In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism. The Court overturned a ruling that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens detained abroad. This report provides an overview of the law of war and the historical treatment of wartime detainees, in particular the U.S. practice; describes how the detainees¿ status might affect their rights and treatment; and summarizes activity of the 108th and 109th Congresses related to detention in connection with the war against terrorism.
As part of the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the United States has captured and detained numerous persons believed to have been part of or associated with enemy forces. Over the years, federal courts have considered a multitude of petitions by or on behalf of suspected belligerents challenging aspects of U.S. detention policy. Although the Supreme Court has issued definitive rulings concerning several legal issues raised in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, many others remain unresolved, with some the subject of ongoing litigation. This book discusses major judicial opinions concerning suspected enemy belligerents detained in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban and addresses all Supreme Court decisions concerning enemy combatants and notable circuit court opinions concerning issues of ongoing relevance to the U.S. detention policy.
With a renewed emphasis on national and homeland security, the United States is once again seeking to balance the needs of the state with both the rights of its citizens as well as those of other nations. This book represents an interdisciplinary approach to the legal dilemmas borne out by the war on terror-against the specific background of Afghanistan, Iraq, and this new kind of conflict. It is a strong contribution to a broader debate visible since 9/11, which will remain in the public eye for the foreseeable future. It addresses the overlap between religion, ethics, armed conflict, and law, within the context of the current conflict. While many issues in areas such as intelligence, reconciliation of civil liberties, dealing with terrorist threats, and the permissible bounds of interrogation, treatment of prisoners and laws governing armed conflict have long standing precedents under domestic and international law, this war has challenged even long standing legal interpretations. The contributors to this volume explore those precedents and contemporary challenges to them. Now that traditional wars between nation states are no longer the rule, the terrorist threat has gained credence (popularly, terrorism and its claimed breeding ground in failed states), linked in practice to issues of intervention on the territory of states harboring such groups. In military circles the idea of armed struggle between modern military forces and what were formerly called guerillas has now largely been replaced by asymmetric warfare and the concept of intelligence and preventive action interchangeably within U.S. borders and overseas. Opposing views contemplate that different-and presumably lower-legal standards may apply in internal armed conflicts. Such legal issues are visible under current circumstances of asymmetric warfare in conjunction with questions about prisoner status and detentions, including the permissible bounds of interrogation versus torture following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq but also the treatment at the Guantanamo Bay facility of alleged Al Q'aeda captives from Afghanistan. All of the contributors in this book explore the changing circumstances against which these contentious new legal issues now unfold. The experts strike no consensus. Indeed, one of the work's many strengths can be attributed to the fact that the many facets of the ongoing debate are represented herein.
Today the United States is fighting a new type of non-nation state enemy, which does not behave according to historical doctrines or principles of war. Hardy examines the development of legal doctrine surrounding the management of the new enemy combatant, including the detention and prosecution of unlawful enemy combatants detained by the United States after September 11, 2001. She also reviews relevant case law addressing United States citizens detained as enemy combatants. This discussion additionally focuses on the rights and processes granted to those detained at Guantanamo Bay. Finally, she gives an historical overview of enemy combatants in previous United States wars and conflicts.
The articles and essays in this volume consider the problem of international terrorism from an international legal perspective. The articles address a range of issues starting with the dilemma of how to reach agreement on what constitutes terrorism and how to encapsulate this in a legitimate definition. The essays move on to examine the varied responses to terrorism by states and international organisations. These responses range from the suppression conventions of the Cold War, which were directed at criminalising and punishing various manifestations of terrorism, to more coercive, executive-led responses. Finally, the articles consider the role of the Security Council in developing legal regimes to combat terrorism, for example by the use of targeted sanctions, or by general legislative measures. An evaluation of the contribution of the sum of these measures to the goals of peace and security as embodied in the UN Charter is central to this collection.
Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution examines three enemy combatant cases that represent the leading edge of U.S. efforts to devise legal rules, consistent with American constitutional principles, for waging the global war on terror. The distinguished contributors analyze the crucial questions these cases raise about the balance between national security and civil liberties in wartime and call for a reexamination of the complex connections between the Constitution and international law.
Many years after the United States initiated a military response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the nation continues to prosecute what it considers an armed conflict against transnational terrorist groups. Understanding how the law of armed conflict applies to and regulates military operations executed within the scope of this armed conflict against transnational non-state terrorist groups is as important today as it was in September 2001. In The War on Terror and the Laws of War seven legal scholars, each with experience as military officers, focus on how to strike an effective balance between the necessity of using armed violence to subdue a threat to the nation with the humanitarian interest of mitigating the suffering inevitably associated with that use. Each chapter addresses a specific operational issue, including the national right of self-defense, military targeting and the use of drones, detention, interrogation, trial by military commission of captured terrorist operatives, and the impact of battlefield perspectives on counter-terror military operations, while illustrating how the law of armed conflict influences resolution of that issue. This Second Edition carries on the critical mission of continuing the ongoing dialogue about the law from an unabashedly military perspective, bringing practical wisdom to the contentious topic of applying international law to the battlefield.
The key legal architect of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 delivers a fascinating insider account of the war on terror. While America reeled from the cataclysmic events of September 11, 2001, John Yoo and a skeletal staff of the Office of Legal Counsel found themselves on the phone with the White House. In a series of memos, Yoo offered his legal opinions on the president’s authority to respond, and in the process had an almost unmatched impact on America’s fight against terrorism. His analysis led to many of the Bush administration’s most controversial policies, including detention at Guantanamo Bay, coercive interrogation, and military trials for terrorists, preemptive attacks, and the National Security Agency’s wiretapping program. In fascinating detail, Yoo takes us inside the corridors of power and examines specific cases, from John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla to an American al-Qaeda leader assassinated by a CIA pilotless drone in the deserts of Yemen. “At its core, War by Other Means offers spirited, detailed and often enlightening accounts of the decision-making process behind the key 2001-03 legal decisions.” —The Washington Post “Unambiguous and combative, Yoo’s philosophy is sure to spark further debate.” —Publishers Weekly
When Enemy Combatant was first published in the United States in hardcover in 2006 it garnered sensational reviews, and its author was featured in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, on National Public Radio, and on ABC News. A second generation British Muslim, Begg had been held by the U.S. military for more than three years before being released without charge in January of 2005. His memoir is the first published account by a Guantánamo detainee of life inside the infamous prison. Writing in the Washington Post Book World, Jane Mayer described Enemy Combatant as “fascinating . . . Begg provides some ideological counterweight to the one-sided spin coming from the U.S. government. He writes passionately and personally, stripping readers of the comforting lie that somehow the detainees aren't really like us, with emotional attachments, intellectual interests and fully developed humanity.” Recommended by the Financial Times and Tikkun magazine and a ColorLines Editors' Pick of Post-9/11 Books, Enemy Combatant is “a forcefully told, up-to-the-minute political story . . . necessary reading for people on all sides of the issue” (Publishers Weekly, starred review).
