As Ben notes (and analyzes thoughtfully) here, Trump gave a speech today that included various proposals relating to terrorism. Here's the part that touched on DOJ and terrorism prosecutions:
Latest in Terrorism Trials: Legislative Development: Article III Courts
Interesting piece in the Post today, highlighting the recent spate of ISIL-related arrests in the US.
Such is the gist of Judge Richard Roberts' order, issued yesterday in the context of the high-value Guantanamo detainee's habeas case in D.C.
James Connell III, lawyer for 9/11 accused Ammar al-Baluchi, had this to say today:"The CIA and its defenders are using Mr. al Baluchi as a scapegoat for its illegal and reprehensible use of torture," said James Connell, civilian attorney for Mr. al Baluchi. "The United States spent incredible amounts of money, energy, and American credibility, and now the CIA is pointing at Mr. al Baluchi to justify its massive torture infrastructure."
My very first Lawfare post, back in December 2011, focused on the messy constitutional question raised by United States v. Ali—a case then pending before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that raised the constitutionality of subjecting civilian military contractors to military, rather than civilian, trials.
[UPDATE: A reader points out that when discussing this subject back in 2011, the question had arisen as to whether this was indeed the best reading of 2339B(d) for the 1996-2004 period. I had responded that the issue was indeed more complex than I had at first suggested, for the following reason: The actus reus clause of the statute (2339B(a)) was jurisdictionally limited as I suggested, yet there was a separate clause that rather incongruously referred nonetheless to extraterritorial jurisdiction
I'm happy to report that I've recently completed drafting an article that has been much on my mind for the past few years. Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture of Counterterrorism (Michigan Law Review, forthcoming 2013) is now posted to SSRN. In it, I argue that (i) there is a widespread perception that the legal framework for detention and targeting has reached a point of relative stability thanks to a remarkable wave of interbranch and inter-party consensus since 2008; (ii) this facade depends almost en
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
Here is the prepared text, released by the White House, of John Brennan's speech at the Harvard Law School-Brookings conference now under way in Cambridge. I will post video, including of the very interesting Q&A, as soon as I can: Remarks of John O.