Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Garcia, Michael John" in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Supreme Court October Term 2016: A Review of Select Major Rulings [September 15, 2017]
"The Supreme Court term that began on October 3, 2016, was notably different from recent terms at the High Court. It was the first term (1) in thirty years to begin without Justice Antonin Scalia on the Court; (2) since 1987 to commence with a Court made up of fewer than nine active Justices; and (3) since 2010 in which a new member (Justice Neil Gorsuch) joined the High Court. Court observers have suggested that the lack of a fully staffed Supreme Court for the bulk of the last term likely had an impact on the Court's work both with regard to the volume of cases that the Court heard and the nature of those cases. The Court issued seventy written opinions during the October 2016 term and heard oral arguments in sixty-four cases, numbers that constitute the lightest docket for the Court since at least the Civil War era. Moreover, unlike in recent terms where the Court issued opinions on matters related to abortion and affirmative action, the Court's docket for the October 2016 term had comparatively very few high-profile issues."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Nolan, Andrew; Brown, Cynthia; Garcia, Michael John . . .
2017-09-15
-
U.S. Accession to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) [October 26, 2009]
"On July 22, 2009, during Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit to Southeast Asia, the United States acceded to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN) Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), one of the 10-nation organization's core documents, as had been amended by the 1987 and 1998 TAC Protocols. The move came less than six months after Secretary of State Clinton announced in Jakarta that the Obama Administration would launch its formal interagency process to pursue accession. This report analyzes the legal and diplomatic issues involved with accession to the TAC."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Morrison, Wayne M.; Garcia, Michael John; Manyin, Mark E.
2009-10-26
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens [Updated October 12, 2007]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdictions. For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and inhuman punishment committed under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. Additionally, CAT Article 3 requires that no state party expel, return, or extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds to believe he would be subjected to torture. CAT Article 3 does not expressly prohibit persons from being removed to countries where they would face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment not rising to the level of torture."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John; Nordin, Johannes
2007-10-12
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens [Updated January 16, 2007]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdictions. For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and inhuman punishment committed under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. Additionally, CAT Article 3 requires that no state party expel, return, or extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds to believe he would be subjected to torture. CAT Article 3 does not prohibit persons from being removed to countries where they would face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment not rising to the level of torture. […] CAT obligations concerning alien removal have additional implications in cases of criminal and other deportable aliens. The Supreme Court's ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis suggests that certain aliens receiving protection under CAT cannot be indefinitely detained, raising the possibility that certain otherwise-deportable aliens could be released into the United States if CAT protections make their removal impossible. CAT obligations also have implications for the practice of 'extraordinary renditions,' by which the U.S. purportedly has transferred aliens suspected of terrorist activity to countries that possibly employ torture as a means of interrogation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John; Nordin, Johannes
2007-01-16
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [Updated January 25, 2008]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the treaty was not self-executing and required implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts. In order to ensure U.S. compliance with CAT obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the United States enacted 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340 and 2340A, which prohibit torture occurring outside the United States (torture occurring inside the United States was already generally prohibited under several federal and state statutes criminalizing acts such as assault, battery, and murder). The applicability and scope of these statutes were the subject of widely-reported memorandums by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice in 2002. In late 2004, the Department of Justice released a memorandum superseding its earlier memo and modifying some of its conclusions. Assuming for the purposes of discussion that a U.S. body had to review a harsh interrogation method to determine whether it constituted torture under either CAT or applicable U.S. law, it might examine international jurisprudence as to whether certain interrogation methods constituted torture."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2008-01-25
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [Updated July 23, 2007]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts. In order to ensure U.S. compliance with CAT obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the United States enacted §§ 2340 and 2340A of the United States Criminal Code, which prohibit torture occurring outside the United States (torture occurring inside the United States was already prohibited under several federal and state statutes of general application prohibiting acts such as assault, battery, and murder). The applicability and scope of these statutes were the subject of widely-reported memorandums by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice in 2002. In late 2004, the Department of Justice released a memorandum superseding its earlier memo and modifying some of its conclusions. Assuming for the purposes of discussion that a U.S. body had to review a harsh interrogation method to determine whether it constituted torture under either CAT or applicable U.S. law, it might examine international jurisprudence as to whether certain interrogation methods constituted torture."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2007-07-23
