Add to ORKGThe Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold enemy combatants without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants
In three decisions in 2004 and 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the sweeping cl...
In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the ...
As Marty Lederman’s earlier post explains, a D.C. district court is now considering the habeas petit...
The Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) provides broad powers for a president after Sep...
The federal government\u27s reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, included a wide...
In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in October of 2001, the Bush Administration launched t...
In early 2002, the United States began transporting prisoners captured in Afghanistan to the naval b...
The application of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the government’s deprivation of ...
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up its first case arising from the War on Terror ...
The Supreme Court of the United States held that military commission procedures to try Guantanamo Ba...
In Rasul v. Bush, a divided Supreme Court declared that “a state of war is not a blank check for the...
In June 2006, the Supreme Court invalidated President Bush\u27s military commission rules in Hamdan ...
The stage for the Guantanamo detainees’ commission proceedings was set by the interplay between the ...
This article will first set out a brief history and description of the airfield at Bagram and the de...
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy c...
In three decisions in 2004 and 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the sweeping cl...
In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the ...
As Marty Lederman’s earlier post explains, a D.C. district court is now considering the habeas petit...
The Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ) provides broad powers for a president after Sep...
The federal government\u27s reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, included a wide...
In response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in October of 2001, the Bush Administration launched t...
In early 2002, the United States began transporting prisoners captured in Afghanistan to the naval b...
The application of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the government’s deprivation of ...
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take up its first case arising from the War on Terror ...
The Supreme Court of the United States held that military commission procedures to try Guantanamo Ba...
In Rasul v. Bush, a divided Supreme Court declared that “a state of war is not a blank check for the...
In June 2006, the Supreme Court invalidated President Bush\u27s military commission rules in Hamdan ...
The stage for the Guantanamo detainees’ commission proceedings was set by the interplay between the ...
This article will first set out a brief history and description of the airfield at Bagram and the de...
This report provides background information regarding the cases of two U.S. citizens deemed “enemy c...
In three decisions in 2004 and 2006, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the sweeping cl...
In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the ...
As Marty Lederman’s earlier post explains, a D.C. district court is now considering the habeas petit...