ȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱǯȱ
ȱ
ȱ¢ȱ
ȱśǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŚŖŚŗşȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
Several bills introduced during the 111th Congress address the detention of suspected enemy
belligerents held at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On January 22, 2009,
President Obama issued three executive orders affecting Guantanamo detainees. Some legislative
proposals would effectuate or make permanent the policies contained in the executive orders.
Other bills offer alternative approaches to the disposition of the detainees.
The legislative proposals—H.R. 591, S. 147 / H.R. 374, S. 291 / H.R. 1069, H.R. 148, H.R. 565,
H.R. 633, H.R. 701, H.R. 794, H.R. 817, H.R. 829, H.R. 951, H.R. 1073, H.R. 1186, H.R. 1238,
S. 370 / H.R. 1012, S. 108, H.R. 1042, and H.R. 630—pursue dramatically different goals,
ranging from mandating closure of the Guantanamo detention facility to precluding closure
through various requirements and restrictions, and offering various approaches to detainee
treatment, interrogation methods, and jurisdictional concerns. This report surveys these proposals
and flags pertinent legal implications. For detailed explorations of the legal issues raised by
proposals addressing closure of the Guantanamo detention facility and interrogation techniques,
see CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues, by Michael
John Garcia, et. al. and CRS Report RL33180, Enemy Combatant Detainees: Habeas Corpus
Challenges in Federal Court, by Jennifer K. Elsea, Kenneth R. Thomas, and Michael John
Garcia.
ȱȱȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Legislative Proposals in the 111th Congress .................................................................................... 2
Bills Requiring or Delaying Closure......................................................................................... 2
Bills Restricting Transfer to or Release in the United States .................................................... 3
Bills Permitting Detainee Transfer to the United States............................................................ 4
Bills Relating to Interrogation, Treatment, or Prosecution ....................................................... 5
A Bill Addressing Executive Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants and Judicial
Authority to Hear Habeas Corpus Claims ............................................................................. 6
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 7
ȱ
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 8
ȱȱȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
In 2001, Congress authorized the President’s use of “all necessary and appropriate force” against
those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.1 Pursuant to that authority, the United States has
captured suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members and detained them at several locations,
including the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Of the nearly 800 alleged enemy
combatants whom the United States has detained at Guantanamo throughout the course of post-
9/11 military operations, all but approximately 240 have been released or transferred from the
base. For the remaining Guantanamo detainees, practical and legal hurdles, including national
security concerns and questions regarding detainees’ rights under international law and the U.S.
Constitution, have delayed prosecutions and made transfers difficult.2
Highlighting the prominence of the issue, President Obama’s first executive orders, signed on
January 22, 2009, address the Guantanamo detention facility and Guantanamo detainees. To
“promptly” close the detention facility and “in order to effect the appropriate disposition of”
Guantanamo detainees, one executive order requires closure of the detention facility as soon as
practicable, and no later than January 22, 2010.3 It also halts (at least temporarily) all proceedings
before military commissions.4 A second executive order limits methods for interrogating persons
in U.S. custody to those listed in the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector
Operations, although it provides an exception for interrogations by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, stating that the FBI may “continu[e] to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of
interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force,
threats, or promises.”5 A third executive order establishes the Special Task Force on Detainee
Disposition, which is tasked with “identif[ying] lawful options” for the disposition of
Guantanamo detainees and others captured by the United States.6
Because executive orders can be revoked by subsequent presidential directives, legislation would
be necessary to make the President’s policies permanent. Likewise, Congress could reverse or
adjust the approach taken by the President in any area in which it has the authority to act. Some
1 Authorization to Use Military Force, P.L. 107-40 (2001). The authority applies to “nations, organizations, or persons”
who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” and to people who harbored the perpetrators of the
attacks.
2 For more detailed background information and an analysis of legal issues implicated by the potential closure of
Guantanamo, see CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues, by Michael John
Garcia et al..
3 Executive Order, Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of
Detention Facilities, January 22, 2009, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Closure_Of_Guantanamo_Detention_Facilities/.
4 Id. Military commissions were part of the system created by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, P.L. 109-366, to
prosecute and try Guantanamo detainees. Although the Supreme Court has struck down the provisions in the Military
Commissions Act that preclude Guantanamo detainees from pursuing habeas corpus challenges to their continued
detention, see Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008), the Act’s basic framework remains. For more
information, see CRS Report R40139, Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: Legal Issues, by Michael John
Garcia et al..
5 Executive Order, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, January 22, 2009, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/; Army Field Manual, section FM 2-22.3,
Human Intelligence Collector Operations, issued by the Department of the Army on September 6, 2006.
6 Executive Order, Review of Detention Policy Options, January 22, 2009, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/.
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
bills introduced both before and after the President signed the executive orders would effectuate
goals contained in the executive orders, whereas others offer alternative solutions or are perhaps
intended to be emblematic of key controversies surrounding closure of the detention facility.
ȱȱȱȱŗŗŗȱȱ
Legislative proposals introduced during the 111th Congress offer dramatically different
approaches to the disposition and treatment of Guantanamo detainees.7 They address a range of
issues, including closure of the base, transfer of detainees to the United States, detainee treatment
and prosecution, and jurisdictional matters.
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
Some bills would, if enacted, direct the President to close the Guantanamo detention facility
within a given time frame. The Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008, H.R. 591,
requires closure of the base within 180 days of enactment.8 Two companion bills, S. 147 and H.R.
374, require closure within one year. 9 The companion bills’ timeline corresponds with the one-
year deadline set in President Obama’s executive order.10 In introductory remarks on H.R. 374,
Representative Harman explained that closure was necessary because the detention facility is “so
widely viewed as illegitimate, so plainly inconsistent with America’s proud legal traditions, that it
has become a stinging symbol of our tarnished standing abroad.”11
When introducing S. 147, Senator Feinstein noted that “the hard part about closing Guantanamo
is not deciding to go do it; it is figuring out what to do with the remaining detainees.”12 To
address such concerns, all three bills proffer corresponding options and restrictions, discussed
infra, governing the transfer and prosecution of detainees.
No bill strictly prohibits closure of the Guantanamo detention facility. However, S. 291 and H.R.
1069 require the President to notify, present study findings, and offer a relocation plan to the
congressional committees responsible for defense at least 90 days prior to closing it.13 The study
would assess “the legal ramifications and the security, infrastructure, and other support
requirements associated with closing the detention facility and transferring persons to a new
7 Although some proposals would affect people detained at other locations, this report is limited to a discussion of
provisions that address Guantanamo.
8 Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008, H.R. 591, 111th Cong. (2009).
9 Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, H.R. 374, 111th Cong. (2009); Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, S.
147, 111th Cong. (2009).
10 When introducing S. 147 on the Senate floor, Senator Feinstein explained that the legislation is “fully consistent with
the policies and intentions of President-elect Obama.” 155 Cong. Rec. S. 132 (daily ed. Jan. 6, 2009) (statement of Sen.
Feinstein).
11 155 Cong. Rec. E59 (daily ed. Jan. 9, 2009) (extended remarks of Rep. Harman).
12 155 Cong. Rec. S157 (daily ed. Jan. 7, 2009) (statement of Sen. Feinstein).
13 Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009, S. 291, 111th Cong. (2009); Guantanamo Bay
Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009, H.R. 1069, 111th Cong. (2009). Relevant committees would include the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on Armed
Services, and the House Committee on Appropriations.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
detention facility.” The relocation plan would provide for relocating detainees in a manner
consistent with the results of the study.
As discussed infra, proposals have also been introduced to restrict detainees’ transfer into the
United States. These proposals might have the effect of precluding an imminent closure of the
Guantanamo detention facility because legal and practical barriers could prevent transfers to
locations outside the United States. For example, Article 3 of the U.N. Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its implementing
legislation prohibit the transfer of persons to countries where there are substantial grounds for
believing that they would be subjected to torture.14
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Prompted by perceived security risks to U.S. citizens that some argue could arise if suspected
terrorists were detained or tried in the United States,15 several legislative proposals would inhibit
detainees’ transfer to or release in the United States. Perhaps anticipating separation of powers
concerns that might arise if Congress directly forbade the President from transferring detainees to
the United States,16 most proposals restrict relocation indirectly by prohibiting the use of federal
funds, forbidding extension of immigration status, or by restricting judicial authority.
