Law Commons^™

For The Sake Of Consistency: Distinguishing Combatant Terrorists From Non-Combatant Terrorists In Modern Warfare, Alexander Fraser

Law Student Publications

This article aims to offer a solution for prosecuting terrorists consistently and efficiently in the ever-expanding world of modern warfare. It argues that our country's approach to prosecuting terrorists has been wildly inconsistent, and that clarity and consistency are required moving forward. The executive branch, which directs the path the Department of Justice and military take in these arenas, has been the main instigator of the inconsistency. The decision whether to prosecute foreign, non-citizen terrorists in an Article III federal court or military tribunal/commission has become politicized, allowing political winds to dictate policy, albeit an inconsistent, unprincipled one. The Bush …

Sentencing Complexities In National Security Cases, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Military national security courts-martial infrequently occur. When they do occur, military counsel, judges, and court personnel endeavor to perform their function at a high level. Unfortunately, the process by which the U.S. government conducts classification reviews and the military’s inexperience in national security cases often results in the form of safeguarding classified information trumping the substantive function of the underlying trial process. And by the time the sentencing phase is reached, understandable but unfortunate focus is placed on simply concluding the trial without mishandling classified information.

This article examines the sentencing complexities in military national security cases, first defining a …

Sentencing Complexities In National Security Cases, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Military national security courts-martial infrequently occur. When they do occur, military counsel, judges, and court personnel endeavor to perform their function at a high level. Unfortunately, the process by which the U.S. government conducts classification reviews and the military’s inexperience in national security cases often results in the form of safeguarding classified information trumping the substantive function of the underlying trial process. And by the time the sentencing phase is reached, understandable but unfortunate focus is placed on simply concluding the trial without mishandling classified information.

This article examines the sentencing complexities in military national security cases, first defining a …

Military Justice As Justice: Fitting Confrontation Clause Jurisprudence Into Military Commissions, Christina Frohock

Articles

The Guantánamo prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind behind the deadly USS Cole bombing, highlights an unresolved issue in military commissions: whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution applies to bar hearsay statements of unavailable witnesses. While al-Nashiri's counsel recently moved for the military judge to take judicial notice that the Confrontation Clause applies, it is worth considering that the question may be framed differently. Rather than ask whether the Confrontation Clause applies in a military commission, we may ask whether a "testimonial statement" - the only kind of hearsay evidence that triggers the …

Guantánamo Military Commissions: “Judicial Approval And Guidance”, Christina Frohock

Articles

No abstract provided.

Obama's Failed Attempt To Close Gitmo: Why Executive Orders Can't Bring About Systemic Change, Erin B. Corcoran

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Choice Of Law Against Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Journal Articles

The Obama administration has continued to apply the wartime paradigm first developed by the Bush administration after 9/11 to respond to terrorism. In cases of trials before military commissions, indefinite detention, and targeted killing, the U.S. has continued to claim wartime privileges even with respect to persons and situations far from any battlefield. This article argues that both administrations have made a basic error in the choice of law. Wartime privileges may be claimed when armed conflict conditions prevail as defined by international law. These privileges are not triggered by declarations or policy preferences.

Some Observations On The Future Of U.S. Military Commissions, Michael A. Newton

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Obama Administration confronts many of the same practical and legal complexities that interagency experts debated in the fall of 2001. Military commissions remain a valid, if unwieldy, tool to be used at the discretion of a Commander-in-Chief. Refinement of the commission procedures has consumed thousands of legal hours within the Department of Defense, as well as a significant share of the Supreme Court docket. In practice, the military commissions have not been the charade of justice created by an overpowerful and unaccountable chief executive that critics predicted. In light of the permissive structure of U.S. statutes and the framework …

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 …

The Cost Of Confusion: Resolving Ambiguities In Detainee Treatment, Kenneth Anderson

Reports

This short policy paper considers US counterterrorism policy with particular attention to treatment of detainees in matters of challenging detention, interrogation, trial of detainees, and release. It analyzes the existing US war on terror and considers future policies that would address both national security concerns and human rights/civil liberties concerns. The paper is written by two experts and advocates in counterterrorism-related issues, coming from the center right and the center left in American politics, as part of a project of the Stanley Foundation, Bridging the Foreign Policy Divide, which publishes papers by pairs of experts coming from conservative and progressive …

The Rule Of Law And The Military Commission, Stephen J. Ellmann

Articles & Chapters

This essay examines the underlying foundations of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. After laying out many of the features of the conflicting positions taken by the majority and dissents in the case, the article argues that the majority's judgment was by no means determined by the plain meaning of the statutory provisions at issue, nor even by the Steel Seizure framework of overlapping zones of executive and legislative power. Instead, three factors deserve special emphasis. The first is the Court's effort to protect, and catalyze, Congressional authority. The second is the Court's understanding of its own role …

Guantanamo, Rasul, And The Twilight Of Law, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. In this paper, I explore what has happened since the Rasul decision: most notably, the introduction of combatant status review tribunals as a response to Rasul and the challenges that have been filed thereto and adjudicated in the federal courts (Khalid, In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases); the charges brought against certain detainees by military commissions and challenges to these commissions filed in the …

What To Do With Bin Laden And Al Qaeda Terrorists?: A Qualified Defense Of Military Commissions And United States Policy On Detainees At Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Kenneth Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This article, published in a special post 9-11 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, offers a defense of the view that terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden should be tried, if captured, outside of regular US civilian courts and in some form of military commission.

The article argues that terrorists should be seen as criminals as well as enemies of the United States. Criminals who are simply deviants from the domestic social order are properly dealt with within the constitutionally constituted civilian court structure. Enemies who are not also criminals - legal combatants - are properly …