Disir
Platinum Member
- Sep 30, 2011
- 28,003
- 9,607
- 910
THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“The [proposed] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 extends the prohibition on the use of funds for transfer to the United States of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, [and] extends the prohibition on the use of funds for closure of Guantanamo Bay….The Act also allows detainees to plead guilty to criminal charges in Article III courts via teleconferences and authorizes the government to transfer such detainees to third countries to serve out their sentences.”
– Excerpt from a news release on May 12 by the Senate Armed Services Committee, outlining the details of a new military policy bill that must now be reconciled with a somewhat different measure in the House of Representatives, before going to President Obama for his signature. The president is likely to sign the resulting measure, even though he and his aides do have strong objection to some of the congressional restrictions on government detention policy at Guantanamo Bay.
“In a case where a district judge [in a civilian Article III court] assures herself that a Guantanamo detainee’s waiver of his right to be physically present (and all of the other waivers in the plea agreement) was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, it seems to me that there would be no constitutional objection to such a plea bargain.”
– Excerpt from commentary by American University law professor Steve Vladeck on the “Just Security” website on May 12, reacting to the Senate committee’s approval of plea bargaining for Guantanamo prisoners.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
Constitution Check: Is plea bargaining a step toward closing Guantanamo?
This is an interesting read.
“The [proposed] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 extends the prohibition on the use of funds for transfer to the United States of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, [and] extends the prohibition on the use of funds for closure of Guantanamo Bay….The Act also allows detainees to plead guilty to criminal charges in Article III courts via teleconferences and authorizes the government to transfer such detainees to third countries to serve out their sentences.”
– Excerpt from a news release on May 12 by the Senate Armed Services Committee, outlining the details of a new military policy bill that must now be reconciled with a somewhat different measure in the House of Representatives, before going to President Obama for his signature. The president is likely to sign the resulting measure, even though he and his aides do have strong objection to some of the congressional restrictions on government detention policy at Guantanamo Bay.
“In a case where a district judge [in a civilian Article III court] assures herself that a Guantanamo detainee’s waiver of his right to be physically present (and all of the other waivers in the plea agreement) was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, it seems to me that there would be no constitutional objection to such a plea bargain.”
– Excerpt from commentary by American University law professor Steve Vladeck on the “Just Security” website on May 12, reacting to the Senate committee’s approval of plea bargaining for Guantanamo prisoners.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
Constitution Check: Is plea bargaining a step toward closing Guantanamo?
This is an interesting read.