News

(GUANTANAMO) — Through its nearly two-decade existence, the Guantanamo Bay detention center has sparked intense, partisan debate. At a Senate hearing on closing the camp, the first of its kind in roughly six years, lawmakers could find little common ground apart from dissatisfaction with the Biden administration.

In his opening remarks, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chairman of the chamber’s Judiciary committee, expressed his frustration with the president’s lack of response to Democrats’ calls to shut down the military prison.

“I am disappointed. Disappointed that the president and attorney general have yet to respond to my letters,” he said. “And I’m disappointed the administration declined to send a witness to testify at today’s hearing on how they’re working to close Guantanamo.”

Although the White House says shuttering the facility, located within the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, is a goal, so far it has taken few steps toward accomplishing it and has declined to set a timeline.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee’s top ranking Republican, also lamented that the White House had not supplied any witnesses to testify on reports from the intelligence community or the administration’s progress toward shuttering the prison.

“No one from the administration has come to defend the president’s plan to close Guantanamo,” he said. “And I’m not sure there is a plan.”

Grassley accused the Biden administration of taking a “no plan approach” during this summer’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“I fear that his plan to withdraw from Guantanamo Detention Facility may be no different,” he said.

Although Guantanamo has earned a dubious reputation as an indefinite holding space for war on terror suspects and a battleground over the admissibility of testimony obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques many equate to torture, Republicans argued Afghanistan’s return to Taliban control has intensified the need for the detention camp.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., said “229 of the 729 released from Gitmo have gone back to the fight. This is nuts,” citing the number of former Guantanamo detainees the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has either confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorist activities.

Durbin objected to that statistic, noting recidivism rates are much lower among former detainees released after 2009, when current rules for transfer were put in place by Congress. The chairman also noted that of the 39 men still imprisoned in Guantanamo, more than two-thirds have never been formally charged with a crime.

“How can that possibly be justice?” he asked.

Even in cases where charges have been levied, such as that of the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the process of the military tribunal has been a source of anguish for many. Mohammed was arraigned nearly a decade ago, and while pretrial hearings drag on, the trial itself doesn’t yet have a set start date.

Colleen Kelly, a witness at the hearing who lost her brother Bill when the North Tower of the World Trade Center was struck by a hijacked jet, testified that she and many other family members of those lost on that day now want to see a plea agreement reached in the hopes it provides some level of closure, even if it means taking the death penalty off the table for the defendants.

“Family members want a measure of accountability and justice before our deaths,” she said.

Chief Defense Counsel for Military Commissions Brig. Gen. John Baker, another witness, argued that the ongoing cases must be brought to “as rapid as a conclusion as possible.”

“Notice I don’t say as just a conclusion as possible. It is too late in the process for the current military commissions to do justice for anyone,” he said, calling the proceedings a “failed experiment” and noting they had only resulted in one final conviction.

As for the other detainees, beyond partisanship, a dearth of practical options for their relocation is a major hurdle, even for those who already met the criteria for transfer.

In the past, administrations have engaged in sometimes years-long negotiations with countries receiving prisoners to secure some level of security assurance. Congress’ requirements for transfer and destabilization in the Middle East have left few viable options.

“We can’t get countries to take them and give assurances they’ll keep an eye on them,” Jamil Jaffer, the founder and executive director of the National Security Institute, testified.

But the man who opened the camp– Maj. Gen. Michael Lehnert — maintains it is past time for the camp to close.

“The issue isn’t whether to close Guantanamo, but how,” he said, adding that the White House should appoint a person to tackle the task and set a deadline. “I was given 96 hours to open it — 96 days to close it seems reasonable.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican-led efforts to repeal President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate on private businesses will once again get a vote in the Senate Wednesday, and this time a repeal is expected to pass.

The Senate will likely vote Wednesday on Republican Sen. Mike Braun’s effort to repeal the mandate on private sector businesses with more than 100 employees. Every Republican signed onto the proposal.

Republicans are bringing up the repeal for a vote using a procedural tool called the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn rules created by federal agencies and only requires 51 votes to pass the Senate.

The bill would still need to go over to the House, where it is unlikely to be brought up by Democratic leadership. Republicans could use a procedural tool to push a vote on the measure early next year, but it’s unclear if they’d have the votes to do it.

But during a press conference on Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that if Congress were to send the repeal to Biden’s desk, he’d strike it down.

