Search

The article discusses the legislative activity during the 111th Congress which focused on the detention of alleged enemy combatants at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the potential transfer from the Guantanamo detention facility. Enacted authorizations and appropriations measures is said to impact the treatment of the detainees and restrict the use of federal funds to transfer or release of the individuals into the U.S. The section 14103 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 restricts the use of funds appropriated by any prior act for the transfer or release of the detainees into the country. The president's submission of a plan that fullfills specified requirements top Congress 45 days prior to transfer is outlined as an exception to the legislation.

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those … [who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" against the United States. As part of the subsequent "war on terror," many persons captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been transferred to Guantanamo since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to a third country for continued detention or release. The 229 detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventive detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who have faced or are expected to face criminal charges; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Bournediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled, including the scope of habeas review available to Guantanamo detainees, the remedy available for those persons found to be unlawfully held by the United States, and the extent to which other constitutional provisions extend to noncitizens held at Guantanamo. On January 22, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order requiring the Guantananio detention facility to be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than a year from the date of the Order. Several legislative proposals have been introduced in the 111th Congress concerning the potential closure of the Guantanamo facility. The Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 111-32), bars any funds from being used to release any individual detained at Guantanamo into the continental United States, Hawaii, or Alaska, and also requires the President to submit reports to Congress regarding the handling of persons held at Guantanamo. For more information on relevant legislative activity in the 111th Congress, see CRS Report R40419, Analysis of Selected Legislative Proposals Addressing Guantanamo Detainees, by Anna C. Henning. The closure of the Guantanamo detention facility may raise a number of legal issues with respect to the individuals formerly interned there, particularly if those detainees are transferred to the United States for continued detention, prosecution, or release. The nature and scope of constitutional protections owed to detainees within the United States may be different from the protections owed to persons held outside the U.S. This may have implications for the continued detention or prosecution of persons who are transferred to the United States. The transfer of detainees to the United States may also have immigration consequences. Notably, some detainees might qualify for asylum or other protections under immigration law. This report provides an overview of major legal issues likely to arise as a result of executive and legislative action to close the Guantanamo detention facility. It discusses legal issues related to the transfer of Guantanamo detainees (either to a foreign country or into the United States), the continued detention of such persons in the United States, and the possible removal of persons brought into the country. The report also discusses selected constitutional issues that may arise in the criminal prosecution of detainees, emphasizing the procedural and substantive protections that are utilized in different adjudicatory forums (i.e., federal civilian courts, court-martial proceedings, and military commissions). Issues discussed include detainees' right to a speedy trial, the prohibition against prosecution under ex post facto laws, and limitations upon the admissibility of hearsay and secret evidence in criminal cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the first time since the judicial impeachments of 1986-1989, the House has impeached a federal judge. On June 19, 2009, the House voted to impeach U.S. District Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The impeachment process provides a mechanism for removal of the President, Vice President, and other federal civil officers found to have engaged in "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment in the hands of the House of Representatives. A number of means have been used to trigger the House's investigation, but the ultimate decision in all instances as to whether impeachment is appropriate rests with the House. Should the House vote to impeach and vote articles of impeachment specifying the grounds upon which impeachment is based, the matter is then presented to the Senate for trial. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the unique power to try an impeachment. The decision whether to convict on each of the articles must be made separately. A conviction must be supported by a two-thirds majority of the Senators present. A conviction on any one of the articles of impeachment brought against an individual is sufficient to constitute conviction in the trial of the impeachment. Should a conviction occur, then the Senate must determine what the appropriate judgment is in the case. The Constitution limits the judgment to either removal from office or removal and prohibition against holding any future offices of "honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The precedents in impeachment suggest that removal may flow automatically from conviction, but that the Senate must vote to prohibit the individual from holding future offices of public trust, if that judgment is also deemed appropriate. A simple majority vote is required on a judgment. Conviction on impeachment does not foreclose the possibility of criminal prosecution arising out of the same factual situation. The Constitution does not permit the President to extend executive clemency to anyone in order to preclude his or her impeachment by the House or trial or conviction by the Senate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]