Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The legislation requires that within one year of enactment the President shall close the Department of Defense detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. All of the prisoners at Guantanamo shall be transferred to a civilian or military facility in the United States and charged with a violation of U.S. or international law for prosecution in a civilian or military proceeding. Interestingly, once the detainees are within the territory of the 50 states, then the multitude of questions concerning whether the protections of the Constitution apply to the detainees will be greatly narrowed. Over at Opinio Juris, they query whether this legislation will also eliminate military commissions as they have been set up under the Military Commissions Act?
At Balkinization, they posit that the current administration is unlikely (or reluctant) to move the detainees to the United States because it will increase their constitutional rights. Balkinization argues that it is more likely that if the detention center at Guantanamo is closed, then the prisoners will not be moved to the US but will be moved to a detention center closer to the battlefield or to countries such as Libya where the chances of the prisoners being tortured is even more likely. "All of which is to suggest that although 'Close GTMO Now' might be an understandable sentiment, it doesn't answer the question: What then? A better idea would be for Congress to require that due process and some form of meaningful judicial review be provided at GTMO and at other detention facilities around the globe."
A press release from the Feinstein website quoted the Senator as saying: “I believe this legislation works in our national interest in several ways. First, it helps to remove a symbol that directly harms our reputation as the world’s leader in support for the rule of law. Closing this facility will restore our moral authority, and make our nation more effective in the fight against global terror. And conducting trials elsewhere, either in the United States or before internationally recognized tribunals, will give these proceedings a credibility that they would likely not have if they were conducted at Guantanamo Bay.”
Thanks for the notice and the links.
Just one very small quibble: I think it's better to identify the person making the argument at (in this case) Balkinization and Opinio Juris, hence, 'At Balkinization, Marty Lederman argues...' and 'At Opinio Juris, Peter Spiro argues...'. It really is not a 'they,' as the bloggers at the respective blogs don't always agree with each other. (Although there is of course an editorial and royal 'we,' that doesn't apply here, as you're using the third person personal pronoun.)
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | May 04, 2007 at 04:01 PM
Have mercy on me, Patrick, I'm in finals and doing the best I can to even post something. Feinstein's proposal is something I'd really like to sink my teeth into but unfortunately I just don't have the time right now. I assume that by the time I'm done with finals some of the "pros" will have produced detailed critiques of the proposed legislation, and I will put together a post based on their work. When I do, I promise to include the names of the authors, which I usually do when I'm really doing a serious analysis. Thanks for checking in, and I appreciated you backing me up in the comments on Ethan Leib's post at Prawfs Blawg about making international law a first year course.
Posted by: Travis Hodgkins | May 04, 2007 at 09:57 PM
I thought calling it a 'very small quibble' was a sign of mercy! All the best with finals.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | May 04, 2007 at 10:16 PM