However, the retired judges left it unclear how they will proceed. She has denied any wrongdoing.Īfter meeting in a closed-door session for one hour Monday, the board voted unanimously to invoke procedures that allow for a contested case hearing to give Noem a chance to publicly defend herself against allegations of “misconduct” related to “conflicts of interest” and “malfeasance.” The board also dismissed Ravnsborg’s allegations that Noem misused state funds in the episode. She is under scrutiny from the board after Jason Ravnsborg, the state’s former Republican attorney general, filed complaints that stemmed from media reports on Noem’s actions in office. The Republican governor faces reelection this year and has also positioned herself as an aspirant to the White House in 2024. The board’s moves potentially escalate the ramifications of investigations into Noem. The three retired judges on the Government Accountability Board determined that “appropriate action” could be taken against Noem for her role in her daughter’s appraiser licensure, though it didn’t specify the action. Kristi Noem may have “engaged in misconduct” when she intervened in her daughter’s application for a real estate appraiser license, and it referred a separate complaint over her state airplane use to the state’s attorney general for investigation. (AP) - A South Dakota ethics board on Monday said it found sufficient information that Gov. ![]() You can read the response here and below.SIOUX FALLS, S.D. Khan’s June 7 filing requested that the Biden administration approve Khan’s transfer anywhere outside of Pakistan, where Khan faces risk of persecution. authorities while in detention and was set to be released after serving the entirety of his sentence, which ended on March 1, 2022. Khan, who had been involved with al-Qaeda since 2002, cooperated fully with U.S. law explicitly prohibits the use of federal funds to transfer Guantánamo detainees to the U.S., and the response rejects the suggestion of releasing Khan on base. diplomats have asked 11 countries whether they would consider allowing Khan to resettle in their territories. To support its claim that it has been acting diligently, it notes that U.S. argues that given its good-faith efforts to resettle Khan, the court should “decline to take up adjudication of the numerous issues of statutory interpretation and constitutional and international law” raised in Khan’s petition, decline the request for habeas relief, and give it more time to facilitate the transfer. Nonetheless, the government notes, the Geneva Conventions’ approach to resolving detention is still instructive, as “the authority to detain must include ‘authority to resolve’ -the authority to detain pending efforts to ensure a safe and orderly release-while the Government continues to make good-faith efforts to conclude detention.” The government argues that Khan “overlooks” that the AUMF and general law-of-war detention authority “necessarily includes the power to resolve his detention in a safe and orderly manner, such as arranging for his resettlement.” argues that Khan’s status as neither a prisoner of war nor a civilian means that the Geneva Conventions do not “directly and fully apply” to his detention. The government argues that the court would have to weigh in on separation of powers issues-namely, which branch of government defines the existence of active hostilities and determines whether an armed conflict has been “terminated” or not-to address Khan's argument, but asserts the court need not reach that question at this time.Īdditionally, the U.S. ![]() 2 drone strike against then al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. It argues that the Executive Branch has made clear that hostilities remain ongoing, in part by citing the successful Aug. ![]() In particular, the government questions Khan’s assertion that active hostilities have ceased and that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) no longer authorizes his detention. argues in response that in addition to its “diligent” pursuit of diplomatic efforts to resettle Khan and its continued “prioritizing” of this effort, Khan’s petition also raised questions for which there currently exists no precedent and that there are constitutional questions that the court should refrain from reaching at this time. hostilities with al-Qaeda today make it a different conflict than the one in which Khan was initially captured and detained. Khan contended that his detention is “arbitrary, indefinite and perpetual, and does not serve its ostensible purpose of preventing his return to the battlefield.” To support this point, his lawyers noted that circumstances of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Guantánamo Bay detainee Majid Khan on June 7 regarding his transfer out of the military prison. 8, the Department of Justice filed a motion in opposition to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |