10 U.S.C. § 1023

PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC DETENTION REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)Procedures Required.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 31, 2011], the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth procedures for implementing the periodic review process required by Executive Order No. 13567 [set out below] for individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).“(b)Covered Matters.—The procedures submitted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum—“(1) clarify that the purpose of the periodic review process is not to determine the legality of any detainee’s law of war detention, but to make discretionary determinations whether or not a detainee represents a continuing threat to the security of the United States;“(2) clarify that the Secretary of Defense is responsible for any final decision to release or transfer an individual detained in military custody at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Executive Order referred to in subsection (a), and that in making such a final decision, the Secretary shall consider the recommendation of a periodic review board or review committee established pursuant to such Executive Order, but shall not be bound by any such recommendation;“(3) clarify that the periodic review process applies to any individual who is detained as an unprivileged enemy belligerent at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time; and“(4) ensure that appropriate consideration is given to factors addressing the need for continued detention of the detainee, including—“(A) the likelihood the detainee will resume terrorist activity if transferred or released;“(B) the likelihood the detainee will reestablish ties with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners if transferred or released;“(C) the likelihood of family, tribal, or government rehabilitation or support for the detainee if transferred or released;“(D) the likelihood the detainee may be subject to trial by military commission; and“(E) any law enforcement interest in the detainee.“(c)Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.—In this section, the term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means—“(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and“(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1989–2005 · leading case: Pearson v. Bloss, 28 M.J. 376 (1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pearson v. Bloss, 28 M.J. 376 (1989). “The legislative history of the predecessor of Article 2(a)(4), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 802 (a)(4), indicates that its sources are 10 USC § 1023 (1946 ed.) and 34 USC §§ 389 and 853d (1946 ed.”

Space Expl. Tech. Corp. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 2× “to Boeing and Lockheed Martin violates the full and open competition requirements of [the] CICA, 10 U.S.C. § 1023 et. seq.” Compl. ¶35. This statutory provision, 10 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.