On July 7, the Canadian government formally apologized to Omar Khadr, one of Guantanamo Bay’s ex-detainees. Speaking at a press conference, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland confirmed that Khadr and the Canadian government had reached a financial settlement of $10.5 million. Khadr had filed a civil suit against the government in 2014 for conspiring with the U.S. to abuse his rights.

“We hope that this expression, and the negotiated settlement reached with the government, will assist him in his efforts to begin a new and hopeful chapter in his life with his fellow Canadians,” Goodale and Freeland said in their statement.

Speaking to CBC, Khadr said that he hopes the formal apology will restore his reputation, but is sorry if the settlement causes pain to the family of Sgt. Christopher Speer, the medic he allegedly killed in 2002.

Khadr is just one example of a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner struggling to reintegrate into society. Read on to learn the details of what it means to be a former Guantanimo Bay detainee.

Overview: The Detention Center and Its Numbers

Naval Station Guantanamo Bay is located on 45 square miles of land on a bay of the same name in Cuba. The U.S. leased it from Cuba in 1903, but it did not officially function as a detention center until the early ’90s, when it housed HIV-positive refugees fleeing a Haitian coup. Still, the base did not gain its negative reputation until after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The first U.S. prisoners of the War on Terror–20 Afghans–arrived on January 11, 2002. Since then, according to the New York Times‘ extensive database on Guantanamo, about 780 prisoners have been detained at the base. Of that number, around 730 were eventually released without charges. Many of those transferred had been held for years. There are currently 41 detainees still at Guantanamo.

Only seven of the remaining detainees have been formally charged with any sort of crime. Five have been approved for transfer to their home countries or third-party nations, but still remain at Guantanamo Bay. Most of the detainees have had dual citizenship, but over the course of the detention center’s history, the largest group of single-nationality War on Terror prisoners comes from Afghanistan. Of the 41 detainees remaining today, 16 come from Yemen, five come from Afghanistan, six from Pakistan, and eight from Saudi Arabia. The rest come from other Middle Eastern and African countries. There have been Russian prisoners on record as well, but the last one, Ravil Mingazov, was transferred to the United Arab Emirates in January.

Throughout the detention center’s history, 15 prisoners under the age of 18 have been detained. Nine prisoners died in custody, six of them suspected of suicide.

On his second day in office, former President Barack Obama signed an executive order to close the detention center within one year, but due to widespread opposition, the facility has remained open. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, vowed on the campaign trail to “load it up with some real bad dudes.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions visited the base and detention center on July 7.

DNI Report on “Reengagement”

In 2016, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a report summarizing the status of certain recidivist ex-detainees–that is, former Guantanamo Bay prisoners suspected of returning to terrorism. Prior to January 15, 2016, 676 detainees had been transferred out of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Of the transferred detainees, 118 were “confirmed” to have reengaged in terrorism. The Bush Administration had transferred 111 of the detainees while the Obama Administration transferred seven. According to the DNI report, 63 of the 118 were still at large, while the rest were either dead or in custody.

Concurrently, 86 of the transferred detainees–74 under the Bush Administration and 12 under the Obama Administration–were “suspected” of returning to terrorist activities. Sixty-five are at large, while the rest have been killed or captured. About 30 percent of the total number of ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees have reengaged in terrorism activities.

Case Study #1: Omar Khadr

Born in Canada in 1986, Khadr went with his family to Afghanistan and Pakistan when he was eight years old. In 2002, during a firefight with U.S. troops at a suspected Al-Qaeda compound, Khadr supposedly threw a grenade that killed Sgt. Christopher Speer. He was captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay, where he was treated as an adult prisoner despite being only 16. As a part of his torture, he was beaten, denied medical treatment, held in solitary confinement, and bound in “stress positions.” He also claims to have been used as a “human mop” when he urinated on himself.

Khadr was charged under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and is the only Guantanamo captive so far charged with killing a U.S. soldier. He confessed to killing Speer in 2010 as part of a plea deal to get him transferred to a Canadian prison, but has since recanted, claiming that he has no memory of the firefight. He was released in 2015, two years after filing a lawsuit against the Canadian government. As per the conditions of his release, he was required to live with his lawyer, abide by nightly curfews, and wear a tracking bracelet.

In the wake of the government’s formal apology and settlement, Speer’s widow petitioned to have Khadr’s assets frozen so that he could be forced to pay a $134.1 million wrongful death judgment from a Utah court. A judge rejected the petition on July 13.

