Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Punish Or Surveil, Diane Marie Amann
Punish Or Surveil, Diane Marie Amann
Scholarly Works
This Article endeavors to paint a fuller picture of previous practice and present options than is often present in debates about the United States' antiterrorism measures. It begins by describing practices in place before the campaign launched after September 11, 2001. The Article focuses on punishment, the first prong of the policy long used to combat threats against the United States. Ordinary civilian and military courts stood ready to punish persons found guilty at public trials that adhered to fairness standards, and national security interests not infrequently were advanced through such courts. That is not to say that courts were …
State Intelligence Gathering: Conflict Of Laws, Charles H.B. Garraway
State Intelligence Gathering: Conflict Of Laws, Charles H.B. Garraway
Michigan Journal of International Law
This Article begins with an examination of the development of the law of war (Part II) and human rights law (Part III) before looking at the differing legal categories of armed conflict (Part IV). It then examines the applicability of human rights law in situations of armed conflict (Part V) and the increasing complexity of defining violence, whether as armed conflict or otherwise (Part VI). The Article proceeds with an examination of the overlap between the law of war and human rights law (Part VII) and the risk of divergence that this overlap causes (Part VIII). Finally, it seeks to …
Hamdan Confronts The Military Commissions Act Of 2006, George P. Fletcher
Hamdan Confronts The Military Commissions Act Of 2006, George P. Fletcher
Faculty Scholarship
In 2006 the law of war experienced two major shock waves. The first was the decision of the Supreme Court in Hamdan, which represented the first major defeat of the President's plan, based on an executive order of November 2001, to use military tribunals against suspected international terrorists. The majority of the Court held the procedures used in the military tribunal against Hamdan violated common article three of the Geneva Conventions. A plurality offour, with the opinion written by Justice Stevens, based their decision as well on afar-reaching interpretation of the substantive law of war. They held that conspiracy …