The Detention Of Unlawful Enemy Combatants During The War On Terror

Today the United States is fighting a new type of non-nation state enemy, which does not behave according to historical doctrines or principles of war. Hardy examines the development of legal doctrine surrounding the management of the new enemy combatant, including the detention and prosecution of unlawful enemy combatants detained by the United States after September 11, 2001. She also reviews relevant case law addressing United States citizens detained as enemy combatants. This discussion additionally focuses on the rights and processes granted to those detained at Guantanamo Bay. Finally, she gives an historical overview of enemy combatants in previous United States wars and conflicts.

Learn about Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp with iMinds insightful knowledge series. The Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp was set up by the United States Government as a detention facility for "unlawful enemy combatants" captured in the "war on terror." Opened in 2002, it is located on the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US, the Congress granted President Bush the authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those who committed the attacks. Two months later President Bush issued an executive order, which provided that any non-citizens believed to be involved in international terrorism could be held by the US military indefinitely. iMinds brings targeted knowledge to your eReading device with short information segments to whet your mental appetite and broaden your mind.

In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism. The Court overturned a ruling that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens detained abroad. This report provides an overview of the law of war and the historical treatment of wartime detainees, in particular the U.S. practice; describes how the detainees¿ status might affect their rights and treatment; and summarizes activity of the 108th and 109th Congresses related to detention in connection with the war against terrorism.

For the Bush administration 9/11 started a new kind of war. In reaction to the attacks the president and his legal advisors created the term unlawful enemy combatant in addition to the Geneva Conventions' distinction of combatants and civilians. Alluding to international law, the term suggests legality and seeks to legitimize a new kind of detention, yet leading to the torture scandal and Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. This empirical study traces the term's development throughout the first year after 9/11 and reveals the legitimation strategies for detainee treatment of the Bush administration. (Series: Studies on Peace Research / Studien zur Friedensforschung, Vol. 19) [Subject: Politics]

The detention of unlawful enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay is the subject of debate both in the United States and the international community. The detention facility is criticized by those who claim the United States has undermined the rule of law by indefinitely detaining individuals without meaningful due process. Against this criticism stand those who believe the detention of terrorists found to be enemy combatants is lawful and necessary to maintain the nation's security during the war on terrorism. This civilian research paper analyzes the international and U.S. laws applicable to the detention of individuals during military operations overseas, including international treaties and U.S. federal statutes, Department of Defense rules, and U.S. federal court decisions. The paper also describes the current military commissions empowered to try detainees for war crimes. The paper concludes with several recommendations to amend the rules both for determining enemy combatant status and for trying detainees for war crimes to provide additional transparencies and protections for individual detainees. This paper does not address alleged human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay, but only the legal and policy issues surrounding the detention and trials of individuals who are held at the detention facility.

The United States administration's policy of detaining 'unlawful enemy combatants' at the United States military base in Guantánamo Bay falls short of international and domestic law standards. The problem in the authors' view is not that the United States has decided to designate those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan as 'unlawful combatants' who (allegedly) fall outside the scope of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law has long recognized the existence of such a category. The problem is rather that international humanitarian law has been sporadically and selectively applied and in many respects has been ignored or violated with respect to the detainees held in Guantánamo and elsewhere within the context of the 'war on terror'. In its recent judgments in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. Bush and Rasul v. Bush the United States Supreme Court has not passed an unambiguous and clear judgment on the United States policy towards unlawful enemy combatants. The Court may have rejected the executive's claim that it has the authority to incarcerate people suspected of terrorist connections without any judicial review, the three decisions have not imposed on the executive a clear framework governing the detention of alleged terrorists. The Court has upheld the government's power to hold 'enemy combatants' according to standards that fall short of the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, the due process protection granted to those challenging their status as 'enemy combatant' is so deferential to the executive that it could render review virtually insignificant.

Focuses on the recent "Enemy Combatant Cases" to provide a stern critique of the legal and constitutional basis for the enormous expansion of presidential power during the Bush administration's "War on Terror," and the challenges (especially in the Supreme Court) that such expansion has inspired.

"This book analyzes the authority to detain American citizens who are suspected of being members, agents, or associates of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and possibly other terrorist organizations as "enemy combatants.""--BOOK JACKET.

When a soldier in the field of battle is under attack in a small village and comes upon a villager who could be a combatant or a civilian, what rules govern how that soldier should act? If the soldier detains the villager and determines that the villager is an unaffiliated combatant, what do the rules of detention require? In The War on Terror and the Laws of War, six legal scholars with experience as military officers bring practical wisdom to the contentious topic of applying international law to the battlefield. The authors apply their unique expertise to issues that have gained greater urgency during the United States' wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: including categorizing targets and properly detaining combatants. The modern battlefield has proven to be a difficult arena in which to apply traditional legal rules. The War on Terror and the Laws of War brings clarity to the subject with an insider's perspective.