Case Study #2: Jamal al-Harith

Born Ronald Fiddler in Manchester, England in 1966, al-Harith converted to Islam while in college. In 2001, while on a backpacking trip in Pakistan, he paid a truck driver to take him to Iran. Taliban soldiers stopped the truck near the Afghan border and, seeing his British passport, jailed him as a spy. He was later rescued by American troops, but then sent off to Guantanamo Bay because of his “knowledge of prisoners and interrogation tactics.” He was held there without charges for two years, during which time he was beaten, starved, and deprived of sleep and adequate water.

Shortly after his release in 2004, al-Harith and 15 other ex-detainees sued the British government, claiming that it was aware of their treatment while in U.S. custody. In total, the ex-detainees received a $12.4 million out-of-court settlement. Al-Harith reportedly received around $1.2 million, but his wife later claimed that the payout was “substantially less.”

In 2014, al-Harith crossed into Syria and joined ISIS. His wife and children followed and unsuccessfully attempted to persuade him to return to the U.K. On February 19, 2017, he carried out a suicide bombing in Mosul, Iraq.

Case Study #3: Mustafa Ait Idir

Mustafa Ait Idir is one of the Algerian Six, a group of Algerian-born Bosnian citizens who were arrested in October 2001 for allegedly planning to bomb the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2002 and remained there for the next seven years. While incarcerated, according to the Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas, he was subjected to a beating that partially paralyzed his face. On another occasion, the Initial Reaction Force (IRF) broke Ait Idir’s finger after he refused to give them his pants (as Muslim men must be clothed while praying). The soldiers did not allow him to receive medical treatment.

Shortly after the Algerian Six’s internment, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a habeas corpus petition on their behalf. The U.S. government rationalized that detainees at Guantanamo Bay were not protected under the Constitution because they were neither U.S. citizens nor located on U.S. territory (as Cuba still technically owns the land on which the naval base was built). The Algerian Six challenged that as co-plaintiffs in Boumediene v. Bush. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the right of habeas corpus review applies to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay as well as U.S. citizens. Following a review of the Algerian Six’s cases files, District Judge Richard Leon ordered five of the detainees, including Ait Idir, to be released. Ait Idir returned to Bosnia.

On July 13, Ait Idir wrote an opinion piece for USA Today on his time spent on Guantanamo Bay in response to Sessions’ recent visit. His bio reveals that he is still in Bosnia, teaching computer science and living with his family. In his piece, he urges young Muslims not to turn to violence. “It is one thing to be upset, even enraged,” he writes, “it is another to be heartless. Neither Allah nor any god of any religion could ever support such cruelty to our fellow man.”

Conclusion

The three case studies listed above make up only a fraction of the detainees released from Guantanamo Bay. Many have returned to terrorist groups, while others are serving out the remainder of their sentences in other prisons. Some have been fully released, but are struggling to return to society.

Obama’s executive order to close the base is still on record, but the current administration has no plans to carry it out. If anything, Attorney General Sessions’ visit could be in preparation to send more “bad dudes” to the detention center. For now, though, Guantanamo Bay has taken a back seat to the health care vote and other priorities. The 41 prisoners still detained will remain where they are.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guantanamo Bay’s Ex-Detainees: Where Are They Now? appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State is ”inevitably going to be defeated,” said President Obama at a press conference on Thursday. The President met with reporters after a briefing at the Pentagon from his national security team on the fight against ISIS.

He said that even though ISIS will certainly be defeated, the networks from the terrorist group will probably keep trying to commit acts of terrorism:

As we’ve seen, it is still very difficult to detect and prevent lone actors or small cells of terrorists who are determined to kill the innocent and are willing to die. And that’s why… we’re going to keep going after ISIL aggressively across every front of this campaign.

Although the press was supposed to focus on the war against terrorism, a lot of the questions ended up being about the Trump situation. But after a few, the President had had enough.

I would ask all of you to just make your own judgment. I’ve made this point already multiple times. Just listen to what Mr. Trump has to say and make your own judgment with respect to how confident you feel about his ability to manage things like our nuclear triad.

See Obama’s speech here.

Today @POTUS convened his @NSC44 at the Pentagon for a regular meeting on efforts to degrade & destroy ISIL.https://t.co/XhNlSMdNfj

— WH National Security (@NSC44) August 4, 2016

Also on Thursday, the Egyptian army confirmed that it killed an important ISIS-allied leader, Abu Duaa al-Ansari. In total 45 terrorists were killed and weapon and ammunition supplies destroyed in the airstrikes by the army in the Sinai Peninsula.