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [Updated November 7, 2005]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts. In order to ensure U.S. compliance with CAT obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the United States enacted sections 2340 and 2340A of the United States Criminal Code, which prohibit torture occurring outside the United States (torture occurring inside the United States was already prohibited under several federal and state statutes of general application prohibiting acts such as assault, battery, and murder). The applicability and scope of these statutes were the subject of widely-reported memorandums by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice in 2002. In late 2004, the Department of Justice released a memorandum superseding its earlier memo and modifying some of its conclusions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2005-11-07
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [Updated February 10, 2005]
"The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts. In order to ensure U.S. compliance with CAT obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the United States enacted sections 2340 and 2340A of the United States Criminal Code, which prohibit torture occurring outside the United States (torture occurring inside the United States was already prohibited under several federal and state statutes of general application prohibiting acts such as assault, battery, and murder). The applicability and scope of these statutes were the subject of widely-reported memorandums by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice in 2002. In late 2004, the Department of Justice released a memorandum superseding its earlier memo and modifying some of its conclusions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2005-02-10
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [June 16, 2004]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. Assuming for the purposes of discussion that a U.S. body had to review a harsh interrogation method to determine whether it constituted torture under either CAT or applicable U.S. law, it might examine international jurisprudence as to whether certain interrogation methods constituted torture. A reviewing body might examine decisions made by both the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee against Torture, the monitoring body of CAT, which have examined interrogation methods including the use of such tactics as sleep deprivation, 'hooding' of detained individuals, and subjecting detainees to loud noise to determine whether such acts constituted torture. Although these decisions are not binding precedent for the United States, they may inform deliberations here. This report will be updated as events require."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2004-06-16
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [Updated January 26, 2009]
This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report discusses the U.N. Convention Against Torture. "The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the treaty was not self-executing and required implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts. In order to ensure U.S. compliance with CAT obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the United States enacted 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340 and 2340A, which prohibit torture occurring outside the United States (torture occurring inside the United States was already generally prohibited under several federal and state statutes criminalizing acts such as assault, battery, and murder). The applicability and scope of these statutes were the subject of widely-reported memorandums by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice in 2002. In late 2004, the Department of Justice released a memorandum superseding its earlier memo and modifying some of its conclusions. Assuming for the purposes of discussion that a U.S. body had to review a harsh interrogation method to determine whether it constituted torture under either CAT or applicable U.S. law, it might examine international jurisprudence as to whether certain interrogation methods constituted torture."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2009-01-26
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [Updated January 25, 2006]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted On October 5, 2005, the Senate adopted by a vote of 90-9 a floor amendment (S.Amdt. 1977) proposed by Senator John McCain to modify H.R. 2863, the Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill, which had passed the House on June 20, 2005. S.Amdt. 1977 prohibits persons in the custody or under the control of the U.S. government, regardless of their nationality or physical location, from being subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as defined by U.S. reservations to CAT. H.R. 2863 is currently in conference to resolve differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed versions, and it is unclear whether the provisions added to the Senate-passed version by S.Amdt. 1977 will be in the final bill."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2006-01-25
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques [Updated January 12, 2007]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction and to criminalize all acts of torture. Unlike many other international agreements and declarations prohibiting torture, CAT provides a general definition of the term. CAT generally defines torture as the infliction of severe physical and/or mental suffering committed under the color of law. CAT allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. The United States ratified CAT, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to be enforced by U.S. courts. In order to ensure U.S. compliance with CAT obligations to criminalize all acts of torture, the United States enacted §§ 2340 and 2340A of the United States Criminal Code, which prohibit torture occurring outside the United States (torture occurring inside the United States was already prohibited under several federal and state statutes of general application prohibiting acts such as assault, battery, and murder). The applicability and scope of these statutes were the subject of widely-reported memorandums by the Department of Defense and Department of Justice in 2002. In late 2004, the Department of Justice released a memorandum superseding its earlier memo and modifying some of its conclusions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2007-01-12
