The dissent in the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Doe suffers from a self-defeating logical error.
Latest in Detention: Non-Guantanamo Habeas Litigation
Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Doe v. Mattis, the case of a dual U.S.-Saudi citizen (John Doe) detained in Iraq by the U.S. military.
Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in Doe v. Mattis on January 23, declining to further enjoin the government from transferring Doe out of U.S. custody but requiring the government to provide both the court and the ACLU with 72 hours' notice prior to Doe's transfer.
If ACLU v. Mattis eventually reaches the underlying merits, the court will need to wrestle with the historical backdrop that informed ratification of the Suspension Clause and its operation through much of American history along with difficult questions going to the extraterritorial application of the United States Constitution.
The government's emerging position that it can prevent courts from addressing merits of the military detention of an unnamed U.S. citizen by declining indefinitely to identify him should be rejected—with nuance.
Gabor's post from this morning, which is styled as a response to Ben's thoughtful analysis of what it will take to close Guantánamo (while ignoring some of the other responses), concludes that the only meaningful way to "close" Guantánamo is for President Obama "to either release all detainees or try them in our time-tested federal courts," at least largely because moving the detainees into the United States wou
In October 2009, Ali Saleh Al-Marri was sentenced to more than eight years in prison under a plea deal the Al Qaeda sleeper agent had struck with federal prosecutors.
Findings, Conclusions and Areas of Dispute Between the SSCI Report, the Minority and the CIA: Part 2
Below, you will find the second installment in our ongoing effort to identify, in summary form, key areas of dispute as between the SSCI, the SSCI minority, and the CIA with regard the CIA's detention and interrogation program. As you surely know by now, all three today released long-anticipated reports regarding the CIA's post-9/11 detention and interrogation activities.
Last week, a British court allowed civil tort claims against the British government to proceed. In Rahmatullah v. Ministry of Defence, the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) held that a former Pakistani detainee—captured by the United Kingdom but then transferred to American custody—was not barred from suing by either the state immunity or the foreign act of state doctrines.
The Congressional Research Service has put out a new report entitled "Judicial Activity Concerning Enemy Combatant Detainees: Major Court Rulings."
The summary reads, in part: