President Bush and his administration made use of an authorization by Congress that was granted to the President a week after the attacks of September 11, 2001 to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons, he determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks…” He considered that authorization as a permission to activate his unilateral emergency and wartime powers in order to conduct a war against terrorism in Afghanistan, fighting Al Qaeda, Taliban and their allied fighters and detaining thousands in custody for interrogation at different locations, some of which are still classified. The Bush administration claimed that those militants are not military combatants; therefore they are neither covered under the Geneva Conventions nor the procedural protections of the criminal justice. In other words, the administration allowed both its intelligence and defense apparatuses to hold the prisoners indefinitely at undisclosed locations, to subject them to harsh means of interrogations and to even try them before military commissions in absence of a proper or fair representation.
This paper is not going to discuss the constitutionality of Afghanistan war that was conducted without the Congress’ declaration of war because of the following reasons. First, we simply consider the Authorization of Military Force mentioned above as consent of the Congress’ support to President Bush to activate his wartime and emergency powers as the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy as the Constitution grants. Second, the authorization literally allowed the President to use “United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United St...
... middle of paper ...
...pus petition on behalf of the British Citizen Shafiq Rasul who was detained in the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, challenging the U.S. government’s practice of holding foreign nationals indefinitely. Rasul claimed that afore getting captured and apprehended during the U.S. incursion of Afghanistan he was taken captive by Taliban and he was being held at their camps. The District Court held that the Judiciary had no Jurisdiction and could not grant the habeas corpus to Rasul and his fellow detainees. Rasul appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court accepted the case in November 2003. The main distinguishment between the case of Rasul and the case of Hamdi is the Hamdi dealt with the right of diminutive handful U.S. citizens held by the regime, while the case of Rasul concerned the detention of aliens, which comprise the majority of those in custody in Guantanamo Bay.
If the right to habeas corpus is not being extended to the detainee, the majority judges are of the opinion that the branches such as executive and etc. except judicial, would have a whole control over Guantanamo Bay causing the judicial branch to have no position in reviewing the legal processes. The majority judges had stated
The War Powers Act or sometimes referred to as the War Powers Resolution is passed by congress. A group of Senators led by Jacov K. Javits of New York proposes fundamentally to change the constitutional relationship between President and Congress in the field of foreign affairs (Rostow). This act is an aftermath of the Vietnam War and it addresses a set of procedure for both President and Congress in the situation where the United States forces abroad could lead the United States into armed conflict. This act can be broken down into several parts. The first part asserts the policy behind the law, and the President’s power as a Commander in Chief is exercised only as a respond to declaration of war by Congress or in respond to national emergency; an attack upon the United States. The second part requires the President to discuss and consult with Congress before take an action in the U.S. Armed forces into hostilities and continue to discuss as long as the U.S. Armed forces remain in such condition. The third part explains that President should meet the requirement when he wants to introduce U.S Armed forces. The fourth part concerns more in congressional action and procedure. For instance, this part explains the procedure regarding legislation to withdraw the U.S. forces. The fifth part states the rules to be used in interpreting the War Power Act. At last, the sixth part explains separability provision in which if there is any part of the law is invalid, the rest of the law shall not considered invalid too.
“Over the past century, Canadian attitudes towards the use of force and the exercise of military power in support of national aims have fundamentally shifted”. This is a quote written by Major Todd Strickland in his article, titled, “From the Boers to the Taliban: How Canadians Attitudes towards War Have Changed”. This article reviews Canada’s history within the wars and also Canadian’s thoughts on war. The Afghan war began in 2001 and is still ongoing today. The war began due to the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11th, 2001, also known as 9/11. The purpose of this war was to invade Afghanistan and to disassemble an organization, known as the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Another objective was to dismantle the Taliban government. The Taliban government was simply to blame for the deaths of so many Americans on 9/11. The leader, brains and financial support behind this organization was one by the name of Osama bin Laden. Because his country did not surrender him, the United States made the decision to declare war on Afghanistan and fight for those who lost their lives in 9/11. Canada became involved in the Afghan War very quickly after the attacks of 9/11. Because the Afghanistan war is a war that is constantly covered by the media, it makes the information overwhelming. To narrow the topic down, this paper will focus mainly on the Canadian’s involvement in the Afghanistan war. Violent political wars have been reoccurring for as long as anyone can remember, and the intensity of this violence continues to rise. The magnitude of political violence involved, the main interpretations on the causes of political violence, and the prospects for conflict resolution are all topics that will be covered...
Our military campaigns in Afghanistan eliminated a regime that supported terrorism and other violent groups. Today in Afghanistan there is no regime and the country is rebuilding it self from the ruins of Soviet war. John Ashcroft who is now the famous man on TV is probably the only one who takes the problem seriously. He said that he wants to check for people who have connections with the Alquida and its cells. But some people say it’s unconstitutional to do that, but in 1700’s or even 1800’s terrorists did not attack America. That means that our finding fathers did not had to deal with Ottoman Empire nor their attacks because we were protected by oceans. Even in the old days constitution was not a factor for some people to do something immoral or illegal.
