Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-05T23:12:42.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Daryl A. Mundis
Daryl A. Mundis*
Affiliation:
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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."

Type
Agora: Military Commissions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 96 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 320 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Military Order, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 66 Fed. Reg. 57, 833 (Nov. 16, 2001).

2 U.S. Dep’t of Defense, Military Commissions Order No. 1, Procedures for Trials by Military Commissions of Certain Non-United States Citizens in the War Against Terrorism (Mar. 21, 2002), at <http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf>.

1 See, e.g., Harold Koh, Hongju, We Have the Right Courts for Bin Laden, N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 2001,Google Scholar at A39; Neuffer, Elizabeth, Justice in a Changed World, Boston Globe, Oct. 28, 2001,Google Scholar at A17. See also the various options set forth in J, Michael. Matheson, , U.S. Military Commissions: One of Several Options, in the current Agora, 96 AJIL 354 (2002)Google Scholar.

2 66 Fed. Reg. 57, 833 (Nov. 16, 2001) [hereinafter Military Order].

3 Id. §1(e).

4 Dao, James, U.S. Is Taking War Captives to Cuba Base, N.Y. Times, Jan. 11, 2002,Google Scholar at A1; Q, Katharine. Seelye, , Red Cross Team Will Examine Prisoners from Afghanistan, N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 2002,Google Scholar at A10.

5 Katharine Q. Seelye with Erlanger, Steven, U. S. Suspends the Transport of Terror Suspects to Cuba, N.Y. Times, Jan. 24, 2002 Google Scholar, at A1

6 Q, Katharine. Seelye, , On Defensive, General Says Prisoners Get Mats, Even Bagels, N.Y. Times, Jan. 17, 2002 Google Scholar, at A16.

7 Bender, Bryan & Washington, Wayne, U.S. Is Fine-tuning Plans for Tribunals, Boston Globe, Jan. 18, 2002 Google Scholar, at A1.

8 10 U.S.C. §§801-946 (2000) [hereinafter U.C.M.J.]. The articles of the U.C.M.J. correspond directly to the subsections of the statute (e.g., 10 U.S.C. §801 is U.C.M.J. Art. 1). U.C.M.J. Article 2 contains the personal jurisdiction provisions of the code. The U.C.M.J. is reprinted in the Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2000) [hereinafter MCM], available at <http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf>.

9 U.C.M.J., supra note 8, Art. 2(1).

10 Id., Art. 2(9).

11 Id., Art. 2(10)-(11); Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. §§3261-3267 (2000); J, Mark. Yost, & S, Douglas. Anderson, The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000: Closing the Gap, 95 AJIL 446 (2001)Google Scholar.

12 William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 831 (2d rev. ed. 1920). For detailed analysis of military commissions during the nineteenth century, see id. at 831-46.

13 See 7 Fed. Reg. 5101 (July 7, 1942); 7 Fed. Reg. 5103 (July 7, 1942) [hereinafter FDR Order].

14 General Headquarters United Nations Command, Tokyo, Japan, AG 000.5 (28 October 50) JA (Oct. 28, 1950), reprinted in J, Jordan. Paust, M. Bassiouni, Cherif, A, Sharon. Williams, , Scharf, Michael, Jimmy, Gurulé, & Zagaris, Bruce, International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials 724 (1996)Google Scholar; Supplemental Rules of Criminal Procedure for Military Commissions of the United Nations Command (rev. through Mar. 17, 1953), excerpts reprinted in id. at 725-32.

15 Military Order, supra note 2, §4(c) (1).

16 Id. §§1(e), (2)(a)(1)(ii).

17 Id. §7(b)(1).

18 Id. §2(a).

19 Id. §2(a)(1)(i).

20 Id. §2(a)(1)(ii).

21 Id. §2(a)(1)(iii).

22 Id. §2(a)(2).

23 Id §4(b).

24 Id.§4(c)(6)-(7).

25 Id. §4(a).

26 Id. §4(c)(8).

27 Id. §7(a)(2).

28 Id. §7 (b)(2).

29 317 U.S. 1 (1942). For a thoughtful discussion of Quirin, see Harold Koh, Hongju, The Case Against Military Commissions in the present Agora, 96 AJIL 337, 339-40 (2002)Google Scholar.

30 R, Alberto. Gonzales, , Martial Justice, Full and Fair, N.Y. Times, Nov. 30, 2001 Google Scholar, at A27.

31 Military Order, supra note 2, §3(a).

32 Id §3(b).

33 Id §3(c).

34 Id.§3(d).

35 Id §4(c)(5).

36 A. Green, Wigfall, The Military Commission, 42 AJIL 832, 836-37 (1948)Google Scholar.

37 U.C.M.J., supra note 8, Arts. 21, 36; see also id., Arts. 104, 106.

38 Id., Art. 21.

39 Id., Art. 36.

40 Military Order, supra note 2, §1 (f).

41 Id. §4(b).

42 Id. §4(c).

43 Id.

44 Id. §4(c)(2).

45 Id. §4(c)(3).

46 Id.

47 Id. §4(c)(4).

48 Id. §7(a)(1).

49 Lane, Charles, Terrorism Tribunal Rights Are Expanded; Draft Specifies Appeals, Unanimity on Death Penalty, Wash. Post, Dec. 28, 2001 Google Scholar, at A1; A, Neil. Lewis, , Rules on Tribunal Require Unanimity on Death Penalty, N.Y. Times, Dec. 28, 2001 Google Scholar, at A1.

