Law Commons^™

Article Iii Courts V. Military Commissions: A Comparison Of Protection Of Classified Information And Admissibility Of Evidence In Terrorism Prosecutions, Mohamed Al-Hendy

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming

The Virtues Of Abstention: Separation Of Powers In Al-Nashiri Ii, Nicholas A. Dimarco

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I examines various scholarly approaches to judicial deference, then considers deference in the context of military commissions. In Part II, the history of military commissions in the United States is examined, paying particular attention to the extended dialogue among the coordinate federal branches that created the system currently in operation. The decision in Al-Nashiri II not to adjudicate a collateral attack on one of these commissions is the focus of Part III. That Part embraces the underlying jurisdictional challenge at stake in Al-Nashiri II, the development of abstention doctrine generally and as applied to the current commissions, …

The Constitution And National Security, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Erwin Chemerinsky

No abstract provided.

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 …

A Short Comment On Current Detainee Policy: One Step Forward And Two Steps Back, Kyndra Miller Rotunda

ConLawNOW

During the Presidential Campaign, President Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay and to abandon Military Commissions. Shortly after taking office, he halted Military Commissions that were then underway, in order to explore other alternatives. Nearly three years later, Guantanamo Bay remains opens, and President Obama has recently resumed Military Commissions.

With the exception of a lone amendment to the Military Commissions Act, the procedures governing Military Commissions under President Obama and those under President Bush are virtually indistinguishable.

What is distinguishable is that now, under President Obama, many detainees will receive no procedural protections under the Military Commissions Act, but …

Hung Up On Words: A Conduct-Based Solution To The Problem Of Conspiracy In Military Commissions, Joshua D. Foote

Vanderbilt Law Review

At 9:02 a.m. on September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as American Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on live television,' ending all consideration that the first collision might have been an accident. Halfway around the world, Ali al Bahlul sat in a remote part of Afghanistan operating a radio so that Usama Bin Laden could monitor reports of the attacks. That day, Al Qaeda terrorists killed 2,977 people, caused billions of dollars of economic damage, and initiated the defining sociopolitical issue of the early 21st century.

Legal practitioners have faced …

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 …

Modern Military Justice: Cases And Materials, 2d Edition (2015), Gregory E. Maggs, Lisa M. Schenck

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This textbook is about the modern military justice system of the United States. It covers court-martial procedures, substantive criminal law, and non-judicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, in addition to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which gives the federal courts jurisdiction over certain acts committed abroad, and the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009, which created military tribunals for trying enemy beligerents. The Second Edition includes several recent cases and addresses some of the significant changes that Congress has recently made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that the President has made to the …

Presidential Powers Including Military Tribunals In The October 2005 Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Conversation With The Chief Prosecutor Of United States Military Commissions, Mark Martins Brigadier General

Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law

No abstract provided.

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 …

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

Mary Ellen O'Connell

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.

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

Jennifer Daskal

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 Eyes Of The World: Charges, Challenges, And Guantánamo Military Commissions After Hamdan Ii, Christina M. Frohock

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

Guantánamo military commissions are under a spotlight, scrutinized by the judiciary and the public. Just the word “Guantánamo” can trigger impassioned reactions from both advocates and detractors. This article takes a measured view, examining a recent opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Hamdan v. United States (“Hamdan II”), that speaks to the legitimacy of military commissions convened in Guantánamo to try the September 11th defendants and others. While several media commentators seized on the opinion as striking a blow to Guantánamo proceedings, in fact the opinion approves military commissions and offers a roadmap for prosecutors. …

The Constitution And National Security, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Expressive Value Of Prosecuting And Punishing Terrorists: Hamdan, The Geneva Conventions, And International Criminal Law, Mark A. Drumbl

Mark A. Drumbl

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions that had been proposed by the Executive to prosecute a small number of detainees captured in the 'war on terror' could not proceed. In response to the Hamdan decision, Congress enacted a new military commission structure in the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA), which President Bush signed on October 17, 2006. The MCA establishes military commissions for aliens classified as unlawful enemy combatants. It lists the crimes chargeable by such commissions. The MCA also amends domestic legislation - for example, the War Crimes Act - initially …

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

Mark A. Drumbl

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 …

Trying Terrorism: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Material Support, And The Paradox Of International Criminal Law, Alexandra Link

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Note will examine theoretical problems in ICL and public international law by evaluating the practical implications of applying ICL sources to find criminal liability outside the narrow confines of the international tribunals. It will examine the problems posed by the conflicting standards of the Rome Statute and ICTY jurisprudence as a matter of customary international law, the failure of U.S. courts to effectively confront the contextual and doctrinal analysis necessary to determine the limitations of these sources, and the proper application of these sources to the issues raised in Hamdan II and Al Bahlul. Viewing ICL through the lens …

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

Articles

No abstract provided.

