Law Commons^™

Hamdan V. United States: A Death Knell For Military Commissions?, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

In October 2012, a panel of the D.C. Circuit dealt a blow to the United States’ post- September 11, 2001 decade-long experiment with military commissions as a forum for trying Guantanamo Bay detainees. Specifically, the court concluded that prior to the 2006 statutory reforms, military commission jurisdiction was limited to violations of internationally-recognized war crimes; that providing material support to terrorism was not an internationally-recognized war crime; and that the military commission conviction of Salim Hamdan for material support charges based on pre-2006 conduct was therefore invalid. Three months later, a panel of the D.C. Circuit reached the same conclusion …

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 …

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 …