Law Commons^™

Detentions, Military Commissions, Terrorism And Domestic Case Precedent, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Laura Dickinson's recent article in this journal substantially improves appreciation of how the United States has detained suspects and instituted military commissions as well as of the roles played by the controversial procedure and tribunals when fighting terrorism. She meticulously traces how detentions and the commissions evolved, trenchantly criticizes them, and persuasively shows international tribunals' comparative advantage. Dickinson accords relevant domestic case precedent a somewhat laconic analysis, however. For example, she briefly mentions separation-of-powers concerns and Supreme Court opinions that detentions and military commissions implicate while rather tersely assessing Ex parte Quirin, the Second World War decision on which …

Quirin Revisited, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Six decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ex parte Quirin, in which the Justices determined that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt possessed the requisite constitutional authority to institute and use a military commission.

On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush promulgated an Executive Order (Bush Order) that authorized the establishment and application of military commissions as well as purported to eliminate whatever jurisdiction federal courts might have by statute and to deny federal court access to individuals prosecuted or detained for terrorism. The Bush administration substantially premised that the Order and jurisdiction-stripping proviso on Ex parte Quirin. It has …

Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Terrorists: An In-Depth Analysis Of The Government's Right To Classify United States Citizens Suspected Of Terrorism As Enemy Combatants And Try Those Enemy Combatants By Military Comission, Amanda Schaffer

Fordham Urban Law Journal

This Comment explores the government's right to treat citizens as enemy combatants and whether their trials should be by military commissions or by the non-military criminal justice system. It gives background information and explains the source of the government's right to determine enemy combatant status and to use military commissions. This Comment also describes the distinctions between a military trial and a regular criminal trial and explains the status of two cases regarding American citizens declared to be enemy combatants. The Comment goes on to explain why the government wants to use military commissions to try terrorists and the advantages …