Victor Hansen

Ground Rules

  • Comments
    We welcome comments, whether favorable or critical, but we will edit or delete comments that are offensive, obnoxious, lacking in reasoning, or spam.
  • No Legal Advice
    Nothing that we write should be construed as legal advice, and under no circumstances should you expect that an attorney-client relationship exists between you and us.
  • Personal Views
    The views expressed in any individual blog post belong to the particular author, and should not be imputed to any other author, Wake Forest University, the University of Iowa, or the University of Miami.

« The Hamdan Verdict - A Government Stroke of Fortune? | Main | United States v. Siddiqui: Was She Almost the First Female Detainee at GTMO? »

August 06, 2008

Hamdan, Material Support, and the Ex Post Facto Issue

[Update: Tony Arend (G'town) has a persuasive take in response to the questions raised below. See here.]

Hamdan’s conviction this morning on material support charges has led many people to ask whether (i) material support was a war crime between 1996 and 2001 and (ii) if not, whether this violates the Constitutional prohibition on ex post facto prosecution. Judge Allred ruled on these issues on July 14, in this opinion . He held as follows:

a. The Ex Post Facto Clause does apply to Hamdan

b. There is evidence for and against the proposition that material support is a war crime

c. Because the Constitution grants Congress the power to “define” and punish violations of the law of nations, courts must defer to Congress insofar as it concludes that material support was a war crime at the time of Hamdan’s conduct.

In short, the ex post facto issue turns on a separation of powers question concerning the allocation of interpretive authority (something not usually in issue): does the “define and punish” clause require courts to give binding deference to a legislative conclusion that material support not only should be but always has been a war crime. Only after rejecting that proposition would a reviewing court then reach an independent judgment on the merits of the interpretive question. This will, no doubt, be a central issue on appeal.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b3a569e200e553d279ed8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hamdan, Material Support, and the Ex Post Facto Issue:

Comments

"courts must defer to Congress insofar as it concludes that material support was a war crime at the time of Hamdan’s conduct"

That does not seem a persuasive conclusion for Judge Allred to've reached, since deference to Congress makes it very difficult to enforce the Ex Post Facto Clause *against* Congress.

Allred was looking for law in all the wrong places. He should have Googled Salem and McCarthy. The rationale never changes and it is never seriously questioned until ex post facto - except, of course, by other witches (and familiars), communists(and sympathizers) and terrorists (and material supporters).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment