Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett joins the team to discuss the inadmissibility of Abdul Raheem al-Nashiri's confession due to prior torture, conservative scholars arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies former President Trump, and Elon Musk's role in Ukrainian military efforts. The challenges of podcast production and the political complexities of resolving Guantanamo Bay are also explored.
The ruling on the inadmissibility of Abdul Raheem al-Nashiri's confession raises questions about the future of military commissions and the impact of prior torture on legal proceedings.
Conservative scholars argue that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who engaged in insurrection or provided aid to enemies of the US, could exclude former President Trump from future presidencies.
The profile of Elon Musk explores the unique role he and his company SpaceX play in Ukrainian military efforts, raising considerations about his influence in national security affairs and potential alternative approaches.
Deep dives
The Scope and Broad Impact of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment
This article delves into the interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, arguing that it disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion or have provided aid or comfort to enemies of the United States from holding public office. The authors assert that this disqualification is self-executing and does not require additional legislation to be implemented. Furthermore, they emphasize that the disqualifying conduct includes speech acts, which may not be protected by the First Amendment. The article appeals to originalism and asserts that a broad range of people involved in the events of January 6th, including former President Trump, could be disqualified from running for office based on the provisions of Section 3.
The Political Significance of the Section 3 Discussion
The article contributes to the ongoing discussion surrounding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and its implications for former President Trump's eligibility to run for office. It is seen as significant within the conservative legal movement and resonates with anti-Trump conservatives who point to this argument as evidence of his disqualification. The authors align themselves with originalist legal reasoning and cite other conservative legal scholars who have explored the topic. The impact and ultimate outcome of this discussion depend on how it is received by conservative justices on the Supreme Court and other relevant decision-makers.
Understanding the Practical Implications and Interpretation of Section 3
The article raises important questions about the practical implementation and interpretation of Section 3. It discusses the varied views on who should make decisions regarding disqualification, considering whether it should be Congress, courts, or election officials. It also examines the historical context and legal precedent to offer insight into the broad scope of disqualifying conduct outlined in Section 3. However, concerns are raised about the potential for abuse and the lack of clear avenues for review or correction in some cases, which could lead to unforeseen consequences and political controversies.
Recognizing Potential Downsides and Controversies of Section 3
While the article presents a compelling argument based on originalist legal reasoning, reservations are expressed regarding the broad implications of Section 3. The broad category of disqualifying conduct and the potential impact on freedom of speech raise concerns about the potential misuse or misinterpretation of this provision. The broad authority given to state and federal legislatures to determine eligibility could lead to differing interpretations and controversial decisions. The article acknowledges that these concerns might not be immediate or widespread but urges caution in reinvigorating a provision with ambiguous terms and potential for abuse.
The Potential Consequences of Invoking Section 3 for Disqualification
The podcast episode explores the potential consequences and concerns associated with invoking Section 3 for disqualification of public officials. It discusses the need for measures to constrain and restrict the use of Section 3 to prevent potential misuse for nefarious purposes. Additionally, it raises the possibility of enacting a law to clarify First Amendment protections and prevent Section 3 from being used as a basis for disqualification.
Elon Musk's Role in National Security and Foreign Policy
The podcast delves into the unique and complex role played by Elon Musk in US national security, particularly in relation to Ukraine. It discusses how Musk's companies, such as SpaceX, have become essential contributors in national defense efforts. However, it also highlights the concerns and challenges that arise when key policy areas and stability rely heavily on the actions and decisions of a single individual. The podcast prompts the question of whether this level of dependence on an individual is desirable and suggests the need for careful consideration and approaches to mitigate potential risks.
This week on Rational Security, Quinta and Scott were joined by Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett to break down the week’s big national security news stories, including:
“Home to Roost.” A judge in the military commission trying Abdul Raheem al-Nashiri, a suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing, has ruled that his confession is inadmissible on the grounds that it was tainted by his prior torture and interrogation at the hands of U.S. officials, even though the confession itself was extracted from a non-coercive “clean team.” What does this mean for the future of the Nashiri trial? And of the military commissions as a whole?
“Disqualification, Qualified.” A pair of leading conservative constitutional scholars has reignited the discussion surrounding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, arguing that it is self-executing and excludes former President Trump from the presidency. How persuasive are their arguments? And what impact will they actually have on the 2024 election?
“A Distinctive Musk.” The New Yorker has run a profile of Elon Musk, focusing in substantial part on the complicated but central role he and his company SpaceX have come to play in Ukrainian military efforts, despite his frequent flirtations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. What should we make of Musk’s important role in national security affairs? And are there better ways for the U.S. government to approach it?
