E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Third Draft of Warner-Graham Bill on Military Commissions
JB
The third version of the Warner-Graham bill is here. Sad to say, this bill is not getting better than the previous draft, and in some ways it is getting worse. It prevents judicial suits for damages for violations of the Geneva Conventions, eliminates habeas relief for aliens held outside the United States, thus effectively reversing the Rasul decision, and narrows the War Crimes Act, substituting language about "grave breaches" for the general prohibition on violating Common Article 3. The new version would remove some (but not all) of the CIA interrogation techniques from prosecution under the War Crimes Act; I am not sure whether the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as defined would cover waterboarding-- I certainly hope it would, but you never know. Posted
5:21 PM
by JB [link]
Comments:
Is the idea here that aliens outside of the U.S. (per Kennedy, I assume Gitmo doesn't fit that bill) only receive habeas by the discretion of Congress? Stevens in Rasul implies the current law meets the reach of what the Constitution protects.
The wording of the command suggests the point. If under our control, habeas should apply ... unless it is "suspended," which suggests a temporary period. Scalia in his Hamdi dissent suggests suspension decisions are political questions left to Congress.
I know that ruling concerned citizens, but that principle would hold either way. It also is a debatable one that was dicta joined by two justices. Still, it opens up congressional discretion if the suspension is clear. But, the description here implicates removal of habeas protections, not temp. suspension.
Lindsey Graham's arguments that habeas was never meant to cover this area (broadly interpreted by him to mean military detainees who in the past clearly had coverage) underline the point. Maybe, a bit of clarification on the point would be helpful.
UC Berkeley law Professor John Yoo, who as a Justice Department lawyer was one of the Bush administration's chief legal theorists, summarized its view in his forthcoming book, "War by Other Means":
"We are used to a peacetime system in which Congress enacts the laws, the president enforces them, and the courts interpret them. In wartime, the gravity shifts to the executive branch.''
Exquisitely professional thoughts. I merely hit upon this web site and desired to enunciate that I've definitely delighted in reckoning your blog articles or blog posts. Rest assured iessaywriter.com I'll subsist pledging to your RSS and I wish you write-up after much more shortly ))(((