House Republicans today introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, legislation aimed at stopping the transfer or release of terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States. The legislation unequivocally opposes releasing terrorists from the Guantanamo Bay facility and transferring them to the United States, makes clear that governors and state legislatures must pre-approve the transfer or release of any terrorist detainee into their respective states, and requires the Administration to meet strict criteria and certification standards before terrorists housed at the Guantanamo prison could be brought to the United States. Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the legislation:
“This bill has a straightforward but vital purpose: to ensure that the terrorists held in the Guantanamo Bay prison are not imported into the United States. We are giving every member of Congress an opportunity to stand with the American people by affirming their opposition to bringing these terrorists into our communities, and we hope they join us. Equally as important, this bill holds the Administration accountable if it acts unilaterally against the will of the American people.
“The world did not suddenly become safe in January 2009. There are still terrorists around the world who are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life. A number of those terrorists are being held at the prison in Guantanamo Bay right now. If the Administration is allowed to proceed, they won’t be there for long. In fact, they may be right here, in the United States. I have been urging the Administration to finally present to the American people its plan for what to do with the terrorists held at Guantanamo and for confronting and defeating the global terrorist threat. Right now, that plan does not exist, and the safety of our nation depends on it.
“Our ranking members John McHugh, Pete Hoekstra, Lamar Smith, Peter King, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen all deserve great credit for their work on this measure. I thank them for their efforts in crafting this critically important bill.”
NOTE: Following is a summary of the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act:
Affirming Congress’ Opposition to the Release and Transfer of Terrorists. The bill affirms Congress’ opposition to transferring or releasing terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States. Most Americans do not support releasing these terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison and transferring them into the United States. The bill gives Congress an opportunity to show that it stands with the American people on this critical matter, and opposes the release and transfer of these terrorists.
Governor & State Legislature Pre-Approval. The measure prohibits the Administration from transferring or releasing any terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay to any state without express approval from the state’s governor and legislature, and certifies to Congress that strict requirements have been met. For example, the Administration must certify to the respective governor and state legislature that the detainee does not pose a security risk to the United States. The certifications must be made 60 days before any transfer or release.
Presidential Certification Requirements. The measure prohibits the President from transferring or releasing a terrorist detainee into the United States unless he provides the following notification and certification to Congress regarding:
- The name of the detainee and transfer/release location in the United States.
- The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued prosecution of the detainee.
- The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued detention of the detainee.
- The ability of federal judges to release detainees into the United States.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Follow on Twitter @GAFrontPage
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Showing posts with label detainees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label detainees. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Department of Justice Withdraws 'Enemy Combatant' Definition for Guantanamo Detainees
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a filing today with the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, the Department of Justice submitted a new standard for the government's authority to hold detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The definition does not rely on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress's specific authorization. It draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress. It provides that individuals who supported al Qaeda or the Taliban are detainable only if the support was substantial. And it does not employ the phrase "enemy combatant."
The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government's position as it develops a comprehensive policy.
"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," said Attorney General Holder. "The change we've made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."
In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government's new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the President's authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court's decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
The Department also submitted a declaration by Attorney General Eric Holder stating that, under executive orders issued by President Obama, the government is undertaking an interagency review of detention policy for individuals captured in armed conflicts or counterterrorism operations as well as a review of the status of each detainee held at Guantanamo. The outcome of those reviews may lead to further refinements of the government's position as it develops a comprehensive policy.
"As we work towards developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law," said Attorney General Holder. "The change we've made today meets each of those standards and will make our nation stronger."
In its filing today, the government bases its authority to hold detainees at Guantanamo on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which Congress passed in September 2001, and which authorized the use of force against nations, organizations, or persons the president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the September 11 attacks, or harbored such organizations or persons. The government's new standard relies on the international laws of war to inform the scope of the President's authority under this statute, and makes clear that the government does not claim authority to hold persons based on insignificant or insubstantial support of al Qaeda or the Taliban.
The brief was filed in habeas litigation brought by numerous detainees at Guantanamo who are challenging their detention under the Supreme Court's decision last summer in Boumediene v. Bush.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Closing Guantanamo and Keeping America Safe: New Policy Brief
Closing Guantanamo and Keeping America Safe: New Policy Brief From The Century Foundation Urges New Administration to Return to Pre-9/11 Laws to Deal With Detentions, Trials, and the 'Global War'
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Barack Obama has just signed an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but many controversies remain over how to proceed, how long that process should take, and what should happen to current and future detainees. In a new policy brief from The Century Foundation, Guantanamo and Beyond: What to Do about Detentions, Trials, and the "Global War" Paradigm, Stephen J. Schulhofer, the Robert B. McKay Professor of Law at New York University, writes that, while the issues are complex, the immediate need to address Guantanamo and the broader imperative to find a framework for the future can be met by a straightforward principle: the acceptance of pre-September 11 rules of international law and domestic due process. In particular, this would include the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war, the obligation to refrain from using military force against civilians, and the right of all individuals facing detention to contest the allegations against them in court, with the assistance of counsel.