-
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress [January 13, 2011]
From the Summary: "The detention of alleged enemy belligerents at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, together with proposals to transfer some such individuals to the United States for prosecution or continued detention, has been a subject of considerable interest for Congress. Several authorization and appropriations measures enacted during the 111th Congress addressed the disposition and treatment of Guantanamo detainees. This report analyzes legislation enacted in the 111th Congress concerning persons held at the Guantanamo detention facility. […] Several appropriations measures enacted in the 111th Congress restricted appropriated funds from being used to transfer or release Guantanamo detainees into the United States; they permitted transfers for purposes of criminal prosecution or detention during legal proceedings, contingent upon certain reporting requirements being fulfilled. However, the 2011 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] (P.L. 111-383), which was signed into law on January 7, 2011, prohibits any funds it authorizes to be appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) from being used to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose, and also bars such funds from being used to assist in the transfer of such persons. Because Guantanamo detainees are presently in military custody, the act could be interpreted as effectively barring the transfer of any Guantanamo detainee into the United States, despite language in authorizing appropriations measures for other federal agencies that permits the use of funds to transfer detainees into the country for criminal prosecution. In addition to these restrictions, the 2011 NDAA bars authorized funds from being used to construct facilities in the United States to house transferred Guantanamo detainees, and also imposes restrictions on the transfer of detainees to certain foreign countries in order to deter the return of transferred detainees to hostilities."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2011-01-13
-
Guantanamo Detention Center: Legislative Activity in the 111th Congress [November 4, 2010]
From the Summary: "The detention of alleged enemy belligerents at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, together with proposals to transfer some such individuals to the United States for prosecution or continued detention, has been a subject of considerable interest for Congress. Several authorization and appropriations measures enacted during the 111th Congress, along with various pending bills, address the disposition and treatment of Guantanamo detainees. To date in the 111th Congress, provisions directly relating to Guantanamo detainees have been enacted as part of eight laws: the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32); the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-83); the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 111-84); the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-88); the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117); the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-118); the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-212) and the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2010 (P.L. 111-259). Most of these measures impose general restrictions on the use or availability of funds to transfer or release Guantanamo detainees into the United States, though they also provide an exception permitting transfers for purposes of criminal prosecution or detention during legal proceedings if certain reporting requirements are fulfilled. [...] This report analyzes relevant provisions in enacted legislation and selected pending bills."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2010-11-04
-
Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity [Updated December 2, 2004]
From the Summary: "Congress has broad plenary authority to determine classes of aliens who may be admitted into the United States and the grounds for which they may be removed. Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, certain conduct may either disqualify an alien from entering the United States ('inadmissibility') or provide grounds for his or her removal/deportation. Prominently included among this conduct is criminal activity. 'Criminal activity' comprises acts violative of federal, state, or, in many cases, foreign criminal law. It does not cover violations of the INA that are not crimes, most notably, being in the U.S. without legal permission. Thus, the term 'illegal alien' -- an alien without legal status -- is not synonymous with 'criminal alien.' Most crimes affecting immigration status are not specifically mentioned by the INA, but instead fall under a broad category of crimes, such as crimes involving moral turpitude or aggravated felonies. In addition, certain criminal conduct precludes a finding of good moral character under the INA, which is a requirement for naturalization and certain types of immigration relief. In certain circumstances, grounds for inadmissibility or deportability may be waived. Additionally, aliens facing removal may be allowed to remain in the United States, subject to discretionary or mandatory relief from removal for humanitarian reasons, such as through asylum, withholding of removal, or cancellation of removal. Aliens facing removal may also be permitted to depart the United States voluntarily, and thereby avoid the potential stigma and legal consequences of forced removal. Criminal conduct may effect an alien's eligibility for either voluntary departure or discretionary relief from removal. Additionally, criminal conduct is a key disqualifying factor under the character requirement for naturalization."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Eig, Larry M.; Garcia, Michael John
2004-12-02
-
State and Local Economic Sanctions: Constitutional Issues [February 20, 2013]
