A little-noticed provision of the FY2024 National Defense Authorization Act closes a loophole in the justices' ability to review military convictions, but it may make little practical difference
The parallels to HamdanvRumseld are everywhere. As a DCCircuit judge, John Roberts had overturned the habeas petition/grant of a non-citizen "enemy combatant" held at Guantanamo. (An earlier case, Hamdi, involved a US citizen.) According to Roberts, the Geneva Conventions apply only to nations, not to individuals, though I'm not even certain what that means. Suffice to say that if I were an Afghan citizen or a pregnant woman or a soldier falsely accused, I'd swallow the hemlock before placing my fate in the hands of John Roberts.
Any advice or guidance on who one would contact with an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence:
1. that a ‘person’ Knowingly and Willfully was untruthful not only in 5+ separate legal tribunals, but including testimony in front of the US Supreme Court?
Interesting day in Colorado, Professor Vladeck. Would you say the odds are high that SCOTUS will stay the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, citing the Purcell principle?
It won’t need to. The decision is stayed on its own, and the stay will continue until SCOTUS rules so long as Trump seeks review from SCOTUS on or before January 4.
Regarding the section 702 renewal -- I recall seeing that some existing authorizations were going to be allowed to run their course until they expired in April, and that only *new* authorizations would be affected if the law sunsets. Do you know if or how the four-month extension will affect the approvals that had been scheduled to run until April?
The bill language just changes "December 31, 2023" to "April 19, 2014" for those provisions that would've expired on the 31st. So I don't think it affects, one way or the other, provisions that were already set to expire next April.
The parallels to HamdanvRumseld are everywhere. As a DCCircuit judge, John Roberts had overturned the habeas petition/grant of a non-citizen "enemy combatant" held at Guantanamo. (An earlier case, Hamdi, involved a US citizen.) According to Roberts, the Geneva Conventions apply only to nations, not to individuals, though I'm not even certain what that means. Suffice to say that if I were an Afghan citizen or a pregnant woman or a soldier falsely accused, I'd swallow the hemlock before placing my fate in the hands of John Roberts.
Any advice or guidance on who one would contact with an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence:
1. that a ‘person’ Knowingly and Willfully was untruthful not only in 5+ separate legal tribunals, but including testimony in front of the US Supreme Court?
(Relevant due to a linked UCMJ case.)
Interesting day in Colorado, Professor Vladeck. Would you say the odds are high that SCOTUS will stay the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, citing the Purcell principle?
It won’t need to. The decision is stayed on its own, and the stay will continue until SCOTUS rules so long as Trump seeks review from SCOTUS on or before January 4.
Regarding the section 702 renewal -- I recall seeing that some existing authorizations were going to be allowed to run their course until they expired in April, and that only *new* authorizations would be affected if the law sunsets. Do you know if or how the four-month extension will affect the approvals that had been scheduled to run until April?
The bill language just changes "December 31, 2023" to "April 19, 2014" for those provisions that would've expired on the 31st. So I don't think it affects, one way or the other, provisions that were already set to expire next April.
That’s really interesting about CAAF! Thanks for sharing, and good luck on the appeal.