Larkin Reynolds: Difference between revisions
George Swan (talk | contribs) (more details) |
George Swan (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| language = | | language = | ||
| trans-title = | | trans-title = | ||
| archiveurl = | | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20211227223053/https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-emerging-law-of-detention-2-0-the-guantanamo-habeas-cases-as-lawmaking/ | ||
| archivedate = | | archivedate = 2021-12-28 | ||
| accessdate = 2022-03-30 | | accessdate = 2022-03-30 | ||
| url-status = live | | url-status = live | ||
| quote = | | quote = This state of affairs puts a premium on these cases not merely as a means of deciding the fate of the individuals in question but as a law-making exercise with broad implications for the future. <!-- The law established in these cases will in all likelihood govern not merely the Guantánamo detentions themselves but any other detentions around the world over which American courts might acquire habeas jurisdiction—although, as we discuss briefly below, the prospects for wider habeas jurisdiction are unclear. What’s more, to the extent that these cases establish substantive and procedural rules governing the application of law-of-war detention powers in general, they could end up impacting detentions far beyond those immediately supervised by the federal courts; indeed, they might even have an indirect but significant impact on superficially unrelated military activities, such as the planning of operations and decisions to target suspected enemy combatants with lethal force. In short, the legislature’s passivity to date combined with President Obama’s decision not to seek new law to address these questions have together delegated to the courts a remarkable task: defining the rules of military detention. --> | ||
}} | }} | ||
[https://web.archive.org/web/20211227223053/https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-emerging-law-of-detention-2-0-the-guantanamo-habeas-cases-as-lawmaking/ mirror 2021-12-28] | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 20:49, 1 April 2022
| Larkin Reynolds | |
|---|---|
| Occupation | lawyer |
Larkin Reynolds is an American lawyer and counter-terrorism specialist.[1][2] Reynolds is a frequent contributor to Lawfare. At Harvard Reynolds studied under terrorism expert Jessica Stern.[3] While a student Reynolds interned at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, and the National Security Division of the Department of Justice. While at Harvard Law School Reynolds was the founding editor of the Harvard National Security Journal. In 2010 and 2011 Reynolds was a fellow at the Brooking Institute. In 2011 she joined the law firm Wilmer Hale.
In May 2011 Reynolds was a co-author of a paper entitled "The Emerging Law of Detention 2.0: The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking", that argued that Judges were being forced to make the law, since the laws on fighting counter-terrorism, and, specifically, the laws on the legality of detaining suspects indefinitely, without charge, were poorly defined.[4]
Education
| year | degree | institution | details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | B.A. | New York University | International Relations |
| 2010 | J.D. | Harvard Law School | Law degree |
References
- ↑ Posts by Larkin Reynolds, Lawfare. Retrieved on 2012-07-16.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Larkin Reynolds: Associate. Wilmer Hale. Retrieved on 2012-07-17.
- ↑ A Terrorism Expert Turns Her Gaze Inward". The Chronicle Review. 2010-06-20. https://chronicle.com/article/A-Terrorism-Expert-Turns-Her/65989/. Retrieved, The Chronicle Review, 2010-06-20. Retrieved on 2012-07-16. “During an informal class session held at her home, Stern told the students about her latest work and about what led her to pursue it. Her students say Stern's "intellectual honesty," as one of them, Larkin Reynolds, put it, allowed them to have deeper discussions and to take scholarly risks, arguing over such potentially incendiary ideas as the morality of torture.”
- ↑ Larkin Reynolds, Benjamin Wittes, Robert M. Chesney. The Emerging Law of Detention 2.0: The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking, Brookings Institution, 2011-05-12. Retrieved on 2022-03-30. “This state of affairs puts a premium on these cases not merely as a means of deciding the fate of the individuals in question but as a law-making exercise with broad implications for the future.” mirror 2021-12-28