This approach means restoring the domestic and international principles traditionally applicable to armed conflict: preserving law-of-war powers in regard to ordinary combatants, but reinstating and fully respecting the essential distinction between combatants and civilians. Schulhofer writes that pre-September 11 principles do not preclude reliance on our military, but they require recognition that military deployments are often justified where the legal framework of warfare is not. For instance, the United States has long used military personnel to deliver earthquake relief and to apprehend fugitives from civilian justice, as in the seizure of the terrorists responsible for hijacking the Achille Lauro.
In the report, Schulhofer addresses the frequently voiced concerns that international terrorism makes civilian conceptions of due process impractical -- concerns that he says are based on myth, misinformation, and exaggeration. He states that the nation's law-enforcement and judicial institutions possess ample resources to cope with modern terrorism. He notes that federal courts are not bound by geographical limits and, in fact, have jurisdiction over worldwide terrorist activity and over defendants captured abroad, even when forcible abduction is used to bring them here. Contrary to the mythology, Miranda warnings are not required on the battlefield or when public safety concerns prompt the questioning, and the rules for authentication of evidence are flexible; they have never posed a barrier to prosecution in a terrorism case. Similarly, the rule against using hearsay is subject to a host of exceptions; many out-of-court statements are routinely admitted in criminal trials. Classified evidence never has to be presented in open court, and for decades, the Classified Information Procedures Act has successfully protected sensitive information while providing redacted summaries sufficient to meet legitimate defense needs.
Schulhofer concludes that an approach that turned back the clock to pre-September 11 execution of the law would solve the conundrums of Guantanamo and the broader "global war" quickly, economically, and effectively, with tools of well-established legitimacy. He adds that restoring that framework quickly has broad strategic importance, because the United States cannot maintain a credible commitment to due process values if it simultaneously claims the right to invoke the prerogatives of warfare against shadowy enemies who live among civilians throughout the world.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Barack Obama has just signed an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, but many controversies remain over how to proceed, how long that process should take, and what should happen to current and future detainees. In a new policy brief from The Century Foundation, Guantanamo and Beyond: What to Do about Detentions, Trials, and the "Global War" Paradigm, Stephen J. Schulhofer, the Robert B. McKay Professor of Law at New York University, writes that, while the issues are complex, the immediate need to address Guantanamo and the broader imperative to find a framework for the future can be met by a straightforward principle: the acceptance of pre-September 11 rules of international law and domestic due process. In particular, this would include the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war, the obligation to refrain from using military force against civilians, and the right of all individuals facing detention to contest the allegations against them in court, with the assistance of counsel.
This approach means restoring the domestic and international principles traditionally applicable to armed conflict: preserving law-of-war powers in regard to ordinary combatants, but reinstating and fully respecting the essential distinction between combatants and civilians. Schulhofer writes that pre-September 11 principles do not preclude reliance on our military, but they require recognition that military deployments are often justified where the legal framework of warfare is not. For instance, the United States has long used military personnel to deliver earthquake relief and to apprehend fugitives from civilian justice, as in the seizure of the terrorists responsible for hijacking the Achille Lauro.
In the report, Schulhofer addresses the frequently voiced concerns that international terrorism makes civilian conceptions of due process impractical -- concerns that he says are based on myth, misinformation, and exaggeration. He states that the nation's law-enforcement and judicial institutions possess ample resources to cope with modern terrorism. He notes that federal courts are not bound by geographical limits and, in fact, have jurisdiction over worldwide terrorist activity and over defendants captured abroad, even when forcible abduction is used to bring them here. Contrary to the mythology, Miranda warnings are not required on the battlefield or when public safety concerns prompt the questioning, and the rules for authentication of evidence are flexible; they have never posed a barrier to prosecution in a terrorism case. Similarly, the rule against using hearsay is subject to a host of exceptions; many out-of-court statements are routinely admitted in criminal trials. Classified evidence never has to be presented in open court, and for decades, the Classified Information Procedures Act has successfully protected sensitive information while providing redacted summaries sufficient to meet legitimate defense needs.
Schulhofer concludes that an approach that turned back the clock to pre-September 11 execution of the law would solve the conundrums of Guantanamo and the broader "global war" quickly, economically, and effectively, with tools of well-established legitimacy. He adds that restoring that framework quickly has broad strategic importance, because the United States cannot maintain a credible commitment to due process values if it simultaneously claims the right to invoke the prerogatives of warfare against shadowy enemies who live among civilians throughout the world.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)