One set of bills – H.R. 148, H.R. 565, H.R. 633, and H.R. 701, H.R. 794, H.R. 817, H.R. 829,
H.R. 951, H.R. 1073, and H.R. 1186 – would restrict the use of federal funds for transferring
Guantanamo detainees to particular locations within the United States. Such locations include,
respectively: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South
Carolina; brigs in Miramar and Camp Pendleton, California; any facility in Oklahoma; the
Florence Federal Correctional Complex in Colorado; any facility in Georgia; any facility in North
Carolina; any facility in Florida; any facility in Arizona; and any facility in Virginia.17 Some
14 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46,
Annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984). CAT Article 3 requirements were implemented by
the United States pursuant to the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, P.L. 105-277 [hereinafter
“FARRA”].
15 See, e.g., Press release, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Members Introduce Bill to Prevent Transfer of Terrorists to Virginia
Prisons (Mar. 2, 2009), available at http://forbes.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=113008.
16 Although the war powers and foreign affairs powers are shared between the political branches, traditional notions
dictate that Congress should not interfere with the President’s direction of wartime campaigns, See Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 591-92 (2006) (citing Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 139-40 (1866)). However, Congress has
occasionally purported to limit executive authority in the conduct of wars. See, e.g., War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C.
§§ 1541-1548. The boundaries between executive and congressional war and foreign affairs powers are unclear, as is
the scope of activities which fall under those powers in the modern war on terror.
17 A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by the United States at Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, H.R. 148, 111th Cong.
(2009); A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained by the United States at Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina, H.R. 565, 111th Cong. (2009); A bill
to prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to the Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar, California, or the Camp Pendleton Base Brig, Camp Pendleton,
California, or to construct facilities for such enemy combatants at such locations, H.R. 633, 111th Cong. (2009); A bill
to prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, to any facility in Oklahoma, or to construct any facility for such enemy combatants in Oklahoma, H.R. 701,
111th Cong. (2009); A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by the United States at
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Florence Federal Correctional Complex in Colorado, or to construct
facilities for such enemy combatants at such location, H.R. 794, 111th Cong. (2009); A bill to prohibit the use of funds
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
would also restrict the use of federal funds to construct new detention facilities or house detainees
in those locations. Explaining the concern prompting one such bill, Representative Forbes of
Virginia explained that Guantanamo detainees’ suspected “connections with terrorist
organizations ... rais[es] significant security questions about moving these suspects to facilities
within Virginia, especially as many of the [Virginia] facilities are within miles of neighborhoods,
military bases, and schools.”18
S. 370 and H.R. 1012 are broader in scope. S. 370 prohibits the use of federal funds to transfer
detainees or construct detention facilities for them anywhere within the United States.19 H.R.
1012 prohibits the use of Department of Defense funds for such purposes and forbids the
Department from coordinating with another department to effect transfers into the United States.20
Rather than restrict the use of funds, some bills would restrict entry through provisions governing
detainees’ immigration status or restricting judicial authority. H.R. 1238 makes an alien detained
at Guantanamo “permanently ineligible” for both “admission to the United States for any
purpose” and “parole into the United States or any other physical presence in the United States
that is not regarded as an admission.”21 Similarly, the Protection from Enemy Combatants Act, S.
108, would forbid the release by a U.S. court of any “covered alien” – defined as any person who
“was detained” at Guantanamo – into the United States.22 It would also bar the issuance of an
immigration visa or the granting of any immigration status that might facilitate a detainee’s entry
into the United States or continued presence after release from custody. However, S. 108 contains
a waiver provision that would allow the President to remove the restriction where doing so would
be “consistent with the national security of the United States.”
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Several proposals contemplate the transfer, in specific circumstances, of Guantanamo detainees
into the United States. Specifically, the bills requiring closure of the detention facility – S. 147,
H.R. 374, and H.R. 591 – would also authorize transfer to a detention facility in the United States
(...continued)
to transfer individuals detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to facilities in Georgia or to house such
individuals at such facilities, H.R. 817, 111th Cong. (2009); A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals
detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to facilities in North Carolina or to house such individuals at such
facilities, H.R. 829, 111th Cong. (2009); A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained at
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to facilities in Arizona or to build, modify, or enhance any facility in Arizona to
house such enemy combatants, H.R. 951, 111th Cong. (2009); A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals
detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to facilities in Florida or to house such individuals at such facilities,
H.R. 1073, 111th Cong. (2009); A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained at Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to facilities in Virginia or to house such individuals at such facilities, H.R. 1186, 111th Cong.
