So what exactly is in the NDAA conference report that is prompting the agitation for a presidential veto? Here is a quick and dirty summary of “Subtitle D—Counterterrorism”—along with an explanation of why President Obama ought to veto the bill … Read more »
Another noteworthy development in the conference version of the NDAA is section 1025. Think of this as a new direction in the congressionalization of detention operations in Afghanistan.
What do I mean by congressionalization? I admit I just made that … Read more »
Politico reports that Senate and House negotiators have reached an agreement on the NDAA, with votes in both houses expected later this week…and then, on to the White House. The full text is available here. As for the highlights, … Read more »
The Congressional Research Service published on December 4 a report entitled “Detention of U.S. Persons as Enemy Belligerents,” which the Federation of American Scientists has posted. Its summary reads:
The detainee provisions passed as part of the National
… 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 »
[Updated 3:08 p.m] Last night, the Senate approved Senator Dianne Feinstein’s amendment (No. 3018) to the pending NDAA bill, regarding the military detention of citizens and lawful permanent residents. The vote was 67-29.
As Lawfarers well know by now, the … Read more »
Here’s the Obama Administration’s statement of policy regarding the Senate’s version of the NDAA for FY2013. The document begins as follows:
The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee’s continued support for our national defense and supports a large number
… Read more »
You want ‘em? We got ‘em.
Here are some more counterterrorism-relevant amendments to the Senate’s version of NDAA 2013—all offered by Senator Sessions: Nos. 3009 (conditioning the availability of certain funds for the Executive Office of the President on prior … Read more »
Apropos of the amendment proposed by Senator Feinstein and others, and tonight’s NDAA discussion in the Senate, here’s a quick review of S. 3254, the NDAA 2013 bill that the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously approved earlier this year.… Read more »
Senator Dianne Feinstein—along with Senators Lee, Coons, Collins, Paul, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Kirk—have introduced this amendment to the current NDAA, now on the Senator floor.
… Read more »
As Ritika noted earlier today, the New York Times editorial page has renewed its call for the Obama administration to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. (I’ll take it from Ben’s lack of snark that he judges the Times… Read more »
Senator Rand Paul’s rumored detention amendment got me reminiscing about S.2003, better known as the Due Process Guarantee Act (“DPGA”).
Remember this? It was Senator Feinstein’s proposal to clarify that force authorizations and like statutes would not be read so … Read more »
In his post on Senator Rand Paul’s proposal regarding citizens and the NDAA, Bobby highlights a recurring and important question: why is it so hard for ostensibly civil libertarian legislators explicitly to oppose the domestic detention of U.S. citizens? To … Read more »
Ben notes what appears to be a draft proposal from Senator Rand Paul to amend the NDAA so as to address situations involving American citizens captured inside the United States. While the context suggests that the drafters’ aim might be … Read more »
I’d like to expand on Ben’s post below in relation to Hedges and the First Amendment, focusing on the “material support”/”substantial support” issue. (I’m having to write quickly, so please excuse any typos in what follows.)
Specifically, I’d like to … Read more »
The other day, in response to Raha Wala’s comments on Hedges, I promised to address the First Amendment question at the heart of Judge Forrest’s ruling—a promise that seems to have excited David Remes. Steve Vladeck, however, beat … Read more »
Based on the voluminous media and blog coverage of last week’s decision in Hedges v. Obama, in which Judge Forrest permanently enjoined at least part of the detention provision of the FY2012 NDAA [section 1021(b)(2)], one of two things … Read more »