Military

The Trump administration's lethal strikes are the apotheosis of the last quarter century's often always secret and often unreviewable executive branch legal reasoning.

The science is sound, the stockpile is strong, and the call to test a nuclear bomb has no technical foundation. Resuming testing would not make America safer.

A mock “operational legal review” depicting what a staff judge advocate’s advice should have been prior to the first reported strike on an alleged drug trafficking vessel.

Civilian harm is not entirely avoidable during armed conflict, but it can be anticipated and its severity limited. In Asia-Pacific, this depends entirely on steps taken now.

The only way States can avoid complicity in “arbitrary killings” under international human rights law is to refrain from sharing intelligence that, in part, enables them.

DOJ’s recent decision to appoint several military lawyers, or JAGs, to serve as immigration judges is not only against the law, but a bad idea.

Trump’s threat of military intervention in Nigeria may be intended more for domestic audiences and wouldn't address the drivers of the country's conflict.

We should create universal access to national service: a year-long opportunity for every young American. The unity and future of our democracy demands it.

Drones are rapidly changing war. Without urgent, collective action, their use will lead to greater civilian harm in conflicts.

Clearly, U.S. actions are threatening to Venezuela. But do they amount to an unlawful threat under international law, or are they merely a lawful show of force?

The administration's legal argument is both "incorrect and dangerous," writes Finucane.

Expert backgrounder on how War Powers Resolution works in application to U.S. military operations against suspected drug cartels.