Steve Vladeck is a professor of law and the associate dean for scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. A 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, Steve clerked for Judge Marsha Berzon on the Ninth Circuit and Judge Rosemary Barkett on the Eleventh Circuit. In addition to serving as a senior editor of the Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Steve is also the co-editor of Aspen Publishers’ leading National Security Law and Counterterrorism Law casebooks. Full bio »
Ben quotes from this morning’s Washington Post editorial on AUMF reform, the last two sentences of which assert that “Countering the jihadists with intelligence and law enforcement tools manifestly failed before Sept. 11, 2001. Congress would be wise to … Read more »
For those who’d prefer the shorter version of Jen Daskal and my draft paper on life “After the AUMF,” we’ve got a short op-ed out in today’s New York Times with a far less alliterative title: “Don’t … Read more »
In advance of Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), Jen Daskal and I have expanded upon our exchanges with Bobby, Jack, Matt, and Ben in a new (draft) working … Read more »
Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last, it appears that the Supreme Court disagrees with me–and doesn’t think the constitutionality of courts-martial for civilian contractors is worth its time. [H/T: SCOTUSblog.]
Ben is shocked (shocked!) by Harold Koh’s invocation of indefeasible presidential powers in his Oxford Union speech. But insofar as Ben is implicitly accusing the former Legal Adviser to the State Department of hypocrisy merely for having the temerity … Read more »
As Andrew Rosenthal noted in yesterday’s New York Times, things seem to be heating up in Congress with respect to whether–and to what extent–the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) needs to be updated, repealed, and/or … Read more »
We’ve written a fair amount already about Chief Judge Lamberth’s September 2012 decision regarding the Guantánamo detainees’ continuing right of access to counsel (not to mention his March 2013 decision criticizing the government for its foot-dragging in declassifying various filings … Read more »
Next Thursday, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to grant certiorari in United States v. Ali–the case in which the highest court in the military justice system, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), unanimously … Read more »
As Raff noted last week, the lawyers for the defendant-appellant in United States v. al-Bahlul–the military commission case in which the D.C. Circuit surprisingly granted rehearing en banc–had moved to “clarify” the scope of such rehearing, including … Read more »
Regular readers may recall my and Wells‘s posts on the public/media access issues that arose out of the 9/11 military commission trial, along with the (in my view, erroneous) resolution of the ACLU and media appeals last month by … Read more »
As the recent decisions by the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) in the Guantánamo military commission ACLU/media access cases suggests, there are a host of complicated and heretofore unresolved questions about the scope of appellate and collateral review of … Read more »
See this letter from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Lietzau, on behalf of Secretary Hagel…
At bottom, it seems increasingly clear that there are two very different accounts out there about what’s happening on the ground at Guantánamo–that provided by … Read more »
Last Monday, I flagged Chief Judge Lamberth’s important new decision in a Guantánamo habeas case–Barre v. Obama–in which, among other things, he excoriated the government for how long it has taken them to release declassified (and therefore public) … Read more »
Wells blogged previously about the efforts of various media groups and the ACLU to seek mandamus review before the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR), challenging the scope of the protective order (which covers, among other things, the 9/11 trial) … Read more »
Even for those keeping up with the Guantánamo litigation, this decision by Chief Judge Lamberth, a declassified version of which was released on Friday, may have slipped under the radar. The specific issue in Barre v. Obama is yet another … Read more »
While we appreciate Ben’s answer to our question (and share his view that we’re reaching the point of the conversation where everything has been said and everyone has said it), we still fail to understand how the Libya example illuminates … Read more »
Ben writes that it is the “political reality” that “any president is going to feel obliged to maintain counterterrorism on offense,” i.e., counterterrorism through military means, “and Congress—whining, carping, complaining all the way both that the president is being … Read more »
It’s quickly becoming apparent that we and Jack appear to be talking past each other on the merits of the Chesney/Goldsmith/Waxman/Wittes (CGWW) proposal for a new framework statute for “extra-AUMF threats.” In Jack’s final response, for example, he frames … Read more »
We appreciate Jack’s quick and comprehensive clarification of his views—and of what the CGWW proposal we critiqued last night seeks to achieve. Like Jack, we want to start by emphasizing the many areas of agreement between us and CGWW … Read more »
In the very first days after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration asked Congress for broad statutory authorization to use military force to “deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United … Read more »
This could be a very big deal… Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has issued a 24-page opinion striking down 18 U.S.C. §§ 2709(c) and 3511(b)–the provisions that prohibit the recipients … Read more »
Pretty big decision by the D.C. Circuit this morning, reversing the district court’s dismissal of the ACLU’s drone-related FOIA suit against the CIA on the ground that the Agency’s “Glomar response” was not justified. (Jack previewed and … Read more »
The more I reflect on last week’s drone contretemps–and what effect the efforts of Senator Paul and his followers has had / may still have on U.S. policy–the more I have a profound and distressing sense of déjà vu. After … Read more »
I’m not at all happy that today’s news out of upstate New York proves the point that Jack and I (and a cast of dozens) have tried to make about domestic use of lethal force, but it’s worth pointing out … Read more »
For those of our readers who are members of the Federalist Society, its next “teleforum” conference call is tomorrow at 1 p.m. (EST) on the subject of “The Use of Lethal Force on U.S. Citizens.” The three panelists are Andrew … Read more »
