Vladeck on S. 3707
Steven Vladeck has an extensive discussion of, really an indictment of, the Graham bill over at Prawfsblog. I will have a fair bit to say in response to Steve.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Steven Vladeck has an extensive discussion of, really an indictment of, the Graham bill over at Prawfsblog. I will have a fair bit to say in response to Steve. As I'm still digesting his post right now (along with my morning coffee), however, I'll give readers the chance to do the same.
One initial thought, though:
Steve and I have long joked in many public panels that while we seem to disagree about a lot of things and on that basis end up on opposite sides of panel discussions, we actually find much to agree on once those panels actually convene. The specific example we both always cite is the need for "framework legislation" for detention. I end up on these panels because I have written in support of the idea of a national security court. Steve ends up on the panels because he has written against national security courts. Yet scratch beneath the surface, and much of the apparent disagreement becomes ephemeral. We both support the idea that the country needed framework legislation for detention--or, at least, we used to. Our argument merely concerned the terms of that legislation. Partly for that reason, I was very much looking forward to Steve's vision of what appropriate framework legislation would look like.
It is thus a matter of some considerable sadness to me that Steve has, in this post, come out pretty squarely against framework legislation as a concept. It is, he writes, "both unnecessary and unwise," and he makes clear that "better drafting won’t—and can’t—solve my real concerns." Oh well.
One initial thought, though:
Steve and I have long joked in many public panels that while we seem to disagree about a lot of things and on that basis end up on opposite sides of panel discussions, we actually find much to agree on once those panels actually convene. The specific example we both always cite is the need for "framework legislation" for detention. I end up on these panels because I have written in support of the idea of a national security court. Steve ends up on the panels because he has written against national security courts. Yet scratch beneath the surface, and much of the apparent disagreement becomes ephemeral. We both support the idea that the country needed framework legislation for detention--or, at least, we used to. Our argument merely concerned the terms of that legislation. Partly for that reason, I was very much looking forward to Steve's vision of what appropriate framework legislation would look like.
It is thus a matter of some considerable sadness to me that Steve has, in this post, come out pretty squarely against framework legislation as a concept. It is, he writes, "both unnecessary and unwise," and he makes clear that "better drafting won’t—and can’t—solve my real concerns." Oh well.
Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books.