Al-Ansari was the head of the group Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which prospered in the chaos after the Government of Egyptian President Mubarak was overthrown in 2011. The group entered an alliance with ISIS in 2014 and was responsible for bombing a gas pipeline between Egypt, Israel, and Jordan, as well as the crash of Russian flight 9268 in 2015.

Russia got a reprimand from Obama for its continued support of the Syrian government and attacks on opposing forces. But the U.S. will continue to attempt to cooperate with the nation to jointly bring down ISIS.

However, as Obama pointed out at the press conference, independents inspired by the Islamic State may very well keep attacking people in public spaces such as subways or parades to spread fear, which is why the U.S. must keep up the work of fighting against the terrorist group.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama: Islamic State Will Be Defeated, But Independent Attacks Still a Threat appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook is being accused of providing “material support and resources” to Hamas in a new $1 billion lawsuit. Lawyers allege that the popular social network was used to plot attacks by the militant Palestinian group that killed four Americans and wounded one in Israel, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.

The lawsuit, which was filed on July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York states:

Hamas has recognized the tremendous utility and value of Facebook as a tool to facilitate this terrorist group’s ability to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies. For years, Hamas, its leaders, spokesmen, and members have openly maintained and used official Facebook accounts with little or no interference.

Shurat Hadin, an Israeli legal advocacy group, filed the lawsuit on behalf of families whose relatives were killed in terror attacks. That same group is behind another lawsuit that is currently seeking an injunction to require prompt removal of posted content that may incite violence.

Plaintiffs in the most recent lawsuit include Stuart and Robbi Force, the parents of 29-year-old U.S. Army veteran and Vanderbilt University graduate student Taylor Force who was fatally stabbed in a Hamas attack while visiting Israel on a school trip. They are joined by the parents of 16-year-old Yaakov Naftali Fraenkel, who was kidnapped and murdered in the West Bank in June 2014; the parents of three-month-old Chaya Zissel Braun, who was killed in Jerusalem during a vehicular terrorist attack in October 2014; the son of 76-year-old Richard Lakin, who was killed in a shooting and stabbing attack in Jerusalem in October 2015; and Menachem Mendel Rivkin, who was seriously injured in a January 2016 stabbing attack in Jerusalem.

These families hope to prove that Facebook was being used as a tool for terrorism and operated in direct violation of the Antiterrorism Act, which bars U.S. businesses from providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization. However, many experts believe Facebook will be legally protected under the  Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from content posted by third-party users.

Facebook responded to Bloomberg’s request for comment with a statement saying,

[We want] people to feel safe when using Facebook. There is no place for content encouraging violence, direct threats, terrorism or hate speech on Facebook. We have a set of Community Standards to help people understand what is allowed on Facebook, and we urge people to use our reporting tools if they find content that they believe violates our standards so we can investigate and take swift action.

It’s unclear if the lawsuit will succeed in holding Facebook legally responsible because anti-terrorism efforts and freedom of speech are both at play. It will be interesting to see how the case moves forward.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Accused of Supporting Hamas in $1 Billion Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

Much of the world reacted on Tuesday, horrified, as ISIS released a video of a Jordanian pilot burned alive. The pilot was named Lieutenant Moath al-Kasasbeh, a member of the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and only 27 years old. He went missing in December in a mission against ISIS, and was captured by the terrorist organization.

Do not share the monstrous pics of Moath Al-Kasasbeh’s death, let’s remember the pilot for his smile.. #IAmMoathpic.twitter.com/FqekJBfhdz

— Waleed Abu Nada (@waleedabunada) February 3, 2015

ISIS had threatened his death in a supposed sort-of ransom letter to Jordan: the country could either bring terrorist Sajida al-Rishawi to a given place by January 29, or al-Kasasbeh would be killed. Jordan didn’t give in to the demands, saying that it couldn’t release the terrorist unless it was sure that al-Kasasbeh was alive, although Jordanian officials talked openly about releasing al-Rishawi under the right conditions. There was a lot of back and forth, and for a time it looked like Jordan’s negotiations might be effective. Unfortunately, the terms were never met, and the video of al-Kasasbeh’s death was released Tuesday night.

