This article examines the extent to which severe U.S. counterterronsm measures, such as martial law, would fare by domestic and international legal standards. The primary concern in this article is with the indefinite detention of American citizens and noncitizens by executive order, without judicial oversight, under the executive branch's military authority. The article beginswith a discussion of the U.S.jurisprudence on emergency authority. The second part of the article examines the international legal regime regarding the suspension of civil liberties or human rights during times of national emergency; in this part of the article, selected U.S. counterterrorism measures are compared with international legal standards. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of these international standards for U.S. domestic law.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Baptist Churches v. Meese, 712 F.Supp. 756 (S.D. Cal. 1989).
2.
American Bar Association. (2002, August 8). Taskforce on treatment of enemy combatants: Preliminary report. Retrieved June 8, 2003, from http://www.abanet.org/leadership/enemycombatants.pdf.
3.
Amici curiae brief. (2002). In U.S. District Court, S.D., N.Y., Padilla v. Bush, Civil Action No. 02-Civ-4445 (MBM). New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
4.
Aolain, F. N. (1995). The emergence of diversity: Differences in human rights jurisprudence. Fordham International Law Journal, 19, 101-142.
5.
Authorizationfor use of militaryforce. (2001, September 18). Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224-224.
6.
Blumner, R. (2002, July 22). Did Presidentoverstep in detaining suspects?Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Monday Final Edition, p. 11A-11A.
7.
Bradley, C. A. (1998). The status of customary international law in U.S. courts-Before and after Erie. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 26, 807-826.
8.
Brannigan and McBride v. United Kingdom, 258 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993).
9.
Brennan, W., Jr. (1989). The quest to develop ajurisprudence of civil liberties in time of security crises. Israel Yearbook of Human Rights, 18-11-21-18-11-21.
10.
Buergental, T. (1995). International human rights. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
11.
Carter, W. M., Jr. (2002). The mote in thy brother's eye: A review of Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry by Michael Ignatieff. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 20, 496-510.
12.
Center for National Security Studies v. United States Department of Justice, 215 F.Supp.2d 94 (D. D.C. 2002).
13.
Charney, J. I. (1986). May the President violate customary international law? The power of the executive branch of the United States government to violate customary international law. American Journal of International Law, 80, 913-922.
14.
Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F.Supp.2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
15.
Davies, K. L. (2000). The imposition of martial law in the United States. Air Force Law Review, 49, 67-112.
16.
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
17.
Developments in the law: The law of prisons v. plight of the tempest-tost. Indefinite detention of deportable aliens. (2002). Harvard Law Review, 115, 1915-1939.
18.
Dickinson, L. A. (2002). Using legal process to fight terrorism: Detentions, military commissions, international tribunals, and the rule of law. Southern California Law Review, 75, 1407-1492.
19.
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946).
20.
Ex Parte Milligan, 4 U.S. 71 (1866).
21.
Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. I (1942).
22.
Fitzpatrick, J. (1994). Human rights in crisis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
23.
Fitzpatrick, J. (2002). Military commissions: Jurisdiction of military commissions and the ambiguous war on terrorism. American Journal of International Law, 96, 345-354.
24.
Fletcher, G. P. (2002). The military tribunal order on justice and war: Contradictions in the proposed military tribunals. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 25, 635-652.
25.
Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1996).
26.
Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 788 F.2d 1446 (I Ith Cir. 1986).
27.
Gellman, B. (2002, December 24). In U.S., terrorism's peril undiminished: Nation struggles on offense and defense, and officials still expect new attacks. Washington Post, Tuesday Final Edition, p. A01-A01.
28.
Geneva II1. Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S T. 3316, T.I.A.S. No. 3364, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 (entered into force Oct. 21, 1950).
29.
Geneva IV. Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, Aug. 12, 1949,6 U.S.T. 3516, T.I.A.S. No. 3364, 75 U.N.T.S. 287.
30.
Glennon, M. J. (1985). Raising the Paquete Habana: Is violation of customary international law by the executive branch unconstitutional?Northwestern University Law Review, 80, 321-363.
31.
Greenpeace USA v. Stone, 748 F.Supp. 749 (D. Haw. 1990).
32.
Gross, O. (I 998). "Once more unto the breach": The systemic failure of applying the European Convention on Human Rights to entrenched emergencies. Yale Journal of International Law, 23, 437-501.
33.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2002).
34.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 2003).
35.
Handel v. Artukovic, 601 F.Supp. 1421 (C.D. Cal. 1985).
36.
Henning, V. H. (2002). Anti-terrorism, Crime, and Security Act 2001: Has the United Kingdom made a valid derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights?American University International Law Review, 17, 1263-1297.
37.
Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi, 586 F.2d 625 (6th Cir. 1978).
38.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2002, March 12). Pertinent parts of decision on request for precautionarymeasures, detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Washington, DC: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
39.
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
40.
Iyer, V. (1999). States of emergency: Moderating their effects on human rights. Dalhousie Law Journal, 22, 125-189.
41.
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997).
42.