“We certainly hope the Senate, Congress will stand up to the anti-vaccine and testing crowd. We’re going to continue to work to implement these,” Psaki said. “If it comes to the president’s desk, he will veto it.”

Still, this won’t be a party-line vote in the Senate. As vaccine mandates lag in popularity nationwide, some moderate Democrats are expected to back the repeal effort during Wednesday’s vote, giving it the necessary votes to clear the Senate.

At least two Democrats are also expected to vote to end the mandate: Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.

“I will strongly support a bill to overturn the federal government vaccine mandate for private businesses. I have long said we should incentivize, not penalize, private employers whose responsibility it is to protect their employees from COVID-19,” Manchin said in a statement last week.

He’s been on the record repeatedly about his opposition to mandates on private businesses, though he supports the mandate for federal employees.

Braun, in an MSNBC interview, said he’s spoken to three or four other swing state Democrats who may also vote with Republicans.

“Anybody that is listening to their people back home, this doesn’t poll when it’s vaccine or job,” Braun said. “Even when you say vaccine or get tested or job, most of the people that are digging in regardless of their reasons aren’t viewing it as an option.”

Every Republican is expected to support the repeal, following last week’s party-line vote to zero out funds for the mandate during government funding negotiations last week.

Most Democrats will vote to keep the mandate in place. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a press conference Tuesday, said the vote is “anti science” and “anti common sense”

“It’s ridiculous, it makes no sense, and Democrats think it is the wrong way to go,” Schumer said.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Congressional leaders on Tuesday announced a deal that would avert a default of the nation’s credit by allowing Democrats to raise the debt ceiling in the Senate without any Republican support.

The U.S. is just days away from economic disaster, with the Treasury estimating the government will run out of money on Dec. 15, leaving the country unable to pay its bills.

Real-world consequences of the U.S. defaulting could include delays to Social Security payments and checks to service members, a suspension of veterans’ benefits and rising interest rates on credit cards, car loans and mortgages.

The House approved the measure along party lines in a late-night 222-212 vote on Tuesday.

The legislation sets up a procedure that would allow the Senate to pass the final bill to raise the debt limit with a simple majority by suspending filibuster rules for a debt ceiling increase by a month.

Under this process, 10 Republican senators will still need to support the legislation setting up the agreement.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seemed confident Tuesday that he had the votes locked in.

“I think this is in the best interest of the country to avoid default,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday during a news conference.

“The red line is intact. The red line is that you have simple majority party line vote on the debt ceiling. That’s exactly where we’ll end up,” he said.

McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spent weeks huddling behind closed doors to strike an agreement. The deal comes months after bitter partisan bickering over the matter, after Republicans insisted on Democrats raising the debt limit without any GOP support.

“We Democrats were always willing to carry the burden. That’s what’s going to happen,” Schumer said Tuesday.

“Our number one goal to get this done — get it done with just Democratic votes, without a convoluted, risky process — is what we’re on the verge of achieving,” Schumer said.

The language regarding the debt ceiling process is attached to a separate provision that will avert impending Medicare cuts, which are set to take effect early next year.

“Once the Senate has passed the legislation lifting the debt limit, the House will take up that bill and send it to the President,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced in a letter addressed to colleagues Tuesday.

“Let us remember that addressing the debt limit is not about future spending. This is about meeting obligations that the government has already incurred, largely during the Trump Administration. Only three percent of the current debt has been accrued under President Biden,” she said in the letter.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — For Julieta Larsen, elections are bittersweet.

Hailing from Argentina, Larsen moved to New York City after meeting her husband, a firefighter with the FDNY. Now, seven years and two children later, she works as a community engagement coordinator at Queens Community House, a multi-service settlement home.

Larsen says she’s a politics lover, devoting her days to advocating for local legislation and setting up election and voter information sessions.

But come election season, there’s always one question she asks but never likes to answer: “Have you voted yet?”

Though living in New York City for almost a decade and devoting her days to political organizing, Larsen is still a green card holder, making her ineligible to vote despite multiple attempts at a pathway toward citizenship.

“It’s kind of funny, but not funny because I talk to people about the importance of voting. Yet, I cannot vote,” Larsen told ABC News.

It’s a nagging feeling for someone so entrenched in the political process. But one that could change this week.

