This just in from the Department of Justice:
Today at 6:30 pm, the White House issued the following Fact Sheet and a Presidential Policy Directive that sets forth procedures implementing Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY
I’ve blogged before about S. 2003, the “Due Process Guarantee Act” introduced late last year by Senator Feinstein, which would amend the Non-Detention Act to provide that
An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any
NPR had a story today concerning the process of selecting between civilian and military commission prosecution options. It’s an important topic. Unfortunately, the story included the following mistaken description of the NDAA’s impact:
…But here’s what’s new: the new Defense
The US government is considering transferring a group of five Taliban detainees from GTMO to Qatar (to be held there by Qatari authorities) in furtherance of peace negotiations in relation to Afghanistan. Of course, as we all know, Congress has … Read more »
Last year, at this time, I wrote a hot-headed little post objecting the signing statement President Obama issued in connection with last year’s defense authorization act. This year’s signing statement, which Steve posted the other day, seems to me … Read more »
By Marty Lederman and Steve Vladeck*
[Cross-posted at OpinioJuris]
Section 1021 of the NDAA and the Laws of War
In our companion post, we explained that section 1021 of the NDAA will not have the dramatic effects that … Read more »
By Marty Lederman and Steve Vladeck*
[Cross-posted at OpinioJuris]
Editorial pages and blogs have been overrun in the past couple of weeks with analyses and speculation about the detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, which the President … Read more »
According to the AP, President Obama signed H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act, into law this morning in Hawaii. Below the fold is the text of the signing statement accompanying the bill:
A dispatch from the Lawfare North Pole: the White House seems to be using more aggressive language, in opposing Congress’s recent efforts to limit the executive branch’s authority over detainee affairs.
Two days ago, the Administration released a statement on … Read more »
Stephen Voss, a philosophy professor at Bogazici University in Istanbul, writes in with the following response to Bobby’s and my NDAA FAQ:
The current NDAA contains, in section 1021, legislation that may drastically expand the government’s detention authority. The
Joanne Mariner of Hunter College’s Human Rights Program, writing at Justicia.com, has this lengthy analysis of the NDAA from a human rights and civil liberties point of view. It is the first half of a two-part series.
Raha Wala of Human Rights First has rewritten Bobby and my NDAA FAQ. Here is his very commendable effort:
While I agree that much of he public discussion of the NDAA provisions has been hyperbolic, I also think there’s much
The volume of sheer, unadulterated nonsense zipping around the internet about the NDAA boggles the mind. There was a time–only a few months ago–when the NDAA detention provisions were the obscure province of a small group of national security law … Read more »
In our final installment of NDAA transcripts, we bring you the Senate’s debate on December 15th on the conference report’s detention provisions.
Here are some highlights:
Senators Carl Levin and John McCain tout the strengths of the detention provisions starting … Read more »
David Cole, writing in the New York Review of Books blog, has this essay on the President’s decision not to veto the NDAA. Key passage:
the law as amended continues to contain extraordinarily dangerous principles. It creates a presumption in
You can read the detention-specific portions of the December 14th House debate on the conference report here.
Here are some highlights:
Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) presented a strident opposition to the provisions. His comments begin right on page 1:… Read more »
It may surprise some readers, but I find myself oddly attracted to the Due Process Guarantee Act–which Steve described last night. The bill is cast as a response to the NDAA detention authorization provisions. But I’m not really sure … Read more »
Well that was fast… With the ink barely dry on the Senate’s passage of the NDAA, Senator Feinstein yesterday introduced on behalf of herself and 13 Senate colleagues (including Republican Senators Lee, Kirk, and Paul) the “Due Process Guarantee … Read more »
The House has passed the conference version of the NDAA. It will go on to the Senate, probably coming up tomorrow (Thursday). With the White House veto threat lifted, the NDAA likely will be law in very short order.
After … Read more »
The White House has issued the following statement announcing that–and why–it will not veto the NDAA:
Statement from the Press Secretary on the NDAA Bill
We have been clear that “any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities … Read more »
Here is a letter from Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, defending and clarifying the detention provisions in the NDAA and advocating for its passage.
Dear Colleague:
One of the most important issues
For reasons I plan to elaborate upon in this and subsequent posts, I’m not at all convinced that the conference version of the NDAA is substantially better than the House or Senate version (or that either is better than nothing)… … Read more »
I am still digesting the new NDAA language, and I’m not yet ready to say how come out on it. It is, without question, significantly better than either the House or Senate bills. Yet some of its provisions remain deeply … Read more »
The conference report for the NDAA is now available. Subtitle D, entitled “Counterterrorism,” begins on page 653 and runs through page 685. The conferees’ explanation of their choices begins on page 158 of a separate document.