Jack is certainly right that Senator Paul “is painting a misleadingly very unattractive picture of the circumstances in which the United States uses drones abroad in words that will now be played around the world as credible statements of U.S. … Read more »
Back in January, we devoted a fair amount of attention to the DOJ Supplemental Brief in the al-Bahlul military commission appeal–and the rather significant internal debate within the Administration about whether to accept the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Hamdan II… Read more »
One of the more interesting structural constitutional questions to emerge from the post-9/11 detention litigation has been the previously under-explored relationship between the Constitution’s Suspension and Due Process Clauses–and the extent to which they might do separate work with regard … Read more »
Via the Center for Constitutional Rights comes news of this alarming development–”that most of the men at Guantánamo have been on hunger strike for more than three weeks,” apparently in response to a series of incidents in which camp … Read more »
Amidst all the hubbub earlier this week, we neglected to note the filing of a new cert. petition in a Guantánamo habeas case–in Obaydullah v. Obama, filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Our coverage of the D.C. Circuit’s … Read more »
While some other stuff was going on yesterday, my friend Lindsay Harrison at Jenner & Block and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and in support of certiorari in United States … Read more »
For those who can’t get in to the Supreme Court oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, and who aren’t otherwise enticed by the Journal of National Security Law & Policy‘s inaugural symposium, “Swimming in the Ocean … Read more »
There’s been a fair amount of buzz over the past few days centered around the idea of a statutory “drone court”–a tribunal modeled after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that would (presumably) provide at least some modicum of due … Read more »
There’s certainly a lot to say about the DOJ white paper on targeted killings, much of which has been said already (and well) by others (see Raff’s “Headlines and Commentary” post for links). At the risk of being unintentionally … Read more »
Michael Isikoff from NBC News has posted a copy of a 16-page DOJ “white paper” on the legality of targeted killings–especially vis-a-vis U.S. citizens. The memo itself is here; story here. I’m sure lots of folks (myself included) … Read more »
Ritika already posted about AEI’s panel yesterday on Zero Dark Thirty, along with a link to the video of the proceedings. Given the composition of the panel, one can hardly be surprised by overall tenor of the AEI … Read more »
Although our own coverage of this week’s pre-trial proceedings in the 9/11 military commission trial at Guantánamo already covered the issue in some detail, I couldn’t help but be taken by Amy Davidson’s post on the New Yorker‘s Daily … Read more »
A while back, I posted about a forthcoming article by Carlos Vázquez (Georgetown) and me on the relationship between Bivens remedies and state law, especially in national security cases. I’m very pleased to say that the published version of … Read more »
To commemorate (if that’s even the right word) the eleventh anniversary of the detention of non-citizens at Guantánamo, Oscar-nominated filmmaker Laura Poitras (whose work includes, among others, The Oath) has this short op-ed and movie up on the New … Read more »
Yesterday, we posted the government’s supplemental brief in the Al Bahlul military commission appeal in the D.C. Circuit, the headline of which was the government’s concession that Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion for the Court of Appeals in Hamdan II requires reversal … Read more »
…is available here. In a nutshell:
Hamdan II requires reversal of Bahlul’s convictions by military commission of providing material support for terrorism, conspiracy to commit war crimes, and solicitation to commit war crimes. Because the Court is bound by
Under the snazzy headline “Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns,” today’s Washington Post has a long article on the overseas arrest, detention, and subsequent criminal indictment in New York (civilian) federal court of three “European men with Somali roots.” … Read more »
About six weeks ago, I flagged the (in my view, alarming) filing by the government of a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit in the Guantanamo MOU/continuing access-to-counsel litigation. Late last night, the government filed this unopposed motion … Read more »
Back in early November, Ben and I blogged about Fordham Professor Andrew Kent’s provocative new essay, “Do Boumediene Rights Expire?,” which he published in “PENNumbra,” the online companion to the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. … Read more »
Below the fold, I’m pasting in a reply by Jon Hafetz from Seton Hall to last Friday’s post by Marty Lederman and me on the new Feinstein Amendment and the military detention of non-citizens apprehended within the United States–which was … Read more »
As Wells and Steve noted last week, the Senate approved the “Feinstein Amendment” to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Amendment, if enacted, would impose a clear statement rule for the detention of U.S. citizens and … Read more »
Wells is exactly right–and Senators Levin and Graham are exactly wrong–about the implications of last night’s Senate vote approving Senator Feinstein’s amendment to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Wells linked to the amendment, but here is the relevant … Read more »
Courtesy of Todd Ruger from the National Law Journal, it appears that D.C. Circuit Chief Judge David Sentelle will be taking senior status as of February 12, 2013. That will reduce to seven the total number of active D.C. … Read more »
In his response to Andrea Prasow, Ben suggests that, in continuing to object to military commissions that have been blessed by two Congresses and both the Bush and Obama Administrations, “Human Rights Watch sound[s] a bit like conservatives will … Read more »
Back in June, I wrote a fairly lengthy post analyzing the ability of detainees in U.S. custody facing extradition or other involuntary transfer to a foreign sovereign to challenge their transfer pursuant to the federal statute implementing the United States’ … Read more »
Friday, May 17, 2013
The Department of Justice’s Inspector General released an interim report on the Department’s handling of “known or suspected” terrorists who have entered the government’s witness protection program. The report found, among other things, that information on some program participants had not been turned over to no-fly list authorities; and, that two such people could not be located—though one… Read more »
