the Justice Department

and thus brings an unusual mix of expertise and sensibilities to the subject. She came

by Brookings the other day to discuss the article.

So Gen, tell me about the paper, what's it about?

Jennifer is about the Geography of the Battlefield. It tackles the ongoing question about how far

the battlefield extends in the conflict with al-Qaeda and associated forces and other

conflicts with non-state actors. And it addresses the debate between the view that argues that

the battlefield is everywhere the enemy goes and those who argue that there should be territorial

limits on the battlefield so that it's constrained to places like Afghanistan and Iraq and the

current conflict formally Iraq. The paper accepts the notion that the battlefield tracks

the enemy, that an alternative view would basically give the enemy a safe haven, but argues

...