The Use of Military Commissions to Prosecute Individuals Accused of Terrorist Acts

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 320-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Military Commissions ◽  
Terrorist Acts ◽  
The Military

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, a variety of proposals emerged for bringing the perpetrators tojustice. These proposals included the use of courts-martial, the creation of a special tribunal (whether under the auspices of the United Nations or otherwise), and prosecution in U.S. federal courts.1 On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a military order entitled "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism" (Military Order).2 Pursuant to the Military Order, the United States may establish military commissions to prosecute terrorists for violations of the laws of war and "other applicable laws."

Defining Terrorism

2019 ◽  
pp. 33-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Saul
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
International Organization ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
International Level ◽  
Criminal Violence

Calls to legally define “terrorism” arose in the context of the extradition of political offenders from the 1930s onwards, with many unsuccessful efforts since then to define, criminalize, and depoliticize a common global concept of “terrorism.” It was only after the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 that many states began enacting national “terrorism” offences, spurred on by new obligations imposed by the United Nations Security Council. National laws remain nonetheless very diverse. At the international level, an elementary legal consensus has emerged that terrorism is criminal violence intended to intimidate a population or coerce a government or an international organization; some national laws add an ulterior intention to pursue a political, religious, or ideological cause. There remain intense disagreements amongst states, however, on whether there should be exceptions for certain “just” causes and, as a result, the conceptual impasse continues, even if it has narrowed.

scholarly journals The New Dilemmas of Rule of Law Assistance

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 259-263
Author(s):  
Veronica L. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Berlin Wall ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Definition Of

As we meet in 2018, it is nearly thirty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; seventeen years have passed since the terrorist attacks in the United States of September 11, 2001; and it is nearly fifteen years since the United Nations promulgated its definition of rule of law in 2004.

Letting the Exception Prove the Rule

2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Military Campaigns ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

It is unlikely that George W. Bush feels constrained by international law when deciding whether to use military force abroad. Nevertheless, many of the United States' allies are reluctant to cooperate with and participate in military actions that cannot reasonably be justified under international law. And supportive allies, while perhaps not strictly necessary to the United States in its recent and foreseeable military campaigns, do make the military option easier to pursue. A war against Iraq would be difficult without access to bases and airspace in countries as diverse as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, and Canada. For this reason, at least, it would seem to be worth the president's while to adhere to international law where possible and, where this is not possible, to seek to change the rules.International lawyers in the Department of State, together with lawyers in other parts of the U.S. government, have excelled in shaping the law to accommodate the interests of the United States. One example, though by no means the only one, concerns the response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

scholarly journals 9/11 as False Flag: Why International Law Must Dare to Care

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Baker Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
African History ◽  
The Us ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
International War

At the heart of contemporary international law lies a paradox: the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 have justified 16 years of international war, yet the official international community, embodied principally in the United Nations, has failed to question or even scrutinise the US government's account of those attacks. Despite the emergence of an impressive and serious body of literature that impugns the official account and even suggests that 9/11 may have been a classic (if unprecedentedly monstrous) false-flag attack, international statesmen, following the lead of scholars, have been reluctant to wade into what appears to be a very real controversy. African nations are no strangers to the concept of the false flag tactic, and to its use historically in the pursuit of illegitimate geopolitical aims and interests. This article draws on recent African history in this regard, as well as on deeper twentieth-century European and American history, to lay a foundation for entertaining the possibility of 9/11-as-false-flag. This article then argues that the United Nations should seek to fulfil its core and incontrovertible ‘jury’ function of determining the existence of inter-state aggression in order to exercise a long-overdue oversight of the official 9/11 narrative.

A Lack of Language – Waging War or Combatting Crime? The Blurred Rule of International Law in the Face of the Attacks of September 11, 2001

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (17) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Binder
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
The Face ◽  
The United Nations

After the terrorists' attacks of September 11, 2001, a lot of war rhetoric came out of the public and private sphere within the United States of America. On October 7, 2001, however, the rhetoric turned into reality as President George W. Bush countered the terrorist attacks and the threat of future terrorism with military means. While waging that new war U.S. governmental officials constantly make one important point, and that is that the United States are just exercising their right of self-defense. Moreover, on the day after the attacks, the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously reaffirmed the inherent right of self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations. Does that mean that international law is just that clear?

US Dealings with Iran, 1979–1980

2021 ◽  
pp. 143-166
Author(s):  
Payam Ghalehdar
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Regime Change ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
British Military ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The Cold War

This chapter serves as an introduction to the second part of the book’s empirical analysis by sketching the evolution of US attitudes toward the Middle East. It shows how the United States relied on the British military to safeguard US interests in the region until the end of the 1960s and then on regional proxies after the British military withdrawal from the region. Even after the end of the Cold War, successive US administrations eschewed hegemonic expectations toward the region until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The chapter concludes by briefly illustrating how the lack of both hegemonic pretensions and perceptions of anti-American hatred in Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait foreclosed US regime change in the 1991 Gulf War.

Enduring Freedom: Globalizing Children's Rights

Hypatia ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-203
Author(s):  
Constance L. Mui ◽  
Julien S. Murphy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Global Community ◽  
The World ◽  
September 11 Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Effects Of War ◽  
Moral Questions

Events surrounding the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States raise compelling moral questions about the effects of war and globalization on children in many parts of the world. This paper adopts Sartre's notion of freedom, particularly its connection with materiality and intersubjectivity, to assess the moral responsibility that we have as a global community toward our most vulnerable members. We conclude by examining important first steps that should be taken to address the plight of children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document