I am very pleased to note the success of Lawfare in attracting readers and in shaping the law/national security debate, and not just because I guest-blogged at Lawfare one time, or because Jack Goldsmith once had nice things to say in passing about an article I wrote. Rather, I am pleased by Lawfare's success because I think that the site does a wonderful job of discussing the intersection of law and national security. Its writers are terrific at both reporting law/national security news and at writing what they think about the latest developments in the field. That's no mean feat. Lawfare's writers clearly have strong opinions on the issues of the day, but they respect their readership enough to give them oodles of relevant, timely and important information so that readers can make up their own minds on the issues the site covers and discusses. I like blogs that treat their readers like smart people, and Lawfare is a prime example of a blog that makes the Internet a better place by markedly improving the level of online conversation and discourse.

The blog has now transformed into a non-profit institute. It is soliciting donations to help with site maintenance, and it will be applying for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status. Of course, I heartily encourage you to support this blog, but you should support Lawfare and the Lawfare Institute as well--for a better blogosphere, better reporting and editorializing on law and national security issues, and a higher quality of discussion on policy formulation and implementation.

President Obama gave a speech to the National Defense University today that outlined his counterterrorism policy in general, and his administration's policy on drones in particular. Deutsche Welle interviewed yours truly on the new policy:

Pejman Yousefzadeh, a Chicago-based lawyer who specializes in public policy, cautiously welcomed Obama's initiative towards greater transparency, but questioned the efficacy of a new policy. "I don't know if a blanket guideline is going to be as useful as bilateral diplomacy with the countries in question," he told DW. "Some countries may privately welcome US intervention against terrorists, but have to condemn the US in public."

Yousefzadeh is also concerned about accountability. "You can't have a US president's war policy that is completely free of congressional oversight," he said.

To that end, Yousefzadeh thinks Obama would do better to establish a "Federal Intelligence Commission," an independent regulatory agency that would review any targets the White House has identified. Though as commander in chief, the president would still be able to overrule such a commission's findings, he would have to tell Congress he is doing so, making the program much more transparent and subject to a legal process.

My thoughts on the establishment and uses of a Federal Intelligence Commission are spelled out in my article on drone policy for the Atlantic Council, which was originally linked to here.