Other Developments Involving the Military Commissions Act and Guantánamo Bay Detentions

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 364
Keyword(s):  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military

UPDATE ON UNITED STATES MILITARY COMMISSIONS

2007 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 198-231
Author(s):  
Sarah Finnin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military

AbstractThis article provides a detailed update on the progress of the United States military commissions under the regime established by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 for the trial of detainees captured during the War on Terror for so-called war crimes. In particular, the author examines the plea and sentencing of Australian detainee David Hicks, the pre-trial developments in the case of Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, and the early litigation involving the detainees who have been dubbed the ‘September 11 co-conspirators’. The author also touches on the Supreme Court decision inHamdanv.Rumsfeld, some of the significant features of the Military Commission Act, the recent federal court litigation in the case ofBoumedienev.Bush, and the construction of the new military commission building at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

scholarly journals Observing Justice at Guantánamo Bay: Human Rights NGOs and Trial Monitoring at the US Military Commissions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjersti Lohne
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Us ◽  
September 11 Attacks ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
Trial Monitoring ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Military

AbstractThe article critically considers the role of NGOs at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. On the basis of observation of pre-trial hearings for the case against Khalid Sheik Mohammed et al.—those allegedly responsible for the September 11 attacks—the article analyses NGOs as trial monitors of the US military commissions set up to deal with ‘alien unprivileged enemy belligerents’. In spite of continued efforts by human rights NGOs and incremental improvements in the military commissions’ institutional arrangements and practice, the article shows how NGOs have become so much a part of the everyday operation of justice at ‘Gitmo’ that they legitimate the military commissions’ claim to be delivering fair and transparent justice.

‘Unlawful Influence’ and the al-Nashiri Military Commission at Guantánamo Bay

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 219-229
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kahn
Keyword(s):  
State Department ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Oral Argument ◽  
National University ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
Short Essay ◽  
The Military ◽  
Legal Advisor

This short essay is based on remarks made on 21 September 2016 at the Asia Pacific Military Justice Workshop held at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law. The author discusses his perceptions as a designated observer for the National Institute of Military Justice at the military commissions held at the u.s. Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He was sent to monitor oral argument of one of the most significant pre-trial motions in the commission trying Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the uss Cole bombing. Al-Nashiri alleged unlawful influence by the civilian Convening Authority of the commission and moved to dismiss his prosecution with prejudice. The author examines the origins, argument, and resolution of this motion in the larger context of the commissions themselves, concluding that Guantánamo exemplifies the danger that u.s. State Department Legal Advisor William Taft perceived in “the temptations to cut corners.”

Jurisdiction of Military Commissions and the Ambiguous War on Terrorism

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joan Fitzpatrick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Law Of War ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Law ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military ◽  
Civil Courts

The Military Order issued on November 13,2001,1 by President George W. Bush does not offer a clear rationale for subjecting international terrorists, and persons suspected of links to them, to trial by military commissions. Military commissions can be designed for several purposes: (1) to prosecute violations of the law of war, as an alternative to courts-martial; (2) to fill a legal vacuum where armed conflict disables the civil courts; and (3) to impose swift and certain punishment against civilians suspected of specific crimes. While the first two purposes are legitimate and reflected in past United States practice, the third is questionable and a sharp departure from democratic traditions. The ambiguous nature of the “war” against international terrorism and the sweeping text of the November 13 Military Order obscure which objective(s) the order is intended to accomplish.

10. What about Guantánamo?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugene R. Fidell
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Military Personnel ◽  
World War ◽  
Martial Law ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
Enemy Combatants

‘What about Guantánamo?’ considers military commissions, which are a category of military tribunal. They are not courts-martial because they are not used to prosecute offenses committed by US military personnel. Traditionally, they have been used in three situations: where martial law has been declared, in occupied areas, and where permitted by the law of war. Hundreds of military commissions were conducted during and after the Civil War, and again after World War II to prosecute war criminals. They were revived after 9/11 by President George W. Bush to prosecute unlawful enemy combatants, with hundreds of captives transported from Afghanistan and other places to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where the vast majority were interrogated and simply imprisoned.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document