Katyal, N. K., & Tribe, L. H. (2002). Waging war, deciding guilt: Trying the military tribunals. Yale Law Journal, 111, 1259-1310.
43.
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963).
44.
Kirgis, F. L., Jr. (1987). May the President violate customary international law? Federal statutes, executive orders, and "self-executing custom."American Journal of International Law, 81, 371-375.
45.
Koh, H. H. (2002). The case against military commissions. American Journal of International Law, 96, 337-344.
46.
Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
47.
Kyler v. Montezuma County, No. 99-1052, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1145 (10th Cir. 2000).
48.
Lobel, J. (1985). The limits of constitutional power: Conflicts between foreign policy and international law. Virginia Law Review, 71, 1071-1180.
49.
Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948).
50.
Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000).
51.
Macdonald, R. St. J. (1997). Derogations under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 36, 225-267.
52.
Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, 141 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 1998).
53.
McCaslin, J. (2002, February 7). Bombs away, Dubya. Washington Times, p. A06-A06.
54.
McLachlin, M. (2001, September 28). U.S. unprepared to deal with bioterrorism. Cox News Service.
55.
Military Order of November 13, 2001. President of the United States, Military Order, Title 3-The detention, treatment, and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism, 66 FR 57833, Vol. 66, No. 222.
56.
Mintz, J., & Allen, M. (2002, February 8). Bush shifts position on detainees: Geneva Conventions to cover Taliban, but not Al Qaeda. Washington Post, p. A01-A01.
57.
Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909).
58.
Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64 (1804).
59.
Opinion. (2002, September 8). L.A. Times, p. M4-M4.
60.
Oraa, J. (1992). Human rights in states of emergency in international law. Oxford, UK: University Press.
61.
Padilla v. Bush, 233 F.Supp.2d 564 (S.D. N.Y. 2002).
Paust, J. J. (2002). Use of armed force against terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond. Cornell International Law Journal, 35, 533-557.
65.
Pictet, J. S. (1958). Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, commentary, no. IV. Geneva, Switzerland: International Committee of the Red Cross.
66.
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862).
67.
Prosecutor v. Delalic, No. IT-96-2 1 -T (Int'l Crim. Trib. for Former Yugoslavia Trial Chamber 11 Nov. 16, 1998).
68.
Rasul v. Bush, 215 F.Supp.2d 55 (D. D.C. 2002).
69.
Ridgway, J. (2002, July 30). Ethics, ethnics both under fire. Village Voice, p. 33-33.
70.
Rodriguez-Femandez v. Wilkinson, 505 F.Supp. 787 (D. Kan. 1980).
71.
Rodriguez-Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 654 F.2d 1382 (1Oth Cir. 1981).
72.
Roots, R. I. (2000). Government by permanent emergency: The forgotten history of the new deal constitution. Suffolk University Law Review, 33, 259-292.
73.
Scharf, I. (2000). Kosovo's war victims: Civil compensation or criminal justice for identity elimination?Emory International Law Review, 14, 1415-1449.
74.
Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
75.
Seelye, K. Q. (2002, February 8). A nation challenged. New York Times, p. 1A-1A.
76.
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (1992, March 24). Report on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Sen. Rep. 102-23, 102nd Cong. 2d Sess.
77.
Spiro, P. J. (2002). Explaining the end of plenary power. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 16, 339-363.
78.
Standt v. New York City, 153 F.Supp.2d 417 (S.D. N.Y. 2001).
79.
Stapleton, S. (1999). Ensuring a fair trial in the International Criminal Court: Statutory interpretation and the impermissibility of derogation. New York University School of Law Journal of International Lasv and Politics, 31, 535-609.
80.
Svensson-McCarthy, A.-L. (1998). The international law ofhuman rights and states of exceptions. The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
81.
Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
82.
Telman, D. A. J. (2001). A truism that isn't true? The Tenth Amendment and executive war power. Catholic University Law Review, 51, 135-189.
83.
Thomas, M. (2002). "Rogue states" within American borders: Remedying state noncompliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. California Law Review, 90, 165-210.
84.
United Nations. (1997). Administration ofjustice and the human rights of detainees: Question of human rights and state of emergency. UN doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/19 (1997).
85.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2001). General comment no. 29: States of emergency (Article 4). UN Doc. CCPR/C/2I/Rev. l/Add. 11-11.
86.
United Nations Treaty Collection. (2002, February 5). Retrieved January 8, 2003, from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treatySasp.htm.
87.
United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 665 (1992).
88.
United States v. Awadallah, 202 F.Supp.2d 55 (S.D. N.Y. 2002).
89.
United States v. Duarte-Acero, 208 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2000).
90.
United States v. Noriega, 808 F.Supp. 791 (S.D. Fla. 1992).
Weisburd, A. M. (1988). The executive branch and international law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 41, 1205-1269.
96.
Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
97.
Wood, D. P. (2003). The rule of law in times of stress. University of Chicago Law Review, 70, 455-470.
98.
Woods, A. (2002, July 2). British appeals panel rules that legislation to detain foreign terrorist suspects is discriminatory. Associated Press, BC Cycle, International News.
