Litigating National Security Cases under The United States Uniform Code of Military Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 250-274
Author(s):  
Lieutenant Commander Ursula Smith ◽  
Colonel Daniel J. Lecce
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
National Security ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Military Rule ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions

This paper will discuss classified litigation procedures in United States Military Courts-Martial, governed by Military Rule of Evidence 505 and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The differences between United States Federal Court procedures and United States Military Commissions, governed by the Classified Information Privilege Act (cipa) and Military Commissions Rule of Evidence 505, are also discussed. Finally, best practices and selected military cases regarding espionage are presented.

Drinking from a Poisoned Chalice

2020 ◽  
pp. 519-534
Author(s):  
John G. Baker ◽  
Mary E. Spears ◽  
Katherine S. Newell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law School ◽  
United States Military ◽  
George Washington ◽  
Criminal Convictions ◽  
Keynote Speech ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
Washington University

The following is an adaptation of the keynote speech given by John G. Baker at the 2018 NATSECDEF Conference, “Preserving Justice in National Security,” hosted by the George Washington University Law School on September 20, 2018. Brigadier General Baker examined whether the United States military commissions, special military tribunals established by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 solely to try noncitizen terrorism suspects, were capable of achieving justice. Answering with an empathetic “no,” Brigadier General Baker described an increasingly troubling series of actions taken against defendants who had been secretly held and tortured by the same government that was then seeking their criminal convictions and executions. It is clear from this speech that by the time this piece is published, more, and possibly more troubling events, will have occurred, as the United States continues to pay the price of torture.

scholarly journals The Geneva Boomerang: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 and U.S. Counterterror Operations

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack M. Beard
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Practicable Method ◽  
The U.S

Over five years have passed since President George W. Bush issued the much-criticized order making an obscure device, military commissions, the primary tool for the United States to bring accused Qaeda terrorists to justice. Some legal scholars suggested in the wake of the issuance of that order that military commissions were the only practicable method available to address many of the problems presented by the trial of accused terrorists in civilian U.S. courts. True or not, it is clear that the decision to approach the problem of terrorists primarily in terms of war rather than crime continues to have far-reaching legal consequences. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which found that the military commissions designed by the Bush administration were inconsistent with the requirements of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.) and the law of war as incorporated in that statute, the U.S. Congress attempted to fashion a compliant charter for these commissions through the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA).

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.

Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 698-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Parkerson ◽  
Steven J. Lepper
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
United States Military ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Significant Addition

In the Notes and Comments section of the January 1991 issue of the Journal, Professor Richard Lillich presented a thorough and timely analysis of the Soering decision of the European Court of Human Rights, a significant addition to international human rights law. His evaluation of the Soering judgment and his reflections on several of its wider ramifications are especially relevant to the United States military, for the decision constitutes a serious threat to the administration of U.S. military justice overseas and to the treaty relationships between the United States and its NATO allies. A recent European case, Short v. Kingdom of the Netherlands, demonstrates that this threat is far from hypothetical.

The Regime of Straits and National Security: An Appraisal of International Lawmaking

1980 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Michael Reisman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
United States Military ◽  
National Interests

The United States military potential may be viewed in two interlocking dimensions. The first is nuclear deterrence: the maintenance of a posture designed to deter other states with nuclear military potential from nuclear adventures. The second is comprised of nuclear and more conventional capabilities, designed to communicate to the widest spectrum of adversaries a capacity and willingness to exercise coercion in different settings in order to protect vital national interests.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 888-895
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Peter J. Spiro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
United States Supreme ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Uniform Code ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 126 S.Ct. 2749.United States Supreme Court, June 29, 2006.In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the military commissions established by President George W. Bush were unauthorized by law and inconsistent with both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Rejecting jurisdictional challenges to its resolving the legality of the tribunals, the Court found the military commission proceedings against Hamdan to violate the “uniformity” requirement of the UCMJ, under which military commissions must be governed by the same standards as courtsmartial except where impracticable. The Court also found the tribunals to violate the Geneva Conventions as incorporated by Article 21 of the UCMJ, because the commissions did not qualify as “regularly constituted courts” as required under Common Article 3.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document