On April 19, Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in Doe v. Mattis on the government's proposed transfer of John Doe. The court unsealed the opinion on Monday:
Latest in detention
Enjoining the Transfer of a US-Saudi Citizen to Saudi Arabia: A Doe v. Mattis Update and Initial Preview
Since this article's publishing, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has released Judge Chutkan's ruling. Read it on Lawfare.
Can the U.S. government transfer a dual U.S.-Saudi citizen, without his consent, from U.S. military custody in Iraq to Saudi custody in Saudi Arabia? This issue has been percolating for a while in federal court, but the case is now heading rapidly towards an answer.
On Tuesday, April 17, the Justice Department filed a notice alerting the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of the government's intention to transfer John Doe, an American citizen held in U.S. military detention in Iraq, to an unnamed third country. Under the terms of a preliminary injunction issued by the court, the government is required to provide 72 hours' notice before transferring Doe.
On Tuesday, the Justice Department filed a notice informing the D.C. federal district court of the government's intention to transfer the detained John Doe U.S.-citizen enemy combatant to the custody of another country in no fewer than 72 hours. The government filed the heavily redacted notice pursuant to Judge Tanya Chutkan's Jan.
On Thursday, April 5, the D.C.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Mattis is a would-be habeas corpus petition brought by the ACLU Foundation on behalf of an unnamed American citizen whom the U.S. government has been holding in military detention in Iraq since September.
Editor’s Note: The International Criminal Court (ICC) is about to investigate U.S. actions in Afghanistan and controversial interrogation practices—a decision the United States has long quietly opposed. What to do about the investigation, however, is complex, as open defiance of the ICC may have significant costs. David Bosco of Indiana University proposes a compromise: The United States would affirm its support for the ICC's general goals but stress that it should only include member states, not America or other non-members.
On Nov. 30, the Justice Department responded to D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan's order in ACLU v. Mattis for the government to say whether the unnamed American citizen detainee being held as an enemy combatant had requested counsel and whether he invoked his right to habeas corpus. The ACLU then filed a reponse brief. On Dec. 1, the Justice Department filed a response opposing the ACLU's brief. All three documents are below.
On October 30th, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will hold a hearing titled "The Authorizations for Use of Military Force: Adminstration Perspective," featuring Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson. This is a good thing. We should have an updated AUMF. But, failing that, we should at least have regular and serious hearings in which Congress elicits information about how the President currently construes these authorities.
Assessing the ACLU Habeas Petition on Behalf of the Unnamed U.S. Citizen Held as an Enemy Combatant in Iraq
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a John Doe habeas petition on behalf of the still-not-identified American citizen the U.S. military is holding as an enemy combatant in Iraq (for background, see here). The case is Doe v. Mattis, No. 17-cv-02069, and it was filed in federal district court in D.C. Here is my preliminary assessment.