|
|
| Larkin Reynolds
|
| Occupation
|
lawyer
|
Larkin Reynolds is an American lawyer and counterterrorism 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 counterterrorism, and, specifically, the laws on the legality of detaining suspects indefinitely, without charge, were poorly defined.[4]
Education
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
|