On Thursday, the New York City Council will vote on legislation, Our City, Our Vote, that would allow permanent New York City residents and those with work permits to participate in municipal elections. The legislation, introduced by Councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez, is expected to pass by a veto-proof margin with 36 out of 51 councilmembers sponsoring the bill.

New York City’s local elections historically have attracted low voter turnout. A record-low 23% of New Yorkers voted in this year’s mayoral election. This bill could dramatically change the city’s electorate by giving more than 800,000 noncitizens the right to vote.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio says he will not veto the legislation despite reservations about the bill. Mayor-elect Eric Adams championed the legislation on the campaign trail and continues to voice his support.

If the bill passes, it will then be up to the New York City Board of Elections to figure out exactly how the law will be implemented when it takes effect in 2023 during the city’s next local election.

For Larsen and many other immigrants who work and pay state and federal taxes, the legislation presents the potential to finally have a say in who represents them.

“I deserve the right to vote for the person that I think would actually represent my interests and do something about those specific issues I care about,” Larsen said.

It’s not a done deal yet, though. Some GOP councilmembers and attorneys in the city are already promising legal action. Councilman David Carr, a vocal critic of the legislation, believes if the bill passes as expected, a New York state court will overturn it.

“I believe fundamentally that the right to vote is part of being a citizen…And it should be exclusive to them,” Carr told ABC News.

“You have an issue with the naturalization process or an issue with the way this country handles immigration more generally, your fight’s in Washington, not City Hall,” he added. “We don’t get to have 50 immigration laws these days or thousands of different standards because of all the different municipalities that make up this country.”

This type of legislation isn’t new to the United States. It’s not even unique to New York City. For over 30 years, noncitizens voted in New York City school board elections before they became mayor-appointed positions in 2009. San Francisco has afforded noncitizens the right to vote in school board elections since 2016. And cities in Maryland and Vermont have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections since 2017 and 2021, respectively.

New York City, however, would be the largest municipality to date to pass this type of legislation. It comes at a time when an unprecedented number of states are taking up bills that will make it harder for Americans to vote.

“I think it sends a strong signal that the essence of democracy is full participation,” Elizabeth OuYang, a civil rights attorney in New York City, told ABC News. “You can’t say noncitizens should not have certain basic rights and then make citizenship very difficult to obtain. And so we need to be consistent in making sure that the franchise and citizenship is accessible.”

OuYang cites historical precedent for New York City’s proposed legislation.

“This notion of suffrage being dependent upon citizenship is misinformed” she said. “In the founding of our country, [voting] was not based on citizenship as much as it was based on wealth and gender…there’s nothing in New York State Constitution or New York City charter that bars non-immigrant, lawful permanent residents from voting in municipal elections.”

Only time will tell if the bill holds against legal tests, but immigrants like Julieta are celebrating the moment for what it is.

“New York City is home…I definitely consider myself lucky and privileged to live in a community that works on this legislation,” Larsen said. “This is huge. I am very lucky to be here. I’m very lucky that my children are gonna grow up in such a progressive community and society.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has informed the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol that he is no longer cooperating with their probe, two sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

In a letter from Meadows’ attorney, Meadows’ team says that they had intended to cooperate with the committee — but no more.

“We agreed to provide thousands of pages of responsive documents and Mr. Meadows was willing to appear voluntarily, not under compulsion of the Select Committee’s subpoena to him, for a deposition to answer questions about non-privileged matters. Now actions by the Select Committee have made such an appearance untenable,” the letter from George J. Terwilliger II stated.

Terwilliger, in the letter, said that Meadows “has consistently sought in good faith to pursue an accommodation with the Select Committee,” but claims the panel has made an appearance for a deposition untenable because they have “no intention of respecting boundaries concerning Executive Privilege.”

In a subsequent statement, committee chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and vice chair Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said they would pursue contempt of Congress charges if Meadows fails to appear before the committee on Wednesday as scheduled.

“Tomorrow’s deposition, which was scheduled at Mr. Meadows’s request, will go forward as planned,” the statement said. “If indeed Mr. Meadows refuses to appear, the Select Committee will be left no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution.”

A floor vote holding Meadows in contempt of Congress could lead the Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges as they have already done with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

Last week the committee suggested that Meadows had agreed to come forward for a deposition without preconditions, based on their initial communications.

Meadows’ attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.