Just a few days before al-Kasasbeh was killed, ISIS killed Japanese journalist Kenji Goto. Like al-Kasasbeh, news of Goto’s kiling was released online in video form; however, unlike al-Kasasbeh, Goto was beheaded.

In response to al-Kasasbeh’s killing, Jordan killed two prisoners that it held. One was al-Rishawi, the woman whose release ISIS had demanded. She was a would-be suicide bomber who was involved in an attack on a wedding on November 9, 2005. The group she was with killed 58 people, but her vest failed to detonate. The other prisoner was Ziad Karbouli, who used to be an aide to the top al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.

My heart goes out to the families of al-Kasasbeh and Goto–they were sad, horrific casualties of a bloody and terrifying war. But my brain is left with an overwhelming question: what’s next? Jordan’s attempt at negotiations with ISIS didn’t work out, but what does that mean for other nations?

I was relatively young when 9/11 happened–at least young enough that most of my formal education as it relates to international affairs and politics occurred in a post-9/11 world. Since the War on Terrorism began, one of the most fundamental principles has been that we absolutely, under no circumstances, negotiate with terrorists. In the wake of the horrific killings of al-Kasasbeh and Goto, as well as the killing of Americans such as James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the question of what nations should do when their people are taken hostage by ISIS, or organizations like ISIS, is cloudier than it has ever been.

It’s by no means simple. First of all, the idea of negotiating with belligerents–not terrorists, necessarily, but state actors, isn’t similarly reviled. Wars can end in a few ways, one of which is by reaching an agreement or peace treaty. That seems straightforward enough–we may negotiate with recognized foreign governments, but not with terrorist groups. But remember the fact that until about 100 years ago, nations and their borders weren’t as concrete as they are now, and it becomes more complicated–the difference between the leader of a nation and of a group aren’t very black and white. Take, for example, the Taliban. When it ruled Afghanistan, was it a terror group, or a government? Or a little bit of both?

The truth is, we’ve been negotiating with, or at least attempting to negotiate with, terrorist groups for years–remember all the intricacies of the Iran-Contra affair? So, why are we so adamant about the fact that we don’t negotiate with terrorists? The Bowe Bergdahl scandal this summer, and the willingness of both sides to slam President Obama over his trade, showed that much of America still staunchly believes in that principle.

I want to be clear here, I’m not saying we should negotiate with terrorists. But I think that the question of how to deal with ISIS is more nuanced than a political buzz-phrase. The negotiations between Jordan and ISIS show just how complicated it really is, and how while the “war on terror” is not necessarily over, a look at our tactics may be in order.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jordan’s Negotiations With ISIS Fail: What Does it Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

For many people, Guantanamo Bay conjures horrific thoughts of terrorists, torture, and inhumane treatment. Many are surprised to hear that this dark stain in American history still exists and holds more than 100 detainees. While President Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay during his first campaign for the presidency, the process has been far from easy. Where can the United States send detainees to be released, and who will accept those deemed simply too dangerous to be set free?

What is Guantanamo Bay?

Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a U.S. military prison located at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Southeastern Cuba. Since 1903, the United States has been leasing the 45 square miles the base sits on from Cuba in an arrangement that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, existing detention facilities at the base were temporarily repurposed in order to hold detainees and prosecute them for war crimes in the “War on Terror.”

Since 2001, Guantanamo Bay has housed nearly 800 detainees. As of the beginning of 2015, there are 127 detainees at Guantanamo Bay. During President George W. Bush’s administration, the United States claimed that since the detainees were not on American soil they were thus not protected by the U.S. constitution. Their status as “enemy combatants” meant they could be denied U.S. legal protections and even protections from the Geneva Conventions. Many detainees endured cruel, inhumane treatment and various forms of torture while being held indefinitely without charges. The Supreme Court later ruled in various cases that procedures at Guantanamo Bay violated military law and the Geneva Conventions.

President Obama signed an executive order following his 2009 inauguration ordering the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within a year. Despite this order, various obstacles have required that the facilities remain open.

Why haven’t the detention facilities closed?

The difficulty in closing the facilities at Guantanamo Bay comes in finding an appropriate place for the detainees to go. Many countries do not wish to take in detainees, and Congress objects to holding trials in the United States for any of the detainees who may have to serve longer sentences.