"States and localities have at times proposed or enacted measures restricting governmental transactions with entities doing business or having financial ties with foreign countries whose conduct is found objectionable, particularly because of terrorism or human rights concerns. This report summarizes constitutional arguments made for and against these laws and discusses the Supreme Court's decisions in 'Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council' and 'American Insurance Association v. Garamendi', where the Court addressed the permissibility of state laws having implications upon U.S. foreign affairs. The report also discusses a 2007 federal district court decision which held that an Illinois law that imposed sanctions upon Sudan was unconstitutional, along with a 2012 federal district court decision preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of a Florida statute which, among other things, restricts the state or local governments from entering contracts with certain entities that do business in Cuba. The report also suggests some possible legal ramifications of recent case law for future state and congressional action in this area, and summarizes recent federal enactments addressing state economic sanctions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John; Garvey, Todd
2013-02-20
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens [January 21, 2009]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdictions. For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and inhuman punishment committed under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. Additionally, CAT Article 3 requires that no state party expel, return, or extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds to believe he would be subjected to torture. CAT Article 3 does not expressly prohibit persons from being removed to countries where they would face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment not rising to the level of torture. [...]. CAT obligations concerning alien removal have additional implications in cases of criminal and other deportable aliens. The Supreme Court's ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis suggests that certain aliens receiving protection under CAT cannot be indefinitely detained, raising the possibility that certain otherwise-deportable aliens could be released into the United States if CAT protections make their removal impossible. CAT obligations also have implications for the practice of 'extraordinary renditions,' by which the U.S. purportedly has transferred aliens suspected of terrorist activity to countries that possibly employ torture as a means of interrogation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John; Nordin, Johannes
2009-01-21
-
U.N. Convention Against Torture: Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens [Updated April 4, 2006]
"The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdictions. For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and inhuman punishment committed under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. Additionally, CAT Article 3 requires that no state party expel, return, or extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds to believe he would be subjected to torture. CAT Article 3 does not prohibit persons from being removed to countries where they would face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment not rising to the level of torture. The United States ratified CAT subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not self-executing, and therefore required domestic implementing legislation to take effect. In accordance with CAT Article 3, the United States enacted statutes and regulations to prohibit the transfer of aliens to countries where they would be tortured, including the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, section 2340A of the United States Criminal Code, and certain regulations implemented and enforced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of State."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John; Nordin, Johannes
2006-04-04
-
U.S. Accession to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) [Updated July 13, 2009]
"In February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the Obama Administration would launch its formal interagency process to pursue accession to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN) Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), one of the ten-nation organization's core documents. The Administration reportedly hopes to announce its accession at the ASEAN Regional Forum Foreign Ministerial meeting July 22-23, 2009. This report analyzes the legal and diplomatic issues involved with accession to the TAC."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Morrison, Wayne M.; Manyin, Mark E.; Garcia, Michael John
2009-07-13
-
U.S. Accesion to ASEAN's Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) [May 5, 2009]
"In February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the Obama Administration would launch its formal interagency process to pursue accession to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN) Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), one of the ten-nation organization's core documents. It is expected that this process could be concluded within the year. If the Administration chooses to send a signal (such as signing the agreement) before then, it could do so at the next likely milestone, the ASEAN Regional Forum Foreign Ministerial meeting in late July 2009. This report will analyze the legal and diplomatic issues involved with the possible accession to the TAC. […]. Some U.S. and Southeast Asian officials and analysts say that expanding U.S. engagement with ASEAN will help boost Southeast Asia's political stature, particularly as China seeks to continue expanding its influence in the region. The major concern with accession is whether the TAC's emphasis on non-interference in other countries' domestic affairs would constrain U.S. freedom of action, particularly its ability to maintain or expand sanctions on Burma. […]. Other objections have included arguments that acceding would accord greater legitimacy to the ruling Burmese junta; a view that ASEAN is insufficiently 'action-oriented'; and a belief that the TAC is an untested, arguably meaningless agreement. One issue that might arise for U.S. policymakers is whether accession to the TAC should take the form of a treaty, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, or whether the President already has sufficient authority to enter the TAC without further legislative action being necessary."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Morrison, Wayne M.; Manyin, Mark E.; Garcia, Michael John
2009-05-05
-
War Crimes Act: Current Issues [Updated January 28, 2008]