(2009).
18 Press release, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, Members Introduce Bill to Prevent Transfer of Terrorists to Virginia Prisons
(Mar. 2, 2009), available at http://forbes.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=113008.
19 A bill to prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees of the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
to any facility in the United States or to construct any facility for such detainees in the United States, and for other
purposes, S. 370, 111th Cong. (2009).
20 Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009, H.R. 1012, 111th Cong. (2009).
21 A bill to prohibit the presence in the United States of any alien formerly detained at the Department of Defense
detention facility at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, H.R. 1238, 111th Cong. (2009).
22 Protection from Enemy Combatants Act, S. 108, 111th Cong. (2009).
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
for criminal prosecution.23 With sponsors noting that the Guantanamo detention “experiment” has
lasted seven years and resulted in only three convictions,24 the bills appear to emphasize a priority
on transfer for the purpose of initiating criminal prosecutions in a timely manner. Appearing to
counter other lawmakers’ concerns regarding ensuing security risks, Senator Feinstein noted that
“federal civilian or military justice systems ... have handled terrorists and other dangerous
individuals before and are capable of dealing with classified evidence and other unusual
factors.”25 All three bills contain options for transferring detainees to international tribunals,
transferring detainees to their home countries or different countries, and release.
The three bills differ in their approaches to continued preventative detention – i.e., detention for
purposes other than prosecution or punishment. S. 147 and H.R. 374 would allow further
preventative detention “in accordance with the law of the armed conflict.” In contrast, H.R. 591
does not contain a provision expressly authorizing detainees’ transfer to the United States for the
purpose of continued preventative detention.26
ȱȱȱ ǰȱǰȱȱȱ
Several legislative proposals address the treatment or prosecution of Guantanamo (and other)
detainees. Treatment is governed by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and Common Article 3
of the Geneva Conventions.27 Pursuant to the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, all persons in the
custody or control of the U.S. military (including Guantanamo detainees) must be treated in
accordance with Army Field Manual requirements.28 Under Common Article 3, detainees must be
treated humanely and protected from “violence to life and person,” “cruel treatment and torture,”
and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.”29 The
same requirements would apply if detainees were transferred to the United States. In contrast,
prosecution is governed by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which addresses only
detainees held at Guantanamo; inside the United States, it is unclear whether a civilian, military,
23 Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008, H.R. 591, 111th Cong; Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act,
H.R. 374, 111th Cong; Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, S. 147, 111th Cong. It is unclear from the bills whether
detainees might then be released into the United States if acquitted after a criminal trial. Even if the bills contemplate
such release, detainees would presumably lack immigration status and be subject to U.S. immigration laws.
24 155 Cong. Rec. S157 (daily ed. Jan. 7, 2009) (statement of Sen. Feinstein).
25 Id.
26 In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the
President may preventatively detain persons properly determined to be “enemy combatants” – a category not fully
defined but which includes those captured while fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan – for the duration of the conflict.
542 U. S. 507 (2004). Under Hamdi, it appears that Guantanamo detainees properly determined to be “enemy
combatants” may be held in preventative detention by military authorities even if transferred to the United States. It is
unclear whether H.R. 591 would purport to reverse that grant of authority as applied to Guantanamo detainees.
27 The U.S. Supreme Court determined that Common Article 3 applies to Guantanamo detainees in a 2006 case,
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
28 Section 1002 of P.L. 109-148 requires the DOD to follow the Army Field Manual for intelligence interrogation. See
Department of the Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (FM 34-52), Human Intelligence Collector Operations (2006).
29 “Common Article 3” refers to the third article in each of the four Geneva Conventions, the Convention for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces
at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217); the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949
(6 UST 3316); and the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6
UST 3516).
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
or an alternative judicial process that is in accordance with constitutional rights afforded to
persons located in the United States will be used to prosecute detainees.
Perhaps in response to judicial opinions invalidating provisions of the Military Commissions
Act30 and to concerns regarding detainee abuse,31 legislation has been introduced which would
eliminate the military commissions framework for prosecution or provide additional standards
governing interrogation and treatment. H.R. 591 would institute or prompt the formulation of
major reforms for interrogating and prosecuting detainees.32 Referring to the “failure of the
military commissions system,” it contains provisions that repeal the Military Commissions Act
and abolish the military commission system established by the act. Instead, prosecutions would
take place in federal civilian courts or in courts-martial proceedings. In addition, it would direct
the President to establish a “Center for Excellence in Human Intelligence Collection” and develop
“uniform standards for the interrogation of persons in the custody or under the effective control of
the United States.” It would also require that interrogations be videotaped.
