The use of military commissions (MC) to try suspected terrorists has been the focus of intense debate and litigation since Pres. Bush in Nov. 2001 issued his original Order authorizing such trials. In May 2009, the Obama Admin. announced that it was considering restarting the MC system with some changes. Contents of this report: MC: Jurisdiction: Personal Jurisdiction; Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Temporal and Spatial Jurisdiction; Composition and Powers; Procedures Accorded the Accused: Open Hearing; Right to be Present; Right to Counsel; Evidentiary Matters: Discovery; Admissibility of Evidence; Coerced Statements; Hearsay; Sentencing; Post-Trial Procedure; Review and Appeal: Protection Against Double Jeopardy.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Military Order (M.O.) pertaining to the detention, treatment, and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism. Military commissions pursuant to the M.O. began in November 2004 against four persons declared eligible for trial, but the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld invalidated the military commissions as improper under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). To permit military commissions to go forward, Congress approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), conferring authority to promulgate rules that depart from the strictures of the UCMJ and possibly U.S. international obligations. Military commissions proceedings were reinstated and resulted in three convictions under the Bush Administration.

As part of the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the United States has captured and detained numerous persons believed to have been part of or associated with enemy forces. Over the years, federal courts have considered a multitude of petitions by or on behalf of suspected belligerents challenging aspects of U.S. detention policy. Although the Supreme Court has issued definitive rulings concerning several legal issues raised in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, many others remain unresolved, with some the subject of ongoing litigation.

U.S. Government Counterterrorism: A Guide to Who Does What is the first readily available, unclassified guide to the many U.S. government agencies, bureau offices, and programs involved in all aspects of countering terrorism domestically and overseas. The authors, veterans of the U.S. government‘s counterterrorism efforts, present a rare insider‘s

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Attorney General Holder¿s decision to try certain detainees in federal criminal court, including those accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and to try other detainees by military commission, has focused attention on the procedural differences between trials in federal court and those conducted under the Military Commissions Act. Others have praised the decision as recognizing the efficacy and fairness of the federal court system. This report provides a brief summary of legal issues raised by the choice of forum for trying accused terrorists and a table comparing selected military commissions rules under the Military Commissions Act, to the corresponding rules that apply in federal court. Tables.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are indelibly etched into our cultural memory. This is the story of how the legal ramifications of that day brought two presidents, Congress, and the Supreme Court into repeated confrontation over the incarceration of hundreds of suspected terrorists and “enemy combatants” at the US naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba. Could these prisoners (including an American citizen) be held indefinitely without due process of law? Did they have the right to seek their release by habeas corpus in US courts? Could they be tried in a makeshift military judicial system? With Guantánamo well into its second decade, these questions have challenged the three branches of government, each contending with the others, and each invoking the Constitution’s separation of powers as well as its checks and balances. In The 9/11 Terror Cases, Allan A. Ryan leads students and general readers through the pertinent cases: Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, both decided by the Supreme Court in 2004; Hamdan v. Bush, decided in 2006; and Boumediene v. Bush, in 2008. An eloquent writer and an expert in military law and constitutional litigation, Ryan is an adept guide through the nuanced complexities of these cases, which rejected the sweeping powers asserted by President Bush and Congress, and upheld the rule of law, even for enemy combatants. In doing so, as we see clearly in Ryan's deft account, the Supreme Court's rulings speak directly to the extent and nature of presidential and congressional prerogative, and to the critical separation and balance of powers in the governing of the United States.

This important and unique volume begins with seven essays that discuss the contemporary challenges to implementing international humanitarian law. Its second and largest section comprises 263 entries covering the vast majority of IHL concepts. Written by a wide range of experts, each entry explains the essential legal parameters of a particular element of IHL, while offering practical examples and, where relevant, historical considerations, and supplying a short bibliography for further research. The starting point for the selection were notions arising from the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols, and other IHL treaties. However, the reader will also encounter entries going beyond the typical scope of IHL, such as those related to the protection of the natural environment and animals, and entries that, in addition to an IHL perspective, discuss relevant issues through the lens of human rights law, refugee law, international criminal law, the law on State responsibility, national law, and so on. The editors have also attempted to take into account certain concepts that have no direct foundation in IHL, but that are commonly used in mass media and politics, or generate wide interest in contemporary society, such as drones, economic warfare, cyber warfare, sniping, targeted killings, transitional justice, terrorism, and many other topics. The Companion to International Humanitarian Law offers a much-needed tool for both scholars and practitioners, supplying information accessible enough to enable a variety of users to quickly familiarise themselves with it and sufficiently comprehensive to be a source for reflection and further research for more demanding users. Its aim is to facilitate the practical application of IHL, and be of use to a wide audience interested in or confronted with IHL, ranging from professionals in humanitarian assistance and protection in the field, legal officers and advisers at the national and international level, trainers, academics, scholars, and students.

International Law in the U.S. Legal System provides a wide-ranging overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. Curtis Bradley explains the structure of the U.S. legal system and the various separation of powers and federalism considerations implicated by this structure, especially as these considerations relate to the conduct of foreign affairs. Against this backdrop, he covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, executive agreements, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. He also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as treaty withdrawal, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation, war powers, extradition, and extraterritoriality. This book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic, including various actions taken during the Trump administration, while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating to the U.S. Constitutional founding. Written by one of the most cited international law scholars in the United States, the book is a resource for lawyers, law students, legal scholars, and judges from around the world.

In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States launched initiatives that test the limits of international human rights law. The indefinite detention and torture of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, targeted killing, and mass surveillance require an expansion of executive authority that negates the rule of law. In Permanent State of Emergency, Ryan Alford establishes that the ongoing failure to address human rights abuses is a symptom of the most serious constitutional crisis in American history. Instead of curbing the increase in executive power, Congress and the courts facilitated the breakdown of the nation’s constitutional order and set the stage for presidential supremacy. The presidency, Alford argues, is now more than imperial: it is an elective dictatorship. Providing both an overview and a systematic analysis of the new regime, he objectively demonstrates that it does not meet even the minimum requirements of the rule of law. At this critical juncture in American democracy, Permanent State of Emergency alerts the public to the structural transformation of the state and reiterates the importance of the constitutional limits of the American presidency.