I will blog as … Read more »
President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, has given an extended interview to NPR on the administration’s view of the NDAA’s detainee affairs provision and its threat to veto the legislation. Not a lot new in the interview, but it … Read more »
In a prior post surveying the impact of the Senate version of the NDAA bill (currently in conference negotiations), I emphasized that the Feinstein Amendment made clear that the NDAA did not alter, one way or the other, the government’s … Read more »
There’s barely a true fact in it, but it’s very funny:
…were like this one, my eccentric campaign against the paper’s factual rigor would never have begun. There’s a nit I could pick, but it certainly contains no howlers. And, in addition, it’s right.
The following is a continuation of our side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate versions of the NDAA:
The House version of the bill (Section 1039, p. 586) contains a specific prohibition … Read more »
[UPDATE (12/9/11): See here for my updated assessment as to US citizens captured abroad.]
On the day that the Senate passed its version of the NDAA, I wrote a post in the morning addressing whether the bill could be read … Read more »
As the House of Representatives and the Senate head to conference on the NDAA, I thought it might be useful to analyze the similarities and differences between the counterterrorism provisions of the two versions of the bill. People sometimes talk … Read more »
Matt Waxman (who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs from 2004 to 2005) and I have written a short article for the Council on Foreign Relations expressing concern about the detainee provisions of the NDAA, based … Read more »
Peter Margulies of the Roger Williams School of Law writes in with the following comments on the implications of the NDAA for extradition efforts:
September 11 made clear that “too many cooks” are not only bad for broth, but fatal
As Raff explains below, there was one amendment to S. 1867′s detainee section that made it through: Senator Feinstein’s amendment stating that the bill should not be read as favoring or disfavoring an interpretation of the AUMF (or section … Read more »
The Senate passed the NDAA (S. 1867) last night on a 93-7 vote. The seven senators who voted against final passage are:
Senator Feinstein’s amendment, which would have limited applicability of the NDAA’s detention provisions to terrorism suspects captured abroad, was rejected in a 45-55 vote this afternoon. There was a very lengthy debate on the adoption of this amendment yesterday afternoon … Read more »
There is a lot to talk about in regard to S. 1867, the NDAA bill currently under debate, other than section 1031 and 1032. Take section 1036. It’s rather amazing this provisions hasn’t generated more attention. Here’s the text:
SEC.
I always read what Conor Friedersdorf has to say over at the Atlantic. He’s thoughtful and focused on the merits, and offers an important libertarian perspective on matters including the NDAA debate. I do think his most recent post is … Read more »
You can read the edited transcript from the Senate’s debate yesterday on the detention provisions here. Previous coverage is available here and here. This includes debate on the Sessions amendment starting on page 4, the Feinstein amendments starting … Read more »
[THIRD UPDATE (12/9/11): See here for my updated assessment as to US citizens captured abroad.]
[SECOND UPDATE (12/7/11): Thanks to a flood of emails and calls, I am aware that a great many readers remain unaware that the Senate bill … Read more »
As so many of you have found our earlier post of the Senate debate over the NDAA useful, we wanted to offer legislative materials related to the Senate’s deliberations. I will continue to update this post with new materials, as … Read more »
The amendment to the Senate NDAA by Senator Mark Udall to strip out the detention provisions of the bill has gone down. The vote, 37 for it, and 61 against, wasn’t even close.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has written a letter to SASC Chairman Levin voicing the FBI’s concerns over §1032 of the current version of the NDAA.
The FBI’s concerns are twofold (quoting the letter):
First, by establishing a presumption
Senator Mark Udall of Colorado is pushing an amendment to the NDAA to strip the bill of its detainee-affairs provisions and require further study of the relevant issues from both the executive branch and relevant congressional committees. Here is the … Read more »
I missed this before Thanksgiving, I’m afraid, but fortunately, the invaluable Josh Gerstein did not:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is joining the chorus of Obama administration voices warning against detainee-related language in a pending Senate defense authorization bill.
Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First writes in with the following comments on Latif and the detention provisions of the NDAA:
There’s already been great commentary on the Latif case here from Ben, Sabin Willett and others. On Sunday
Ben wrote last week about the Administration’s threat to veto the Defense Authorization Bill, in large part because of its detainee transfer and related provisions. As Josh Gerstein notes, “whether for political reasons or due to some complex internal … Read more »
Finally, the administration has spoken clearly, directly, and with direct references to consequences–a veto–about the detainee provisions of the NDAA. The White House’s Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate version of the DNA has none of the problems … Read more »
Well, apropos of my prior post, the White House has in fact now issued a veto threat in relation to the detainee provisions in the NDAA. The full text of the SAP is here, and the detainee-relevant language appears … Read more »
I was just reading a piece by Adam Serwer (Mother Jones) regarding the NDAA detainee provisions, and came across this pithy line from Ben:
“If Congress is going to take the president seriously, it has to believe the president is
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Leading the news: President Obama speaks today at the National Defense University on counterterrorism policy. Many are previewing the speech, including John. According to the New York Times’s Charlie Savage and Peter Baker, Obama will announce more stringent targeting criteria for non-battlefield strikes. This approach will govern the use of force against both citizens and non-citizens.
Here are the Washington … Read more »
