Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Three Strikes And You're Outside The Constitution: Will The Guantanamo Bay Alien Detainees Be Granted Fundamental Due Process?, Michael Greenberger Dec 2009

Three Strikes And You're Outside The Constitution: Will The Guantanamo Bay Alien Detainees Be Granted Fundamental Due Process?, Michael Greenberger

Michael Greenberger

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up its first case arising from the War on Terror by hearing the consolidated appeals of two groups of foreign aliens who are or who had been detained at the United States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba: Rasul v. Bush (No. 03-334) and Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343). The cases stem from the United States' capture of several hundred prisoners in Afghanistan and Pakistan and their subsequent imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. The prison began operation in January 2002, and approximately 90 detainees have been freed up to this time, …


The Future Of Detainees In The Global War On Terror: A U.S. Policy Perspective, Saxby Chamblis Mar 2009

The Future Of Detainees In The Global War On Terror: A U.S. Policy Perspective, Saxby Chamblis

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Combatants And The Combat Zone, Mary Ellen O'Connell Mar 2009

Combatants And The Combat Zone, Mary Ellen O'Connell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Boumediene And Lawfare, Tung Yin Mar 2009

Boumediene And Lawfare, Tung Yin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


Exceptional Engagement: Protocol I And A World United Against Terrorism, Michael A. Newton Jan 2009

Exceptional Engagement: Protocol I And A World United Against Terrorism, Michael A. Newton

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article challenges the prevailing view that U.S. "exceptionalism" provides the strongest narrative for the U.S. rejection of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The United States chose not to adopt the Protocol in the face of intensive international criticism because of its policy conclusions that the text contained overly expansive provisions resulting from politicized pressure to accord protection to terrorists who elected to conduct hostile military operations outside the established legal framework. The United States concluded that the commingling of the regime criminalizing terrorist acts with the jus in bello rules of humanitarian law would be untenable …