Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

International Law And Constitutional Interpretation: The Commander In Chief Clause Reconsidered, Ingrid Brunk Wuerth

Michigan Law Review

The Commander in Chief Clause is a difficult, underexplored area of constitutional interpretation. It is also a context in which international law is often mentioned, but not fully defended, as a possible method of interpreting the Constitution. This Article analyzes why the Commander in Chief Clause is difficult and argues that international law helps resolve some of the problems that the Clause presents. Because of weaknesses in originalist analysis, changes over time, and lack of judicial competence in military matters, the Court and commentators have relied on second-order interpretive norms like congressional authorization and executive branch practice in interpreting the …

A Soldier's Blog: Balancing Service Members' Personal Rights Vs. National Security Interests, Tatum H. Lytle

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Note examines the competing interests between ensuring military personnel's freedom of speech while protecting national security interests. The Author recognizes the necessity of protecting national security interests but emphasizes that military personnel's rights to free speech must be protected as long as such speech poses no threat to military security. In conclusion, clearer protections must be implemented to protect military personnel's right to free speech.

Strategic Planning For Combating Terrorism: A Critical Examination, Arsalan M. Suleman

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The article critiques the U.S. National Strategy for Combating Terrorism and the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism, arguing that while they emphasize the ideological dimensions of terrorism, they fail to adequately address the political grievances and root causes that fuel extremist movements. It posits that a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy must integrate military, political, and social measures to effectively combat transnational terrorism.

Interrogation Of Detainees: Extending A Hand Or A Boot?, Amos N. Guiora

ExpressO

The so called “war on terror” provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to both establish clear guidelines for the interrogation of detainees and to make a forceful statement about American values. How the government chooses to act can promote either an ethical commitment to the norms of civil society, or an attitude analogous to Toby Keith’s “American Way,” where Keith sings that “you’ll be sorry that you messed with the USofA, ‘Cuz we’ll put a boot in your ass, It’s the American Way.”

No aspect of the “war on terrorism” more clearly addresses this balance than coercive interrogation. …

The Legality Of The Use Of White Phosphorus By The United States Military During The 2004 Fallujah Assaults, Roman O. Reyhani

ExpressO

The assaults on Fallujah by the United States military in April and November 2004 involved the use of white phosphorus. White phosphorus has extremely damaging effects on the health of victims, including severe burns and irritation of the respiratory system. This article examines whether the use of white phosphorus was a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and international humanitarian law. It concludes that the use of white phosphorus was illegal as it could be argued to be a chemical weapon, a riot control agent, or incendiary weapon. Furthermore, the methods and …

Inadequate Checks And Balances: Critiquing The Imbalance Of Power In Arms Export Regulation, Charles L. Capito Iii

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

The War On Speech In The War On Terror: An Examination Of The Espionage Act Applied To Modern First Amendment Doctrine, Emily Posner

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Essential To The National Security: An Executive Ban On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Pamela Lundquist

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

National Security And Environmental Laws: A Clear And Present Danger?, Hope M. Babcock

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Without question, life in the United States has changed significantly since September 11, 2001. The attacks launched from within the United States in broad daylight against non-military targets and innocent civilians, followed by the intentional dispersal of the biological agent anthrax, ushered in an era of uncertainty and fear in this country unlike any in recent memory. The visible manifestations of this fear are still with us--concrete barriers and the closing of public spaces around public buildings, heightened security at airports and train stations subjecting people to invasive searches of their persons and belongings, the sudden, seemingly random appearance of …

What’S International Law Got To Do With It? Transnational Law And The Intelligence Mission, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The United States faces an immediate and continuous threat of terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. The intelligence function and national security law, including international law--or more accurately transnational law--are central to addressing this threat. Indeed, international law is more relevant today in addressing this threat than it was before September 11. Part II of this article describes a continuum of contemporary threats to U.S. national security, with a focus on nonstate terrorism. Part III addresses the role of intelligence and national security law, and in particular law addressed to process, in combating these threats. Part …

Deconstructing Hirota: Habeas Corpus, Citizenship, And Article Iii, Stephen I. Vladeck

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

The jurisdiction of the federal courts to consider habeas petitions brought by detainees held as part of the “war on terrorism” has been a popular topic for courts and commentators alike. Little attention has been paid, however, to whether the Constitution itself interposes any jurisdictional limits over such petitions. In a series of recent cases, the US government has invoked the Supreme Court’s obscure (and obtuse) 1948 decision in Hirota v. MacArthur (338 US 197) for the proposition that Article III forecloses jurisdiction over any petition brought by a detainee in foreign or international custody, including that of the “Multinational …

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 …

A Complete Property Right Amendment, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

The trend of the eminent domain reform and "Kelo plus" initiatives is toward a comprehensive Constitutional property right incorporating the elements of level of review, nature of government action, and extent of compensation. This article contains a draft amendment which reflects these concerns.