"The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the laws of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the act prohibits certain violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment of detainees in armed conflicts of a non-international character. Common Article 3 prohibits protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. As amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366), the War Crimes Act now criminalizes only specified Common Article 3 violations labeled as 'grave breaches.' Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense. This report discusses current issues related to the War Crimes Act. This report also briefly describes legislation introduced in the first session of the 110th Congress that would amend the War Crimes Act."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2008-01-28
-
War Crimes Act: Current Issues [January 22, 2009]
"The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the law of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the act prohibits certain violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment of detainees in armed conflicts 'not of an international character [...]. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. military and intelligence personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. As amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366), the War Crimes Act now criminalizes only specified Common Article 3 violations labeled as 'grave breaches.' Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense. [...]. These statutory protections, along with a number of other available defenses, appear to make it unlikely that U.S. personnel could be convicted under the War Crimes Act for any authorized conduct which was undertaken with the reasonable (though mistaken) belief that such conduct was legal. In the 110th Congress, legislative proposals were introduced to modify the scope of the War Crimes Act, and it is possible that new legislative proposals will be introduced in the 111th Congress."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2009-01-22
-
War Crimes Act: Current Issues [Updated October 2, 2006]
"The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the laws of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the Act prohibits certain violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment of detainees in armed conflicts of a non-international character. Common Article 3 prohibits protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. Pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930; P.L. 109-XX [public law number not yet assigned]), approved by Congress in September 2006, the War Crimes Act criminalizes only those Common Article 3 violations labeled as 'grave breaches.' Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a criminal offense under the War Crimes Act. This report discusses current issues surrounding the War Crimes Act, including amendments made to it by the Military Commissions Act.
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2006-10-02
-
War Crimes Act: Current Issues [Updated September 25, 2006]
"The amended War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the laws of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the Act prohibits violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3 prohibits protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As such, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. This report covers these issues as well as recent legislative proposals, including S. 3929 and S. 3930, which are both entitled the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell on September 22, 2006; S. 3901, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, proposed by Senator John Warner and voted out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 14, 2006; S. 3861, the Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006, and S. 3886, the Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Prosecution Act of 2006, both introduced by Senator Bill Frist; and H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced by Representative Duncan Hunter."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2006-09-25
-
War Crimes Act: Current Issues [Updated September 15, 2006]
"The War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended, makes it a criminal offense to commit certain violations of the laws of war when such offenses are committed by or against U.S. nationals or Armed Service members. Among other things, the Act prohibits violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which sets out minimum standards for the treatment of detainees in armed conflicts of a noninternational character. Common Article 3 prohibits protected persons from being subjected to violence, outrages upon personal dignity, torture, and cruel, humiliating, or degrading treatment. In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's long-standing position that Common Article 3 was inapplicable to the present armed conflict with Al Qaeda. As a result, questions have arisen regarding the scope of the War Crimes Act as it relates to violations of Common Article 3 and the possibility that U.S. personnel may be prosecuted for the pre-Hamdan treatment of Al Qaeda detainees. This report provides a brief overview of these issues as well recent legislative proposals, including S. 3901, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, proposed by Sen. John Warner and voted out of the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 14, 2006; S. 3861, the Bringing Terrorists to Justice Act of 2006, and S. 3886, the Terrorist Tracking, Identification, and Protection Act of 2006, both introduced by Sen. Bill Frist; and H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, introduced by Rep. Duncan Hunter."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2006-09-15
-
Judicial Opinions of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh [July 23, 2018]
From the Document: "On July 9, 2018, President Trump announced the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to succeed Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is scheduled to retire from active status on July 31, 2018. Judge Kavanaugh has served as a judge on the D.C. Circuit since May 30, 2006. He has also sat, by designation, on judicial panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and also served on three-judge panels of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2018-07-23
-
Essential Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh Reader: What Cases Should You Read? [July 25, 2018]
"Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, whom President Trump has nominated to fill the impending Supreme Court vacancy caused by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's retirement from the Court, has amassed a voluminous record of judicial writings during his legal career. These writings are certain to be a key topic of interest as the Senate prepares to hold hearings and a possible vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the High Court. CRS [Congressional Research Service] has published a report, Judicial Opinions of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, which provides a tabular listing of every judicial opinion authored by Judge Kavanaugh during his time on the federal bench, briefly describing each opinion (and the contrasting approach taken in any separate judicial opinion authored by another member of the panel on which Judge Kavanaugh served) and the primary legal subject the ruling addresses. While the report provides succinct descriptions of more than 300 judicial opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh (the overwhelming majority as part of a D.C. Circuit panel, though a handful were authored as part of three-judge district court panels), some of the judicial opinions might be particularly useful to Members, congressional committees, and staff seeking to better understand Judge Kavanaugh's approach to different subjects. The following table, adapted from the larger report, highlights many of Judge Kavanaugh's judicial opinions that have received the greatest degree of attention from legal observers."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2018-07-25
-
Iran: Interim Nuclear Agreement and Talks on a Comprehensive Accord [March 27, 2015]
"On November 24, 2013, Iran and the six powers that have negotiated with Iran about its nuclear program since 2006 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany--collectively known as the 'P5+[plus]1') finalized an interim agreement ('Joint Plan of Action,' JPA) requiring Iran to freeze many aspects of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from some international sanctions. The period of the interim deal was to be six months, during which time Iran and the P5+1 would attempt to reach a comprehensive deal on the long-term status of Iran's nuclear program. The main elements of the JPA are requirements that Iran freeze, in effect, its production of enriched uranium hexafluoride containing 20% uranium-235--the form of enriched uranium in Iran's stockpile that has caused the most concern; dilute and convert the 20% enriched uranium and 5% enriched uranium stocks to other forms that would take time to reverse; halt key elements of its heavy-water reactor program that could lead to a plutonium bomb; and provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with additional information about its nuclear program, as well as access to some nuclear-related facilities which are not covered by Iran's IAEA safeguards agreement. The JPA has been seen as slowing Iran's build-up of nuclear material and improving the international community's ability to identify Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has complied with its JPA obligations, according to the IAEA."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth; Kerr, Paul K.; Nikitin, Mary Beth Dunham . . .
2015-03-27
-
Iran: Efforts to Achieve a Nuclear Accord [July 1, 2015]
"On November 24, 2013, Iran and the six powers that have negotiated with Iran about its nuclear program since 2006 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany--collectively known as the 'P5+1') reached an interim agreement ('Joint Plan of Action,' JPA) requiring Iran to freeze many aspects of its nuclear program in exchange for temporary relief from some international sanctions. The period of the JPA, which began implementation on January 20, 2014, was to be six months, during which time Iran and the P5+1 would attempt to reach a comprehensive deal on the long-term status of Iran's nuclear program. The JPA has been seen as slowing Iran's build-up of nuclear material and improving the international community's ability to identify Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has complied with its JPA obligations, according to the IAEA. Under the JPA, the P5+1 countries have refrained from imposing new sanctions and permitted Iran to repatriate to Iran about $700 million per month in oil sales proceeds. Iran's oil exports are capped at about 1.3 million barrels per day (including oil by-products)--a 50% drop from 2011 levels of about 2.5 million barrels per day. The JPA also permits Iran to sell petrochemicals and trade in gold and other precious metals, and to conduct transactions with foreign firms involved in Iran's auto sector. Throughout 2014 and thus far in 2015, the international community has focused on negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear accord ('Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPA). The P5+1- Iran negotiations began in February 2014 and have made steady but slow progress, causing several extensions of the JPA. On April 2, 2015, the P5+1 and Iran announced that they had reached an overarching framework for a comprehensive agreement, with the intent of finalizing a detailed agreement by the expiration of the current JPA period on June 30, 2015. The main outstanding issues center on the size and scope of Iran's uranium enrichment program; the duration of the comprehensive accord; and the extent of the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth; Kerr, Paul K.; Garcia, Michael John
2015-07-01
-
NATO Enlargement: Senate Advice and Consent [February 5, 2008]
"On July 21, 1949, the Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty. That treaty bound twelve states -- the United States, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and Great Britain -- in a pact of mutual defense and created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO now has a membership of twenty-six states. This enlargement has occurred gradually -- Greece and Turkey joined in 1952; the Federal Republic of Germany in 1955; Spain in 1982; Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1998; and Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004. Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia are candidates for the next round of NATO enlargement, and one or more of these countries may be invited to join NATO at the April 2008 summit in Bucharest. […] This report describes the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty and of the original Senate debate in 1949 pertinent to enlargement and the procedures that have been followed for each subsequent enlargement proposal. It also discusses what the Senate did with respect to the reunification of Germany in 1990 and the implications of that event for Germany's membership in NATO. The report will be updated as needed."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Garcia, Michael John
2008-02-05
