Dear friends,
Happy New Year, and I hope you are healthy and well. I’m writing to update you on my brother Nathan’s lawsuit concerning the need for a new AUMF (Authorized Use of Military Force), because you’ve expressed interest in the case at some point. The lawsuit is still ongoing, and, despite the national circus that has taken over our public life, is still being covered in various media outlets. I wanted to forward you a few of those podcasts and articles in case you’re interested in the developments.
Just a quick summary reminder of what Nathan’s case is all about: back in the summer of 2015, Nathan, who was then an Army Captain, sued then-President Obama over what he considered was the unconstitutional war against ISIS in Syria. The AUMF that is being used to justify that ongoing war dates back to 2001, and was specifically written to combat Al Qaeda. In Nathan and his legal team’s opinion, our present conflicts go well beyond the scope of Al Qaeda and the 2001 AUMF, and it is time for the President to call on Congress to pass a new AUMF for our current conflicts. Nathan and his team believe this issue is of great importance because it seeks to hold the executive and legislative branches accountable for fulfilling their constitutional duties of examining and debating, rather than accepting as a foregone conclusion, our 17-year state of warfare.
Since there has been no change to the AUMF or our state of conflict since President Obama left office, Nathan’s case is now Capt. Nathan Smith vs. President Trump.
The case was originally rejected in the D.C. courts for lack of standing. Nathan and his team appealed, and a few months ago, the case advanced to oral arguments in the D.C. federal district courts. James, my sister Kelly, brother-in-law Matty, and I all traveled to D.C. to hear the arguments, which was a fascinating experience. Nathan was represented by Professor Bruce Ackerman, professor of law at Yale, and David Remes, a D.C. attorney known for his representation of Guantanamo detainees (the attached photo is of Nathan with Bruce and David). The case was the last on the docket for the day, and the arguments and questioning lasted for over an hour. We are currently awaiting the results of those arguments. If Nathan’s standing is ultimately rejected by that panel of judges, the next stop for appeal will be the Supreme Court.
I’m linking a few of the recent articles, op-eds, and podcasts about the case for your perusal. I especially highly recommend the first podcast, because 1) the soundtrack is epic, 2) it includes Nathan telling his own story in his own words, and 3) it’s gripping and very well-done.
Feel free to forward this email to anyone who might be interested in this issue. Thanks for your interest in what both Nathan and I consider to be a crucial issue of our day (competing with a thousand other crucial issues in this day and age!).
Best to all of you and your families.
Erin
o A 20-minute gripping and well-done podcast that includes Nathan telling his own story. It also features the input of a Harvard professor of divinity and philosophy, and the foreign policy manager at the national offices of Indivisible.
o summary of the October court proceedings
o Op-ed written by Nathan for the blog Task and Purpose, calling specifically on veterans to hold Congress accountable for doing their constitutional duty in debating and voting on war
o Op-ed written by Nathan directed at members of Congress
o A 10-minute segment from NPR’s “On Point,” in which Bruce Ackerman (professor of law at Yale and one of Nathan’s legal team members) discusses the relevance of Nathan’s case to the current situation with North Korea and the President’s unconstrained ability to launch nuclear war.
No comments:
Post a Comment