Skip to content

Category Archives: NDAA

Senate Begins Floor Debate on 2014 Defense Authorization

By
Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 11:28 AM

On Monday, the Senate approved in a 91-0 vote to proceed to debate on the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, and floor debate began today. We’ve covered the competing bills on Lawfare, one passed by the House and the other approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The bills part ways on, among other matters, the . . .
Read more »

That “Secret” White House Plan to Close Guantanamo

By
Friday, August 23, 2013 at 7:47 PM

A few weeks ago, Daniel Klaidman noted in the Daily Beast the existence of a White House memo outlining its proposal to close Guantanamo. The two-page document was circulated to members of Congress in advance of a July 24th Senate Judiciary hearing on the matter. The document was not made available publicly, but the Press Freedom Association has . . .
Read more »

Detainee Challenges Constitutionality of NDAA Transfer Restrictions

By
Saturday, August 17, 2013 at 6:32 AM

Yesterday, Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Adnan Ajam filed a motion for partial summary judgment and for declaratory relief in his habeas suit before the D.C. District Court. Ajam’s case takes a new approach to Guantanamo habeas litigation: Ajam challenges Section 1028 of the National Defense Authorization Act—the section which imposes detainee transfer restrictions on the President—as . . .
Read more »

Postwar: An Essay on Whether the Armed-Conflict Model Still Matters

By
Tuesday, August 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM

“Does it really matter, from a legal perspective, whether the U.S. government continues to maintain that it is in an armed conflict with al Qaeda?  When it comes to the use of lethal force and military detention, not nearly so much as both supporters and critics of the status quo commonly assume.” Those are the . . .
Read more »

The Construction of the NDAA in Hedges

By
Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Judge Lewis Kaplan’s excellent Second Circuit opinion in Hedges yesterday should end the controversy over whether the 2012 NDAA expands or merely codifies the government’s AUMF detention authority—though it almost surely won’t. The key discussion begins on page 33 and represents as lucid and straightforward an account of how to read the detention language of Section 1021 as . . .
Read more »

House vs. Senate on the NDAA

By
Sunday, June 30, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Raffaela has already posted on both the House of Representatives‘s and the Senate‘s versions of this year’s NDAA–highlighting their differences with regards to Guantanamo detentions and transfers. But I wanted to emphasize the point, which seems to me both very important and potentially offering a major breakthrough in the politics of Guantanamo. In the past, both . . .
Read more »

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s GTMO Transfer Provisions in the 2014 NDAA

By
Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) approved its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2014. (The House passed its iteration a week earlier.) The House version left intact the same prohibitions on the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo out of the detention facility as in previous defense authorization bills. The SASC, by . . .
Read more »

2014 NDAA Passes the House, With Many Amendments

By
Friday, June 14, 2013 at 4:00 PM

Over the last 24 hours, the House debated and voted on nearly 200 amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 (H.R. 1960). Many of these amendments were approved via “voice vote” (there was no formal recording of how members voted); quite a few others were approved en bloc (grouped together and voted on . . .
Read more »

White House Threatens Veto of NDAA

By
Wednesday, June 12, 2013 at 10:51 AM

OMB has issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) pointing out White House objections to various elements in pending NDAA legislation (H.R. 1960, the HASC NDAA FY’14 bill), and threatening to veto the legislation if changes are not made.  There are, of course, many different points of contention.  I’ll highlight two sections of the SAP . . .
Read more »

Sunsetting the AUMF: Rep. Schiff’s Proposal

By and
Monday, June 10, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Pardon the interruption from all-things-surveillance, but pursuant to our back and forth with Bobby, Jack, Matt, and Ben on the merits of a new AUMF, Representative Adam Schiff, a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, is planning to introduce legislation tomorrow that we think is worth taking a look at.  It sunsets a repeal of . . .
Read more »

HASC Chairman’s Mark of the 2014 NDAA

By
Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Apropos of Jack’s post: here’s the Chairman’s mark of the National Defense Authorization bill for 2014. Among many, many other things, the draft legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to notify congressional defense committees, afterwards, of certain kill or capture operations conducted by the armed forces abroad.  The bill also calls for the Secretary to submit . . .
Read more »

The President’s Speech: Lawmakers React to Obama’s Renewed Transfer Efforts

By
Friday, May 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Among the policies President Obama announced in his speech: a renewed commitment to transfer detainees to third countries, where possible. To that end, he said he would appoint a new GTMO-focused envoy at the Departments of State and Defense.  (Recall that the State Department office responsible for transfers was closed earlier this year and its primary staffer re-assigned). . . .
Read more »

The Washington Post, the AUMF, and Self-Defense

By
Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 11:16 AM

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 ensure that this president and his successors have the authority they need to defend the country.” There are at . . .
Read more »

After the AUMF, the Pithier Version…

By
Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 1:45 AM

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 Expand the War on Terror.”

Daskal and Vladeck Working Paper on “After the AUMF”

By
Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 6:15 AM

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 paper titled “After the AUMF,” a copy of which is available here. The paper is . . .
Read more »

A Quick Guide to the Lawfare Debate Over a New AUMF

By
Wednesday, May 8, 2013 at 2:33 AM

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 replaced. To that end, the Senate Armed Services Committee has now scheduled a hearing on the same . . .
Read more »

Libya(?) and the Case for a New AUMF

By and
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM

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 what Ben—and Bobby, Jack, and Matt—think are the “problematic” aspects of an approach that requires . . .
Read more »

A Question for Ben

By and
Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 10:18 AM

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 too aggressive and that he is not being aggressive enough—will go along with it, indeed, will insist . . .
Read more »

After the AUMF, III: A Surreply to Jack

By and
Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 12:28 AM

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 “the fundamental disagreement” between us and CGWW as the fact that we “believe that when the . . .
Read more »

After the AUMF, II: Daskal and Vladeck Reply

By and
Monday, March 18, 2013 at 7:16 PM

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 in order to help illuminate the key points of disagreement. (We’ve also had the benefit of . . .
Read more »