On December 19, 2014, President Obama signed the annual defense policy bill, titled the National Defense Authorization Act, into law. The Act prohibits him from closing Guantanamo Bay or transferring the detainees to U.S. soil. Negotiators even rejected a change that would have allowed detainees to come to the United States for emergency medical care rather than fly doctors and equipment to them. Despite signing, the frustrated President Obama hinted that he may claim constitutional powers to transfer some detainees against Congress’ wishes. According to the Washington Times, President Obama stated that since the law “violates constitutional separation of powers principles, (the) administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.” Watch the video below for more of President Obama’s sentiments.

At this point, the best way to whittle down the number of detainees at Guantanamo Bay is to transfer them elsewhere. Fifty-nine detainees have been approved for transfer but still remain at the facility. President Obama is allowed to transfer detainees to other countries willing to take them; however, the transfers can only take place after the Secretary of Defense certifies that they are not likely to join terrorist organizations. Frustrations linger between President Obama’s National Security staff and outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. While the staff has approved transfers, sign-off delays from Hagel and the Pentagon slow the process.

Has progress been made?

After a virtual halt in transfers between 2011 and 2013, a quickened pace for detainee releases was seen in 2014. Last year the Obama administration was able to transfer 28 detainees. Most recently they have been accepted by Kazakhstan, Uruguay, and Afghanistan, and they are not likely to face further detainment.

Transfers

Another 59 detainees have been approved for transfer but remain at Guantanamo Bay; 51 of those approved are from Yemen. The United States is not willing to send the detainees back to Yemen due to instability and prevalent militant activity. Concerns that the government there cannot ensure that the men will not join a terrorist organization rule out any chance they would be sent back to the country. The United States is instead looking to countries in Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East to take some of the detainees. Countries must assure the United States the detainees will not return to the battlefield and will be treated humanely.

Detainees in Limbo

If the United States can find places to send all of the 59 detainees approved for transfer, officials can begin the more difficult task of deciding what to do with the remaining prisoners. An additional 58 detainees are expected to remain in limbo. They are considered too difficult to try in court due to insufficient evidence, but they are still too dangerous to release. Ten detainees, including five alleged to have helped plot the 9/11 attacks, are in the military trial stage and have been for months. Administration officials say that the detention center cannot be closed without sending at least some of the remaining inmates to the United States to be held for longer sentences.

Cost Issue

The hope is to decrease the population down to the low 120s within the next month, making it half of what is was when President Obama took office in 2009; however, this still leaves President Obama far from his goal of closing the prison. The White House has continually argued that Guantanamo is a propaganda symbol used by terrorists to fuel anger at the United States and so it should be eliminated; however, the Obama administration has increasingly made the argument for Guantanamo Bay closure from a financial standpoint. According to the Wall Street Journal, the cost to operate the prison is between $400 and $500 million annually. The annual cost per inmate at Guantanamo Bay is well above $2 million, while officials say the cost to hold an inmate at a U.S. supermax prison would be only around $78,000. As more inmates are transferred from Guantanamo Bay, the cost per inmate continues to rise. The hope is to reduce political opposition to the ban on transferring detainees to the United States by shrinking the number held at Guantanamo until maintaining the separate facility seems far too expensive.

Watch the video below for more information on the difficulty of closing Guantanamo Bay.

Does releasing detainees pose security risks?

It depends on who you ask. A 2013 report from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated that 17 percent of the more than 600 Guantanamo detainees released or transferred since 2002 returned to militant activity. An additional 12 percent were suspected of doing so. In order to cut down on this recidivism the DNI recommended avoiding transfers to countries enduring conflict, instability, or active recruitment by terrorist organizations. President Obama noted, however, that over 90 percent of Guantanamo Bay detainees transferred during his administration are not confirmed or suspected of having reengaged in terrorist activity. Still, many critics contend that the increased pace of prison transfers raises national security concerns.

The risk of future terrorism  is not limited to released Guantanamo Bay detainees. For instance, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State, was once a prisoner at a U.S. detention center in Iraq before being released. Others note that recidivism in the U.S. legal system is higher than 60 percent, which is much worse than recidivism rates from Guantanamo Bay. While there are risks in releasing detainees, there are similar risks in releasing any prisoner.

With the goal of shutting down Guantanamo Bay, there are few other options than releasing detainees to other countries. Americans remain fearful of detainees being held on U.S. soil. A Gallup poll released in June 2014 said 29 percent of Americans support closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. Sixty-six percent oppose the idea. While Americans may agree in theory that the prison should close, they do not want the detainees to ever be held on U.S. soil.