The secretary promulgated the rules on March 21, 2002 (U.S. Dep’t of Defense, Military Commissions Order No. 1, Procedures for Trials by Military Commissions of Certain Non-United States Citizens in the War Against Terrorism (Mar. 21, 2002), at <http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/d20020321ord.pdf>), during the production of this issue of the Journal, and they alleviate some of the concerns raised in this essay. However, pursuant to paragraph 7 (B) of the rules, in the event of an inconsistency between the rules and the Military Order, the latter prevails.

50 Bender & Washington, supra note 7.

51 Id.

52 Lane, supra note 49; Lewis, supra note 49.

53 Lewis, supra note 49.

54 Lane, supra note 49.

55 Id.

56 Lewis, supra note 49.

57 Id.

58 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 [hereinafter ICCPR].

59 Nowak, Manfred, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, tbl. 1, at 886, 889 (1993)Google Scholar.

60 ICCPR, supra note 58, Art. 4. On military commissions as a derogation from human rights treaties in general, see Fitzpatrick, Joan, Jurisdiction of Military Commissions and the Ambiguous War on Terrorism, in the current Agora, 96 AJIL 345, 350-52 (2002)Google Scholar.

61 Exec. Order No. 13, 107, 63 Fed. Reg. 68, 991 (Dec. 15, 1998).

62 ICCPR, supra note 58, Art. 14(1).

63 Id.

64 Id., Art. 14(2).

63 Id., Art. 14(3).

65 Id., Art. 14(5).

67 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 13/21, para. 4 (Apr. 12, 1984), reprinted in Nowak, supra note 59, at 858.

68 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85.

69 Military Order, supra note 2, §1 (a) (emphasis added).

70 Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. III]. As Joan Fitzpatrick notes in her article in the current Agora, supra note 60, at 347-49, “The War on Al Qaeda,” the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Additional Protocols make no provision for an international armed conflict between a state and an organized transnational criminal network of the A1 Qaeda type.

71 Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287 [hereinafter Geneva Convention No. IV].

72 See, e.g., E, David. Sanger, , President Defends Military Tribunals in Terrorist Cases, N.Y. Times, Nov. 30, 2001 Google Scholar, at A1.

73 Q, Katharine. Seelye, , In Shift, Bush Says Geneva Rules Fit Taliban Captives, N.Y. Times, Feb. 8, 2002 Google Scholar at A1.

74 Ari Fleischer, White House Spokesman, Special White House Announcement Re: Application of Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan (Feb. 7, 2002), available in LEXIS, Legis Library, Fednew File; see also White House Fact Sheet: Status of Detainees at Guantanamo (Feb. 7,2002), at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/>.

75 U.S. Dep’t of The Army, The Law of Land Warfare, para. 71 (c) (Field Manual 27-10, 1956).

76 S, Howard. Levie, , Prisoners of War in International Armed Conflict 57 (Naval War College Int’l Law Stud. No. 59, 1977)Google Scholar. For a sample directive concerning the procedures to be employed, see Headquarters, , U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, Directive 20–5 (Mar. 15, 1968)Google Scholar, reprinted in 62 AJIL 768 (1968).

77 Seelye, supra note 73.

78 These provisions are virtually identical to the provisions set forth in section V, chapter 3 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, July 27, 1929, 118 LNTS 343 [hereinafter 1929 Geneva POW Convention]. 79 Compare Geneva Convention].

79 Compare Geneva Convention No supra note 70, Art. 102, with 1929 Geneva POW Convention, supra note 78, Art. 63, and Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 71, Art. 71.

80 Compare Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 70, Art. 106, with Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 71, Art. 73.

81 Kalshoven, Frits & Zegveld, Liesbeth, Constraints on the Waging of War 61 (3d ed. 2001)Google Scholar.

82 339 U.S. 763 (1950).

83 1929 Geneva POW Convention, supra note 78, sec. V, ch. 3, pt. III, Arts. 60-67.

84 339 U.S. at 790.

85 Compare Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 70, Art. 99, with Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 71, .Art. 67.

86 18 U.S.C. §2331 (2000), amended by Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, tit. VIII, §802(a), 115 Stat. 272, 376.

87 Compare Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 70, Art. 99, with Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 71, Art. 72.

88 Compare Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 70, Art. 99, with Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 71, Art. 72.

89 Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 71, Art. 99. With respect to the rights and means of defense available to the prisoner, see id., Art. 105.

90 Compare Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 70, Art. 101, with Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 71, Art. 75.

91 Geneva Convention No. III, supra note 70, Article 103, limits such confinement to three months.

92 Id., Arts. 104, 107.

93 Id., Art. 108.

94 Court-martial procedure is governed by the Rules for Courts-Martial [hereinafter RCM], whereas the Military Rules of Evidence (MRE) govern evidentiary issues. The RCM and MRE are reprinted in the MCM, supra note 8.

95 See also RCM 921 (c) (2) (A), supra note 94, which requires a unanimous vote of all members present to convict in cases in which the death penalty is mandatory. Compare id. with Military Order, supra note 2, §§4(a), 4(c) (6)-(7).

96 Compare RCM 921 (c) (2) (B), supra note 94, with Military Order, supra note 2, §4(c) (6).

97 RCM 1006(d) (4) (B), supra note 94. Compare id. with Military Order, supra note 2, §4(c) (7).

98 In general, see RCM, supra note 94, ch. XII.

99 RCM 806, supra note 94. Compare id. with Military Order, supra note 2, §4(c) (4) (B).

100 RCM 506, supra note 94. Compare id. with Military Order, supra note 2, §4(c) (5).

101 Geneva Convention No. IV, supra note 71, Art. 147, leads to the same result.

102 18 U.S.C. §2441 (2000).