Since the first detainees arrived in 2002, the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay has become nearly synonymous with the moral and legal quandaries posed by the “war on terror.” The camp’s location—on the island of Cuba, outside U.S. territory but de facto under total U.S. control—creates ambiguous legal obligations. And after the Bush administration began using the Guantanamo naval base as a place to hold detainees in the “war on terror,” questions soon arose over the use of torture and military commissions, along with the legality of military detention itself. Though President Barack Obama pledged to close the detention center, Guantanamo has proved a difficult knot to unravel: the Obama administration continues to transfer remaining detainee away from the base, but debate continues over when and how Guantanamo will finally be closed.
Latest in Guantanamo
The latest appeal, one in a long line of many, raises again an interesting issue about whether the military commission convening authority is properly appointed under the U.S. Constitution.
As Guantanamo inches toward closure, the story of Saifullah Paracha and his son Uzair tells us much about the contradictions of U.S. policy during the global war on terror. Their intertwined stories undercut the notion that Guantanamo was or ever could be a legal system separate and apart from the federal courts.
Al-Qahtani’s own Mixed Medical Commission was mooted by his repatriation, but his case may have opened up a new avenue for Guantanamo detainees.
The court decided that the federal government could invoke the state secrets privilege to block two CIA contractors from testifying about a Guantanamo detainee’s treatment at a CIA black site.
With the departure of U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan earlier this year, the United States ended the central front of its longest war. However, one relic from that war remains: The indefinite detention of presumed combatants at Guantanamo Bay.
As the organizational scope of the post-9/11 armed conflict evolves, so too does the scope of military detention authority. A court’s ruling this week illustrates that it is shrinking.
The whole D.C. Circuit is set to rehear a case that could decisively determine whether foreign aliens held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional due process rights.
Has the statutory foundation for detention of enemy combatants quietly collapsed thanks to changing circumstances in Afghanistan? Justice Stephen Breyer is urging his colleagues to take up that question. Today they passed on the opportunity, but what if they had not?
On Jan. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Qassim v. Trump. This panel follows after the court’s denial on Khalid Ahmed Qassim’s initial request of hearing his appeal en banc.
The fear of blame is a powerful motivator. As illustrated in “Power Wars” and “The Terror Presidency,” that fear can be particularly acute for officials who work in national security—no one wants to be accused of having American blood on their hands.