S. 147 and H.R. 374 require that interrogations of all persons in custody of U.S. intelligence
agencies be conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Field Manual.33 The bills would
foreclose the possibility, left open in President Obama’s executive order on interrogation, that
techniques other than those in the Army Field Manual could eventually be deemed appropriate for
use by agencies outside the military.34
Another bill would restrict detainees use of medical facilities. Finding that Guantanamo detainees
“often receive better medical treatment and food than members of the United States Armed
Forces” and “are often treated better than inmates in American prisons,” H.R. 1042 prohibits the
provision of medical treatment to Guantanamo detainees in any facility where members of the
armed forces also receive treatment or in any facility operated by the Department of Veteran’s
Affairs.35 It is possible that such a provision could raise concerns regarding U.S. compliance with
the Common Article 3 requirement to treat detainees humanely.
ȱȱȱ¡ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱ ȱ¢ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
The Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2009, H.R. 630, “reaffirms that the President is
authorized to detain enemy combatants in connection with the continuing armed conflict with al
Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, regardless of the place of capture, until the termination
30 See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) (invalidating the provision in the Act that purported to
foreclose habeas corpus challenges brought by Guantanamo detainees).
31 See, e.g., Senate Armed Services Committee, Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody, available with
redactions at http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2008/Detainees.121108.pdf.
32 Interrogation and Detention Reform Act of 2008, H.R. 591, 111th Cong. (2009).
33 Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, H.R. 374, 111th Cong; Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, S. 147,
111th Cong.
34 Executive Order, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, January 22, 2009, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/.
35 To prohibit the provision of medical treatment to enemy combatants detained by the United States at Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the same facility as a member of the Armed Forces or Department of Veterans Affairs
medical facility, H.R. 1042, 111th Cong. (2009).
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
of hostilities.”36 This provision would reaffirm, and perhaps extend, the President’s authority to
preventatively detain enemy combatants as part of post-9/11 military operations. In Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force authorized
the President to preventatively detain enemy combatants captured during hostilities in
Afghanistan but did not address whether such authority extends to captures made in other
locations.37 With the language “regardless of place of capture,” H.R. 630 appears to authorize
preventative detentions of any alleged al Qaeda or Taliban belligerent, even if captured outside
military operations in Afghanistan.
H.R. 630 would also amend the federal habeas corpus statute.38 For example, it would: (1) grant
exclusive jurisdiction over habeas challenges to the U.S. District Court in the District of
Columbia; (2) establish a rebuttable presumption that detainees are enemy combatants for the
purpose of habeas review; and (3) require that habeas proceedings be stayed after charges are
brought under the Military Commissions Act and until a detainee has exhausted review
procedures established by that act. Because it stays habeas review only for detainees against
whom charges have been brought, this proposal differs from the broader denial of habeas review
which the Supreme Court struck down as constitutionally invalid in Boumediene v. Bush.39 It is
unclear whether this distinction would be sufficient to withstand judicial scrutiny.
ȱ
Legislative proposals introduced during the 111th Congress offer various responses to closing the
Guantanamo detention facility, transfer and disposition of detainees, and detainee treatment.
Although President Obama has addressed several of these issues in executive orders, legislation
may be necessary to make measures taken in an executive order permanent or to effect alternative
approaches to the disposition of Guantanamo detainees. To date, none of the legislative proposals
have been reported from committee. If no bill passes, the Special Task Force on Detainee
Disposition, established by executive order, will likely address many issues raised by the
legislative proposals.
36 Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2009, H.R. 630, 111th Cong. (2009).
37 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
38 28 U.S.C. §2241.
39 553 U.S. __, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) (holding that the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus applies to Guantanamo
detainees and that provisions in the Military Commissions Act do not provide an adequate substitute for habeas
claims). For more information on the Boumediene decision, see CRS Report RL34536, Boumediene v. Bush:
Guantanamo Detainees' Right to Habeas Corpus, by Michael John Garcia.
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱ
Anna C. Henning
Legislative Attorney
ahenning@crs.loc.gov, 7-4067
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