Both Jack Goldsmith and Harold Koh have recently written about the constitutionality of congressional restrictions on the transfer of prisoners. The President’s veto last week of the NDAA was based in part on his objection to the restrictions it places on such transfers.
Latest in NDAA
Granted, the NDAA FY'16 has just been vetoed, and there probably aren't enough votes in Congress to override. But should it be the case that a deal gets worked out on the budget squabble, we may well see a version of it signed into law eventually. What else is interesting about it, besides the GTMO transfer constraints?
President Barack Obama has followed up on his promise to veto the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.
This discussion took place this morning at Brookings. Brookings described it as follows:
On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed its markup of the annual defense authorization bill by a vote of 22-4. Shortly after the vote, committee chairman Senator John McCain told reporters that “very importantly, this legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on the issue of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.” Some news outlets apparently read more into this than they should have.
A markup of the FY2016 defense bill---which includes, as per usual and among other things, provisions restricting transfers of Guantanamo detainees---will get underway at 10:00 a.m. at the House Armed Services Committee.
Embedded video is below; a copy of the Chairman's mark can be found here. (Interested readers can find NDAA-related background here, too.)
Everyone should read Bobby's post from last night on the potential approach of an endgame for the 122 detainees still in custody at Guantánamo.
As promised, here it is.
The rather unfortunate-seeming proposal provides, in full:
114TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S.__
To extend and enhance prohibitions and limitations with respect to the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
As I read the exchange between Bryan, Wells and Jack about law enforcement versus military methods of dealing with terrorism, I was reminded of a speech I gave at the Brookings Institution in 2010, which was later turned into an article. And, perhaps not surprisingly, I found that I continu
Yesterday at Lawfare, Bryan Cunningham sought to breathe new life into the “military versus law enforcement” debate over terrorism, along the way deeming the horrific assaults in Paris to be “consequences” of France’s police-centric strategy. He thus finds fault with the current counterterrorism regime generally, and invites others to join in a broader discussion about how to improve things. Allow me to take him up on that---chiefly by registering strong disagreement with his account.