Watch the video below for more of the potential risks of moving prisoners to the United States.

Conclusion

Guantanamo Bay will not be closing anytime in the immediate future. Ultimately President Obama may have to threaten executive action if he cannot overcome congressional opposition to moving the detainees more quickly and shutting down the facility. With no place to put many of the remaining prisoners who are stuck in limbo, it is likely some would have to be sent to the United States for the prison to close anytime soon. At this time, that seems unlikely to happen; however, given fewer detainees and extremely high costs of running the facility, the American public may eventually warm to the idea of housing certain prisoners in the United States.

Resources

Primary

White House: Executive Order: Closure of Guantanamo Bay

Director of National Intelligence: Summary of Reengagement of Detainees

Additional

Washington Post: U.S. Prepare to Accelerate Detainee Transfers

CNN: Guantanamo Bay Naval Station Fast Facts

Politifact: Obama: ‘We’re Spending Millions for Each Individual’

The New York Times: Four Afghans Released From Guantanamo Bay

Washington Times: Obama Signs Defense Bill That Keeps Gitmo Open

CNN: U.S. Hopes to Transfer Dozens From Gitmo

CNN: What Happens When Detainees Get Out?

USA Today: Obama Faces Challenges in Closing Gitmo

Fox News: U.S. Releases Fives More Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Wall Street Journal: Obama Weighs Options to Close Guantanamo

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Will it Take to Finally Close Guantanamo Bay? appeared first on Law Street.

Statements by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this week may reignite a debate over a law called the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF).

Three days after the horrifying terror attacks of September 11, 2001, AUMF was passed by Congress. It was signed just four days later, on September 18, by President Bush. The law itself was simple enough in concept and was actually only 60-words long–an impressive feat in an era of long and frequently amended legislation. It states: “that the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” Essentially, it allowed the President the ability to use whatever force necessary against those believed to be terrorists, harbored terrorists, or involved with terrorism in anyway. It sounds broad, but it was an understandably reactionary law to the shocking atrocities the nation had just witnessed.

That law has remained in place since then, and has been used as legal justification for a number of broad actions in the “War Against Terror.” For example, AUMF has been used as the reasoning behind expansive drone strikes and raids like the one used to capture Osama Bin Ladin in 2011.

But in the almost thirteen years since AUMF has passed, both the views of our nation, as well as our technical abilities have changed drastically. When AUMF was passed barely a week after 9/11, the concept of the “War on Terror” had just been barely introduced. And in the coming months, it of course received high support–a Gallup poll in November of 2001 put approval of sending troops to Afghanistan, partly under AUMF’s guises, at 89 percent. The same question today garners just 49 percent approval.

Other recent events, including realizations about drone capabilities and the extent of NSA spying have lessened Americans’ support for the kind of broad and vague actions that AUMF allows.

Discontent with AUMF has been simmering for a while. Various special interest lobby groups have been calling for repeal for years, and Senators and other lawmakers have at various points called for a repeal. Obama has supported, and even pushed for an end to the law and by extension, a sort of de facto end to the official “War on Terror.” Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) has been one of the leading voices in calling for AUMF changes. Last Wednesday he said, “we are still operating in a war declared on Sept. 14, 2001. And both the Bush and Obama administrations have determined that that war can be carried out against members of al-Qaeda, against anyone who associates with affiliates or associates of al-Qaeda, no matter when those associates pop up … so long as the al-Qaeda or affiliated organizations have violent intentions against the U.S. or coalition partners. That’s sort of a vague phrase.”

And most recently, one of the nation’s top lawmakers has stated that he also thinks that changes are warranted to AUMF. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is supporting changes to AUMF.

In the interview with Buzzfeed earlier this week, he stated in regards to AUMF, “I definitely think its something we should definitely take a look at. I think 9/11 [was] a long time ago, and it’s something that needs to be looked at again. I have no problem with that.”

However, Reid didn’t go into details about what changes exactly he thinks are warranted to AUMF but just that they need to be considered. From the language he used, it seems as though he’s relatively confident that a change needs to be made to limit the power of AUMF.

With Reid weighing in, public opinion turning, and other politicians getting involved in the it certainly seems like the issue of changes to AUMF will be firmly on the national stage in the upcoming 2014 midterm elections.

[The Huffington Post]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Debra Sweet via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reexamination of AUMF: Potential End to the War on Terror appeared first on Law Street.