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 …

A Triumph Of Ill Conceived Language: The Linguistic Origins Of Guantamo’S “Rough Justice”, Brian Christopher Jones

Brian Christopher Jones

Throughout the years, the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay has witnessed an abundance of intriguing linguistic words and phrases. For example, “Freedom Vanilla” replaced French Vanilla ice cream in the mess hall, and the area where journalists and others were often sequestered during their visits to the base was re-named “Camp Justice.” The list goes on. However, the language that has had the most significant impact throughout the years has been the words and phrases used in the administration of justice regarding the detainees being held on terrorism charges.Wall St. Journal Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin’s book, The Terror Courts: …

The Separation Of Powers: Hamdan V. Rumsfeld - The Anti-Roberts, Douglas W. Kmiec

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Accepting Sosa's Invitation: Did Congress Expand The Subject Matter Jurisdiction Of The Ats In The Military Commissions Act?, Samuel T. Morison

Samuel T Morison

The Alien Tort Statute (ATS) provides a federal forum for aliens to seek tort damages for certain violations of customary international law, including war crimes. In Sosa, the Supreme Court admonished the lower courts to exercise caution when creating new causes of action under the ATS, but this is entirely a matter of respecting the separation of powers. If Congress enacts a statute that “occupies the field,” the Court observed, then a judge’s task is to faithfully enforce the norms delineated in the statute. To date, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) has been almost completely ignored in human rights litigation …

Modern Military Justice: Cases And Materials, Gregory E. Maggs, Lisa M. Schenck

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

This new textbook (ISBN-13: 978-0314268037) comprehensively covers the modern military justice system under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Materials from every service within the Armed Forces show how the military justice system addresses all criminal offenses, ranging from minor infractions to serious offenses, such as the misconduct of soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. The text covers the jurisdiction of courts-martial; sources of military law; military offenses and defenses; pretrial, trial, and appellate procedures; the role of judge advocates; nonjudicial punishment and other alternatives to courts-martial; special forums, such as boards of inquiry and military commissions for trying enemy belligerents; …

Modern Military Justice: Cases And Materials, Gregory E. Maggs, Lisa M. Schenck

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

Modern Military Justice: Cases and Materials (2012) is a textbook written by Professor Gregory E. Maggs and Associate Dean Lisa Schenck (both of the George Washington University Law School) and published by West (ISBN-13: 9780314268037).

This new textbook comprehensively covers the modern military justice system under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Materials from every service within the Armed Forces show how the military justice system addresses all criminal offenses, ranging from minor infractions to serious offenses, such as the misconduct of soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. The text covers the jurisdiction of courts-martial; sources of military law; military offenses …

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.

Military Commissions Revived: Persisting Problems Of Perception, Devon Chaffee

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “When the first military commission proceedings began in July 2004, the Bush Administration identified fifteen Guantanamo Bay detainees subject to the military commissions. Subsequently, Bush Administration officials asserted that they had evidence to move forward with between sixty and eighty cases within the commission system. But, by the time President George W. Bush left office in early 2009, the commissions had resolved only three cases.

Upon taking office, President Barack Obama initially suspended the military commission proceedings in the thirteen cases in which charges were pending, but, in May 2009, he announced his intention to move forward with some …

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

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “In the lead up to the 2008 Presidential election, there was broad bipartisan support for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. President Bush was quoted as saying, “I’d like it to be over with.” John McCain and General Colin Powell echoed similar sentiments for ending detention at the naval base. In addition to prominent Republicans calling for closure, public opinion began to support finding alternative solutions for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

Barack Obama wasted no time once sworn into office executing his central campaign promises. On January 22, 2009, two days after becoming the forty-fourth President of …