Some of the folks at Lawfare have published an "e-book", The Emerging Law of Detention 2.0: The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking, by Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies; Robert M. Chesney, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies; Larkin Reynolds, Legal Fellow, Governance Studies - all at The Brookings Institution.

The entire pdf download is only 1.46MB. The idea, as expressed here at Lawfare, is to provide a means of rapid updates. The appellate cases are moving faster than either book publishing or law review publishing can keep up:

It is with great pleasure that we announce the second edition of the The Emerging Law of Detention: The Guantanamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking. As many readers will remember, the first edition of this paper came out early last year and described the astonishing diversity of practice and law in the district court handling of Guantanamo habeas cases. The paper received a great deal of attention, positive and negative, but it was also quickly outdated by the D.C. Circuit’s rapid-fire intervention in the cases, which has across a range of areas reoriented the lower court.

The idea in this edition was both to bring the paper up to date and to do it in a fashion that would resist being rendered obsolete in the future. Hence the new version, which we are calling The Emerging Law of Detention 2.0.

The new version is specifically crafted as a living document, one that will be constantly updated as new opinions emerge. When you visit its home page, you will see that each chapter has a “last updated” date, so that the reader can tell how fresh it is. While we intend to keep both the statistical data and the chapters themselves reasonably current, the paper isn’t a blog; there will thus be an inevitable lag while we add analysis after opinions come out. We will also, over time, add sections to cover areas we have not considered. The idea is to create a fluid, constantly updated treatise that–at any given time–will function as a resources for those exploring the law of detention.

Unlike in the earlier version, which contained a clear normative call for greater clarity in the rules either from Congress or from the appellate courts, in version 2.0 we have endeavored to eschew normative judgments of any kind. While our views on the debate over common-law adjudication versus legislation are well known, our purpose here is not to engage that debate. We hope the paper will be as useful in informing those who argue for the common-law development of this body of law as it will be for those who urge that the project of judge-made detention rules is folly.

Finally, one of the virtues of this form of scholarship is that error correction is extremely easy. So if you think we have misinterpreted a case or if we have slipped up factually or gotten a citation wrong, please let us know. We hope the paper will be useful to a wide range of practitioners, judges, scholars, and students, and we hope it will get more so over time.
Note that the "law of detention" is "informed" by the Laws of War. Hence, many of the rules developed by the DC Circuit will apply to "kill or capture" missions. E.g., HVTs.

Regards

Mike