Congratulations to Scott L. Silliman and William B. Pollard III, both of whom the Senate last night confirmed to be judges of the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review. Both men must formally be sworn in before commencing their work on the court. It is unclear precisely when the swearing-in proceedings will take place.
Latest in Terrorism Trials: Legislative Development
Breaking: earlier today, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved its two pending nominees for judgeships on the Court of Military Commission Review - William Pollard, and Professor Scott L. Silliman (who taught me in law school). You'll find some more background on the nominations here.
Both nominations now proceed to the Senate floor. It is believed that the full Senate will try to confirm both Silliman and Pollard before the legislature's July 4th recess.
Raff pointed earlier to a USA Today op-ed by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services committee.
Amidst all the discussion of whether and how to amend the House NDAA bill to address domestic captures, I am amazed that I did not notice the Rooney Amendment, which has been adopted. What does it do? Well, it looks like it flat out forbids civilian criminal prosecution for persons who would come within the personal jurisdiction of a military commission, at least if the plan is to charge the person for an offense that could also be charged by commission. Now perhaps I'm misunderstanding what transpired today, but if this did indeed g
House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member and Sen. Mark Udall have proposed a brief bill that would make two significant changes to the NDAA's detention provisions. The bill, a fact sheet about which is available here, does two things: First, it requires that any person "who is detained in the United States" shall be "transfer[ed] . .
Lt. Col. Darrel J. Vandeveld became a kind of cause celebre a few years back when he quit as a prosecutor in the military commission system over ethical concerns about the process, gave a declaration on behalf of a commission defendant, and then testified against the Military Commissions Act of 2009. So it seems to me especially significant that he sent me this thoughtful statement today explaining why he has come to rethink his opposition to military commissions conducted under the 2009 MCA. That the new commissions are getting a second look from people like Lt. Col.
While the experience is fresh, I thought I'd share some reflections on this morning's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Due Process Guarantee Act.
Here is Part II of Peter Margulies's reporting from AALS:AALS Federal Courts Debate II: Military Commissions and Material Support
The lively federal courts panel at the American Association of Law Schools conference also sparked disagreement on trials in military commissions. Marty Lederman recalled that the administration had advised Congress in 2009 that courts might find that “material support” of terrorism was not a crime under the law of war. As a result, the administration recommended that legislation listing crimes triable by military commissions should exclude
A dispatch from the Lawfare North Pole: the White House seems to be using more aggressive language, in opposing Congress’s recent efforts to limit the executive branch’s authority over detainee affairs.
Two days ago, the Administration released a statement on the President’s views regarding H.R.
The following is a continuation of our side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate versions of the NDAA:Prohibition of Detainee Transfer to the United States
The House version of the bill (Section 1039, p. 586) contains a specific prohibition on using fiscal year 2012 funds to "transfer or release an individual detained at Guantanamo Bay" or a non-citizen detained elsewhere into the United States.