Archive for the 'Detainees' Category
Justice at Stake said on Thursday it was encouraged by President Obama’s affirmation, in a speech on on national security and counterterrorism policy, that the Constitution’s protections define us as a nation and do not vanish in a time of war.
“For over two centuries, the United States has been bound together by founding documents that defined who we are as Americans, and served as our compass through every type of changes. Matters of war and peace are no different,” Obama said.
Some highlights of Obama’s remarks as they involve the courts and judicial review are found in an earlier Gavel Grab post. Praveen Fernandes, JAS director of federal affairs and diversity initiatives, responded to these remarks in a statement.
JAS commended Obama’s commitment to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones. “The President acknowledged that the targeting of American citizens raises significant constitutional concerns,” Fernandes said. “Leaders from both parties and all three branches of government need to grapple seriously with what the Constitution demands in terms of due process and other protections.” Read more
In a key speech on counterterrorism policies and drone strikes, President Obama invited Congress on Thursday to consider ways for “increased oversight” of lethal action outside warzones, including creation of a secret court or an executive branch panel. He said each option “poses difficulties in practice.”
Here are Obama’s specific remarks on the topic, taken from a text of his speech as prepared for delivery:
“Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. Each option has virtues in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. For example, the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorize lethal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial Read more
With the U.S. military commissions system for trying terror suspects at “a point of no return,” why not send federal district judges to Guantánamo Bay to resolve the detainee trials that remain?
Bruce Ackerman and Eugene Fidell, who teach at Yale Law School, make that proposal in a New York Times op-ed entitled “Send Judges to Guantánamo, Then Shut It.”
There is historical precedent for creating federal civilian courts in lands under U.S. military control, they argue. They say the remedy they propose is appropriate since Congress has barred bringing Guantánamo detainees to the U.S. mainland for prosecution in federal courts.
Amid a prisoner hunger strike and a potential for suicide attempts, the authors write, “Presidential speeches will not suffice to cut short the series of tragic episodes that loom ahead. Only dramatic action will induce the prisoners, and the larger world, to take seriously America’s determination to end this legal nightmare.” President Obama recently renewed his pledge to close the detention facility (see Gavel Grab).
With prisoners at Guantánamo Bay engaged in a hunger strike, President Obama renewed on Tuesday a pledge to close the prison.
“I mean, the notion that we’re going to continue to keep over a hundred individuals in a no man’s land in perpetuity, even at a time when we’ve wound down the war in Iraq, we’re winding down the war in Afghanistan, we’re having success defeating al-Qaida core, we’ve kept the pressure up on all these transnational terrorist networks, when we’ve transferred detention authority in Afghanistan — the idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried — that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.” Read more
Wall Street Journal reporter Jess Bravin’s book, “The Terror Courts: Rough Justice at Guantanamo Bay,” details the military tribunal system that was established after 9/11 to prosecute and convict those accused of terrorism. Now a New York Times review prominently highlights the disturbing questions the book raises about the tribunal system:
“Supporters portray them as the tough-minded way to handle terrorism cases and civilian courts as weak. Yet in those civilian courts federal prosecutors have repeatedly demonstrated an almost ruthless effectiveness, winning severe sentences without grounds for successful appeal. Meanwhile the military tribunals experiment started by the Bush administration and now continued, after some reforms, by the Obama administration, has floundered; to date the only two guilty verdicts won at trial were vacated by an appeals court, leaving a handful of plea deals in which defendants gave up their right to appeal in exchange for brief sentences.”
The decisions made in 2011 by Obama administration officials in connection with interrogating a Somali national terror suspect aboard a Navy ship overseas, and then prosecuting him in federal court, come under the microscope in a lengthy Washington Post article.
Handling of the case of Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame (see Gavel Grab), coming at a time of debate about federal courts vs. military commissions as the best venue for prosecuting terror suspects,has become something of a template for other terrorism suspects captured overseas,” the Post reported.
Warsame provided information to his interrogators about Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who became an important target for the United States. Only a few weeks after Warsame was brought to the United States from the Navy ship, an armed drone kill al-Awlaki in Yemen.
The case of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama Bin Laden who is charged with plotting terror against Americans, squarely belongs in federal court instead of before a military tribunal, a Santa Rosa (Ca.) Press-Democrat editorial declared.
While some lawmakers contend that he should face a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, the editorial said that “federal courts have ably handled hundreds of terrorism cases, safely and publicly, without compromising national security or creating a threat to public safety.”
The editorial also said that Mr. Ghaith is charged with conspiracy, which is not a war crime; that President Obama has not given up on plans to close Guantanamo; and that Mr. Ghaith would face a life term in prison if convicted in the federal court system, where he now faces charges. It concluded:
“Military tribunals and indefinite detentions at Guantanamo without any legal proceedings have damaged the United States’ reputation around the world. Trying this case in federal court would demonstrate the capability and legitimacy of the criminal justice system, reflecting more than two centuries of American legal traditions.” Read more
The capture of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama Bin Laden, has rekindled debate over prosecuting terror suspects in civilian courts versus military tribunals.
On Friday, Mr. Abu Gaith pleaded not guilty in a federal court in lower Manhattan to charges of plotting terror against Americans, the Associated Press reported. U.S. authorities said he was a spokesman for al-Qaida.
The Wall Street Journal reported that some Republicans think Mr. Abu Ghaith belongs before a military tribunal at Guanatamo. ”Al Qaeda leaders captured on the battlefield should not be brought to the United States to stand trial,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “We should treat enemy combatants like the enemy.”
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said that the terror suspect would become entitled to the rights of a U.S. citizen — including a speedy trial — by being in New York, Politico reported.
President Obama may have rescinded his threat to veto a defense bill containing restrictions on transferring detainees out of military prisons including Guantanamo Bay, but he attached a signing statement to the bill allowing him to keep the constitutional power to override the law.
Lawmakers in Congress added the limits on detainee transfers in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which was approved in December according to the New York Times.
Obama signed the bill despite his objections regarding detainees. In the statement, he declared that the provision “could interfere with my ability as commander in chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities.”
The President promised in his first term to close the prison in Cuba, but has failed to do so. Officials within the government are unsure as to his intentions regarding the signing statement, says the New York Times.
“The administration blames Congress for making it harder to close Guantanamo, yet for a second year President Obama has signed damaging Congressional restrictions into law,” says Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.
Last year, the American Bar Association sent a letter to Obama objecting to the use of signing statements, urging him to veto bills instead if he finds them unconstitutional. The American Bar Association is a JAS partner organization.
“When Hamdan committed the conduct in question, the international law of war proscribed a variety of war crimes, including forms of terrorism,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote, according to a New York Times article. “At that time, however, the international law of war did not proscribe material support for terrorism as a war crime.”
In 2008, a military commission convicted Hamdan of providing material support to terrorism. A Guantánamo detainee, he was repatriated to his homeland of Yemen. Earlier, Hamdan’s case had paved the way for a Supreme Court decision that struck down the President George W. Bush administration’s first structure for military commissions.