Back on June 15, the White House issued a SAP (statement of administration policy) spelling out objections to H.R. 2596, the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY'16. The SAP concludes that the President will veto the bill if presented as-is.
Latest in Guantanamo: Legislation
Five Important (Or At Least Interesting) Provisions in the Intelligence Authorization Bill HPSCI Passed
One thing I love about the various annual authorization bills is that they often contain very interesting but little-noticed provisions. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, which HPSCI (the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) voted out last week, is no exception. The full text is here, and my top-five highlights appear below:
Section 303: The Intelligence Committees want in on Special Access Program reporting.
I've long been a huge fan of (Retired) Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, not least because his prized possessions include a scorecard from Game 3 of the 1932 World Series--better known to baseball history as the "called shot" game--which he attended, in person, at the age of 12(!).
A markup of the FY2016 defense bill---which includes, as per usual and among other things, provisions restricting transfers of Guantanamo detainees---will get underway at 10:00 a.m. at the House Armed Services Committee.
Embedded video is below; a copy of the Chairman's mark can be found here.
The Washington Post has the latest here. Key points:
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 wouldn
Ben asks “What Would it Take to Close Guantanamo?” and he provides a thoughtful response weighted toward the political landscape. But there’s another not-so-merely-philosophical question that underlies his question: what does it mean to “close Guantanamo?”
For purposes of rapprochement with Cuba it may have to mean U.S. out of Guantanamo altogether.
Ben bemoans the state our nation’s current debate over Guantanamo as “terrible,” observing that “the arguments about Guantanamo are nearly all wrong, disingenuous, irrelevant, or just plain dumb.” It’s true that Guantanamo—like most political issues—sometimes takes on a special kind of inside-the-beltway rhetorical flavor that can really annoy the wonks, who would much rather focus on the underlying policy debate.
So what is the underlying policy debate all about? Perhaps it’s
The five detainees are Yemeni; four went to Oman, and one to Estonia, apparently.