Finding Effective Constraints On Executive Power: Interrogation, Detention, And Torture, Deborah N. Pearlstein

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Foreword To: War, Terrorism And Torture: Limits On Presidential Power In The 21st Century Symposium, Dawn E. Johnsen

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Regulating The Commander In Chief: Some Theories, Saikrishna Prakash

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

The War Powers Outside The Courts, William Michael Treanor

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Unitariness And Myopia: The Executive Branch, Legal Process, And Torture, Cornelia Pillard

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Loaded Dice And Other Problems: A Further Reflection On The Statutory Commander In Chief, Christopher H. Schroeder

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Why The Court Said No, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No abstract provided.

Semper Disqualified: The Incongruity Between Federal And State Suffrage Protections For Certain Military Voters Seeking To Vote In State And Local Elections, And A Possible Legislative Remedy, Alexandra R. Harrington

ExpressO

It is axiomatic that members of the United States military forces at all levels and throughout the course of the nation’s history have fought for the essential freedoms which underlie the constitution – key among them the suffrage right. Over the course of its history, the suffrage right has seen controversy and change, which mirrored the social and political issues and changed realities of the country. As the right to vote has been extended to encompass more citizens, so too has the ability to serve one’s country as part of the military. In recognition of the importance of the right …

The Military Commissions Act, Coerced Confessions, And The Role Of The Courts, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Bond Repudiation, Tax Codes, The Appropriations Process And Restitution Post-Eminent Domain Reform, John H. Ryskamp

ExpressO

This brief comment suggests where the anti-eminent domain movement might be heading next.

Marshall, Marbury, And Mr. Byrd: America Unchecked And Imbalanced (Reviewing Losing America By Senator Robert C. Bryd), Gerald G. Ashdown

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States' Moral Authority Undermined: The Foreign Affairs Costs Of Abusive Detentions, Jeffrey K. Cassin

Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal

The note argues that the United States' engagement in abusive detentions, notably at Guantanamo Bay and in cases like *Hamdi v. Rumsfeld* and Padilla, has severely eroded its moral authority on the global stage. These practices, including indefinite detentions and the denial of due process, contradict U.S. rhetoric on human rights, undermining its credibility and strategic influence. The Supreme Court's rulings in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld emphasize the necessity of judicial review, yet the U.S. continues to face criticism for hypocrisy, diminishing its ability to promote democracy and human rights internationally.

Fear Of A Blackened Planet: Pressured By The War On Terror, Courts Ignore The Erosion Of The Attorney-Client Privilege And Effective Assistance Of Counsel In 28 C.F.R § 501.3(D) Cases, Chris Ford

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Legality Of Governmental Responses To Terrorism And The Dichotomous Characterization Of Terrorists As Criminals Or Enemy Combatants, Gregory E. Maggs

ExpressO

This article argues that the United States and other nations ought to create specialized laws to regulate governmental responses to terrorism, rather than debating whether the current laws of war or the current rules of law enforcement should apply. These specialized laws would see terrorism as a problem that sometimes lies between traditional crime and traditional warfare, and would establish rules designed to address governmental responses to it.

In The Service Of Secrets: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Totten, 39 J. Marshall L. Rev. 475 (2006), Douglas Kash, Matthew Indrisano

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Questioning Quirin, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Louis Fisher's new work, Nazi Saboteurs on Trial: A Military Tribunal and American Law3 (Nazi Saboteurs), and his valuable contribution to illuminating Ex parte Quirin merit scrutiny. In this Review, I first descriptively assess Nazi Saboteurs. The Review then treats the monograph's numerous beneficial features and ascertains that it enhances understanding of the important decision in Quirin. I conclude with several recommendations for future analysis of Quirin's impact.

Irrational War And Constitutional Design: A Reply To Professors Nzelibe And Yoo, Paul F. Diehl, Tom Ginsburg

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Reply proceeds as follows. Part I outlines the argument of the Nzelibe and Yoo paper. Part II considers their principal-agent analysis in the context of the American political system. Part III elaborates on the "democratic peace" literature, demonstrating that it does not support the conclusions that they draw. Part IV addresses the argument that we are in a new strategic situation, such that old rules ought not apply. Part V concludes.