Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

The Justices And The Generals: A Critical Examination Of The U.S. Supreme Court's Tradition Of Deference To The Military, 1918-2004, Steven B. Lichtman

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fighting Terrorism And Preserving Civil Liberties, James B. Comey

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Emancipation Proclamation And The Commander In Chief Power, Michael S. Paulsen

Georgia Law Review

Levinson, a good Socratic teacher, poses the question what is the relationship of emergency or necessity to constitutional power, constitutional rights, and constitutional interpretation generally, and surrounds it with a characteristically fascinating discussion. But while his leanings are clear, he does not clearly answer the question his discussion poses. One can certainly infer that Levinson dislikes Carl Schmitt's legal theories of emergency, which he sees as justifying Hitler's rise to power. And it certainly comes through quite clearly that Levinson feels the same way about the U.S. Department of Justice's legal analysis concerning detention and interrogation of war prisoners (which …

Small Emergencies, Kim L. Scheppele

Georgia Law Review

In this Comment, I argue that the "normal" American constitutional order can be seen as thoroughly shot through with emergency law and that this constant sense of emergency has fundamentally shaped the possibilities of American constitutionalism. America is now-and has been since the First World War-virtually always in a state of emergency, one way or another. Sometimes these states of emergency have been local, other times they have been federal, and still other times they have been international. Sometimes these states of emergency have been political; other times they have been economic or social. Sometimes these states of emergency have …

Time To Look Abroad? The Legal Regulation Of Emergency Powers, William E. Scheuerman

Georgia Law Review

The starting point for Professor Levinson's thought-provoking ruminations on emergency power and constitutionalism is his deep skepticism about the Bush Administration's legal response to 9/11.1 In the context of the "war on terror," Professor Levinson accurately recounts, the Administration has claimed the right to override both longstanding domestic and international legal commitments.2 Even strict prohibitions on torture, it seems, are not exempt from the President's constitutionally based prerogative as "Commander in Chief to keep the nation out of harm's way, and only he apparently possesses the rightful authority to determine the fate of accused terrorists. Although many constitutional lawyers will …

Breaking The Bank: Revisiting Central Bank Of Denver After Enron And Sarbanes-Oxley, Celia Taylor

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Abu Ghraib, Diane Marie Amann

Scholarly Works

This article posits a theoretical framework within which to analyze various aspects of post-September 11 detention policy - including the widespread prisoner abuse that has been documented in the leaks and official releases that began with publication of photos made at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. Examined are the actions of civilian executive officials charged with setting policy, of judicial officers who evaluated it, and military personnel who implemented it. Abuse has been attributed to failures of training or planning. The article concentrates on a different failure, the failure of law to keep lawlessness in check. On September 11, law's map …

The Other Students: Teaching The "War On Terror" To Nonlawyers, Juliette N. Kayyem

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

The Law Teacher As Peacemaker: National Security In The Classroom, Stephen Dycus

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Teaching National Security Law, Michael J. Glennon

Journal of Legal Education

No abstract provided.

Fair V. Rumsfeld, Michael J. Collins

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Work: The Discriminatory Effect Of Veterans' Preferences On Homosexuals, 38 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1083 (2005), Louis J. Virelli Iii

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gonzales V. United States Air Force: Should Courts Consider Rape To Be Incident To Military Service?, Elizabeth A. Reidy

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Article 9 Of The Constitution Of Japan And The Use Of Procedural And Substantive Heuristics For Consensus, Mark A. Chinen

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article’s purpose is to examine the revision debates through the lens of recent scholarship on constitutional decisionmaking to see what lessons might be drawn about constitutionalism in Japan and elsewhere. In Part I, the author discusses Article 9's text and interpretation and focus on three controversies: first, Japan's ability to use force to defend itself and the related issue of the constitutionality of the Japan Self Defense Force (SDF); second, Japan's ability to engage in collective self-defense, which impacts the state's security relationship with the United States under the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Agreement; and finally, Japan's ability to participate …

The Moussaoui Case: The Mess From Minnesota, Afsheen John Radsan

William Mitchell Law Review

This article, after giving a brief history of the Moussaoui case, identifies the main paradoxes or problems of continuing to deal with him in the criminal system. By no stretch of the imagination does this article provide an exhaustive or comprehensive treatment of the Moussaoui case. Each problem, by itself, could be the subject of a separate law review article. This article suggests that Moussaoui, rather than Yaser Esam Hamdi, or Jose Padilla, or the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, could have served as the true test for determining the minimum process that the American Constitutional system owes to an individual …

A Commander's Power, A Civilian's Reason: Justice Jackson's Korematsu Dissent, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

Robert Houghwout Jackson was a justice of the United States Supreme Court during the years of World War II. This article considers his great but potentially perplexing December 1944 dissent in Korematsu v. United States, in which he refused to join the Court majority that proclaimed the constitutionality of military orders excluding Japanese Americans from the West Coast of the United States during the War years. This article considers Justice Jackson's Korematsu dissent in full. It was and is, contrary to some of the criticisms it has received over the past 60 years, a coherent position. Jackson's dissent is also …

Hamdi Meets Youngstown: Justice Jackson's Wartime Security Jurisprudence And The Detention Of Enemy Combatants, Sarah H. Cleveland