Ms. Vanklausen relies on primary and secondary sources with strong credentials in the realm of the constitution, law, public policy, and Americans’ right to freedom (Cato Inst., n.d.; Wikipedia, 2010) to support her argument. The authors have been published in a variety of respected periodicals as well as writing books on these topics. Her sources cite the expert opinions of Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Antonin Scalia (“Can U.S. Citizens Be Held as Enemy Combatants”, Reinking & von der Osten, 2007, pp. 228, 231-233), who are entrusted with the ultimate responsibility to interpret our nation’s constitution and apply this standard to arguments brought before the Court when the rule of law is in question. Ms. Vanklausen also employs excerpts from the Bill of Rights to clarify the protections these individuals are not permitted in this situation. She provides a quotation by Thomas Jefferson, and notes decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Second Circuit Court, and Federal Court Judge Mukasey. She also refers to established truths upon which Americans depend as signs of their freedom, such as “The foundation of liberty has always rested on the resistance to the idea of arbitrary imprisonment by an executive. (Reinking & von der Osten, 2007)
US forces were already involved in Vietnam when Lyndon Johnson engineered the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964, and George Bush Senior agreed in a two-day Senate debate on US intervention in the Persian Gulf, but George W. Bush has surpassed his predecessors in the assumption of imperial powers--most obviously, perhaps, in his tendency to conflate America's war against terrorism with his own existential destiny. "I will not forget this wound to our country," he told the nation shortly after September 11. "I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." In assuming this pivotal role, moreover, Bush has made it clear that he will allow no boundaries not even on his exercise of national power. The president made the arbitrary decision to designate as a foreign “enemy combatant” Some Americans are being held incommunicado in a military brig without due process of law and without charges... in suspect of being related to al-Qaeda and possessing a dirty bomb[2].
MICHAELSEN, C., THE RENAISSANCE OF NON-REFOULEMENT? THE OTHMAN (ABU QATADA) DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. .
Most Americans believe that the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is due to the terrorist attacks on the United States. And while it is hard to deny that the 9-11 attacks were the impetus for putting boots on the ground, it is imperative that the chain of events following the horror of September 11 are seen to reflect the willingness and wants of actors in control before the towers fell. In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines.... ... middle of paper ... ...
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an authoritative order forcing governments to provide the “body” of the detainee in which the legality of their detention and individual liberties will be challenged. Historically associated with civil liberty violation and the injustice of illegally detaining potentially enemies of the state, jurisdictional issues regarding their detaining location have made justice difficult to administer and deliver. Detaining enemies for their participation, involvement, and/or ties to threats of terror towards the United States will result the confinement of combatants, as solidified by the US Constitution, however, to what extent will they be forced to stay?. Residents of Guantanamo Bay are just; enemies of the state, accused individual that have been arrested and detain with minimal civil human rights to our jurisdictional due process that we American’s hold dear; with only a Writ of Habeas Corpus as their life line to legality and freedom. Although controversial in its conception and implementation by US presidential administration, judiciary members have cordially interpreted cases of questionable detention and the legality of doing so. It is truly unfortunate when individuals are tossed into confinement illegally with no help and/or the promise of their restorative freedoms (ACLU, 2014).
The book raises the importance of, and questions, the writ of habeas corpus. Carter used a writ of habeas corpus to get a federal trial. Many question the legality of Carter going into federal jurisdiction, when his case should have been heard before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It was a gamble, but the federal judge gave fair justice to Carter and Artis. The State of New Jersey appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court’s ruling.
After 9-11 George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the CIA used loopholes to torture the suspects after the attack. Al Qaeda terrorists were not classified under prisoners of war and there was a genuine concern of other attacks to follow (Yoo 1). Under these interpretations and bending of the laws Bush was legal and justified in the actions taken. The Bush administration picked waterboarding as their main force when torturing the masterminds behind the attacks. Waterboarding was picked because they had been training special force teams and tens of thousands of other soldiers before the attacks, and it was stated that they
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
Along with the financial costs, there is human cost with the loss of life of civilians, Canadian soldiers. The invasion of Afghanistan is only a short term solution to a bigger problem. When Canada and other nations leave the country, the Taliban and the warlord tribes will continue to insight fear on the Afghan citizens (Endersby, 2011). Conclusion Canada’s involvement has brought about a continuous debate on whether or not they should be in Afghanistan fighting a war that is half a world away. The events of September 11, 2001 in the United States reinforced the need to fight terrorism on a global scale.
Harry Kreisler welcome Louise Richardson, Executive Dean of the Radcliffe institute for Advanced study at Harvard University to discuss terrorist’s characteristic and what they want. According to Dr. Louise, as of today, nobody has a discipline of terrorism per se. Terrorism deliberate targeting of non- combatants for political purpose and that terrorist act is a political act. The act must be a politically inspired to be consider as a terrorist act. Secondly it must involve some sort of violence or the threat of violence act. Terrorists are very symbolic and that terrorists are invariably both out manned and outgunned by their opponents. The point is that the impact of their act to be greater than the actual physical act itself; therefore,
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.