Faculty Scholarship

More than any Justice who has sat on the United States Supreme Court, Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson explained how our Eighteenth Century Constitution – that "Eighteenth-Century sketch of a government hoped for" – struggles both to preserve fundamental liberties and to protect the nation against fundamental threats. Drawing upon his collective experience as a solo practitioner with only one year of formal legal education at Albany Law School; government tax and antitrust lawyer, Solicitor General, and Attorney General in the Roosevelt Administration; Associate Justice to the Supreme Court; and Representative and Chief of Counsel for the United States at …

War And Uncertainty, Lori Fisler Damrosch

Faculty Scholarship

When the current phase of our conflict with Iraq began in March 2003, much was unknown. Our political leaders based the case for war on the conviction that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that had not been eliminated despite twelve years of grinding sanctions. Congress voted in October 2002 to authorize renewed use of military force against Iraq, acting on the basis of representations by the Bush Administration that Iraq had been actively concealing WMD stockpiles and programs from the United Nations inspectors who had a mandate to verify the complete destruction of Iraq's WMD capability. Facts were …

Panel Presentation Transcript: Symposium: Free Speech In Wartime, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Terrorist Speech And The Future Of Free Expression, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The crucial point is this: Both liberal, democratic states, and non-state terrorist organizations need free speech. Prominent scholars have written elegantly and at length on the role of this liberty for the former. While their arguments surface at times in the text, the author does not dwell on them. Instead, she wrestles with the question: Under what circumstances are the interests of the state secured and the opportunism of terrorist organizations avoided? Here, the experiences of the United States and United Kingdom prove instructive. On both sides of the Atlantic, where the state acts as sovereign, efforts to restrict persuasive …

The Politics Of The Geneva Conventions: Avoiding Formalist Traps, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Geneva Conventions were drafted in 1949, in another world. The world of the Geneva Conventions' "framers" is still familiar to all of us, though increasingly it is familiar from movies and books rather from the evening news or, still less, our own lived experience. The world in which the Conventions were drafted was a world of states: powerful states, weak states, predatory states, law-abiding states, but states all the same. Soldiers wore uniforms designed by their states, carried weapons issued by their states, obeyed orders given by their commanders, and fought against the armies of other states.

Well--most of …

Congressional Authorization And The War On Terrorism, Curtis A. Bradley, Jack L. Goldsmith

Faculty Scholarship

This Article presents a framework for interpreting Congress's September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the central statutory enactment related to the war on terrorism. Although both constitutional theory and constitutional practice suggest that the validity of presidential wartime actions depends to a significant degree on their relationship to congressional authorization, the meaning and implications of the AUMF have received little attention in the academic debates over the war on terrorism. The framework presented in this Article builds on the analysis in the Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which devoted significant attention to the …

A Case Study In The Banning Of Political Parties: The Pan-Arab Movement El Ard And The Israeli Supreme Court, Ron Harris

ExpressO

Attempts to outlaw political groups that are alleged to approve the use of violence, to limit the expression of views that challenge the core values of democratic nation-states, and to ban radical, separatist, or religious political parties are more widespread in recent years than at any other time since 1945. They gave rise in the last few years to litigation in Constitutional Courts and Supreme Courts in Spain, Germany, Turkey, France, Israel, and Latvia, as well as in the European courts.

The present article tells the story of the encounter in the years 1959-1965 between the Pan-Arab national movement El …

Judging Terror In The "Zone Of Twilight" Exigency, Institutional Equity, And Procedure After September 11, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Citizens Of An Enemy Land: Enemy Combatants, Aliens, And The Constitutional Rights Of The Pseudo-Citizen, Juliet P. Stumpf

ExpressO

No abstract provided.

Enemies Foreign And Domestic: A Historical Look At The Use Of Military Commissions By The United States And The Case For Using Them Against American Citizens, James T. Barnett

ExpressO

An historical look at the use of Military Commissions by the United States of America. This article examines the constitutional powers to use Military Commissions as well as the limitations on such commissions.

It also examines the use of these commissions against American citizens and argues that they are proper in certain circumstances. The limitations set out by the Supreme Court are eroded to the point of being void.

The article goes on to examine the cases of John Walker Lindh and Yasser Hamdi to show that Military Commissions are the proper forum for such cases.

Ambivalence About Treason, George P. Fletcher

Faculty Scholarship

Betrayal and disloyalty are grievous moral wrongs, yet today when the disloyal commit treason we seem reluctant to punish them. John Walker Lindh fought for the Taliban with full knowledge that it was engaged in hostilities against the United States. It should not have been so difficult to prove by two witnesses to the overt act, as the Constitution requires, that he adhered to the enemy giving them aid and comfort. Admittedly, there were legal problems about whether the Taliban as an indirect enemy in an undeclared war could qualify as the enemy in the constitutional sense. But there was …

Punishment And The War On Terrorism, Carl W. Tobias

Law Faculty Publications

Certain features of the war on terrorism impose novel and controversial punishment schemes. For example, President George W. Bush has unilaterally invoked executive authority to detain thousands suspected of terrorism over protracted times and to create military tribunals. The government has imprisoned two American citizens, denying them access to counsel for more than a year, and it has incarcerated 650 individuals without process at Guantanamo Bay. Bush administration officials recently announced that they would try some Guantanamo detainees in military commissions; however, these bodies will accord fewer protections than the civilian system or even courts-martial under the Uniform Code of …

Torture, Marcy Strauss

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Torture Warrant: A Response To Professor Strauss, Alan M. Dershowitz

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.