Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:15:05.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Military Commissions Act of 2006*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

David Scheffer
David Scheffer*
Affiliation:
Center for International Human Rights, Northwestern University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Resolutions, Declarations, and Other Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 45 , Issue 6 , November 2006 , pp. 1241 - 1279
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2006

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.)

Footnotes

*

This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the Library of Congress website (visited November 19, 2006) <http://thomas.loc.gov.>

References

Endnotes

1 Military Commissions Act, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006)[hereinafter MCA]. 45 ILM 0000 (2006) For a succinct examination of the MCA, see John Cerone, The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Examining the Rela tionship between the International Law of Armed Conflict and US Law, 10 ASIL Insight 30 (November 13, 2006).

2 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006), 45 ILM 1130 (2006) See David Scheffer, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court Affirms International Law, The Jurist, June 30, 2006, available at # (last visited Nov. 29, 2006).

3 Detention, Trial, and Treatment of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 66 Fed. Reg. 57833 (2001), 41 ILM 252 (2002).

4 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3316, 75 UNTS 135.

5 Department of Defense Directive Number 2810.01E from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, “The Department of Defense Detainee Program,” Sept. 5, 2006, available at <http://www.cdi.> (last visited Dec. 7, 2006).

6 See 152 Cong. Rec. S10243 — S10274 (September 27, 2006) (citing criticism on US Senate floor by Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Patrick Leahy during floor debate on the final bill); Letter of September 26, 2006 to Members of Congress from retired Judge Advocate General and law professors, available at <http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/09/letter.pdf>(last visited Nov. 28, 2006); and U.S.: Congress Should Reject Detainee Bill, Human Rights Watch News (Sept. 26, 2006), available at <//hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/26/ usdoml 4266.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); NY Center for Constitutional Rights and International Federation for Human Rights memo to UN Special Rapporteur, October 30, 2006, available at <http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_llth/docs/CCR-FIDH_Complaint_on_the_MCA.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); and ACLU Letter to the Senate Strongly Urging Opposition to S. 3930, the Military Commission Act of 2006, Sept. 25, 2006, available at <//www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/ 268611eg20060925.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006).

7 See “ Petitioner's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. l:04-cv-01519-JR (Nov. 17, 2006); “The Guantanamo Detainees’ Supplemental Brief Addressing the Military Commissions Act of 2006,” Khaled A.F. Al Odah, et al., v. United States of America, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Nos. 05-5064, 05-5095 through 05-5116, On Consolidated Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, available at <http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/september_11th/docs/Al%20OdahMCA_Supplemental_Briefing.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); “Brief of Amid Curiae Retired Federal Jurists in Support of Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief Regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006,” Khaled A.F. Al Odah, et al., v. United States of America, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Nos. 05-5064, 05-5095 through 05-05116, On Consolidated Ap-peals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, available at <http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/September_11th/docs/Federal_Jurists_AmicusMCA_Supplemental_Briefing.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006).

8 See Jeffrey Smith, White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts, WASH. POST, Aug. 2, 2006, at A4; David S. Cloud and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, White House Bill Proposes System to Try Detainees, N.Y. Times, July 26, 2006, at 1; A Flawed Proposal: The Bush Administration's Bill on Military Trials Needs a Lot of Work, Wash. Post. July 30,2006, at B6; David S. Cloud and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Rules Debated for Trials of Detainees, N.Y. Times, July 27, 2006, at 20.

9 See Adam Liptak, Detainee Deal Comes With Contradictions, N.Y. Times, Sept. 23, 2006 at 1, Erwin Chemerinsky (Eidito-rial), Bush's End Run Around the Law — Plan Would Have Congress Ratify His Denial of Detainee Rights, Star-Ledger, Sept. 8, 2006 at 21; and John Hall (Commentary), Detainee Debate/Congress Discusses Suicide Bombers, Great Writ, Richmond Times, Oct. 1, 2006 at E4. See cf. Dissenting Views to Accompany H.R. 6054, “Military Commissions Act of 2006,” available at <http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/demviews/hr6054milcomrndissentlO9.>(last visited Nov. 28, 2006).

10 18 U.S.C. § 2441 (2004).

11 See Letter of Sept. 26, 2006 to Members of Congress from retired Judge Advocate General and law professors, available at <http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2006/09/lettei.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); Letter of Sept. 19, 2006 from ABA President, Karen J. Mathis, available at <http://www.a-banet.org/poladv/letters/109th/natlsec/Hmilcom91906.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); Republican Study Committee Legislative Bulletin — S. 3930—Military Commissions Act— as received (Sen. McConnell, R-KY), Sept. 29, 2006, available at <//www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB_092906_Tribunals.doc> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); Amnesty Inter-national, Military Commissions Act of 2006 — Turning Bad Policy into Bad Law, Sept. 29, 2006, available at <http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511542006> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); Scott Shane and Adam Liptak, Shifting Power to a President, N.Y. Times, Sept. 30, 2006, at 1; and Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman, Dissidents’ Detainee Bill May Face Filibuster; Frist Warns GOP Opponents of Bush's Proposal They Must Accept Two Key Provisions, Wash. Post, Sept. 20, 2006, at A4.

12 Drake Bennett, Who cares about civil liberties? — If Demo crats gain big in the midterm elections, it won't be due to outrage over domestic spying or the treatment of terrorism suspects. Does defending civil liberties have to be a political nonstarter?, Bos. Globe, Oct. 15, 2006, at El; Dana Mil- bank, 109th Congress Gets Props for Creativity, if Nothing Else, Wash. Post, Sept. 28, 2006, at A2; and Carl Hulse and Kate Zernike, House Passes Detainee Bill As It Clears Senate Hurdle, N.Y. Times, Sept. 28, 2006, at 20.

13 See supra note 2; See also Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184) 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006), available at <//www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/ 05pdf/05-184.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004); Ghassan Abdullah Al Sharbi v. Bush, 05-2348 (D.D.C. May 12, 2006), available at <http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006/Sullivan/2005-CV-2348%7E12:43:14%7E5-12-2006-a.> Hicks v. Bush, 397 F.Supp.2d 36 (D.D.C. 2005); Khalid v. Bush, 355 F.Supp.2d 311 (D.D.C. 2005); In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F.Supp.2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005); Cohen, Harlan Grant, Supremacy and Diplomacy: The International Law of the Supreme Court, 24 Berkeley J. INT'L L. 273 (2006)Google Scholar; and Joseph Margulies, Guantanamo and the abuse of presidential power (2006).

14 U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 2.

15 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16. 1966, art. 9, 999 U.N.T.S. 171; see also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217, U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., art. 9 (1948); Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, G.A. Res. 173, U.N. GAOR, 43rd Sess., Supp. 49, U.N. Doc. A/43 (1988); Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prison ers, U.N. Doc. DPI/832, 30 (1984); Stefan Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (2005), 462-495.

16 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

17 See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 2793 (2006) (addressing private cause of action).

18 See Id. at 2794, 2785-2786, 2796-2798, and 2851-2852 ; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 573 (1986); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 316 n.21 (2002); Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990, 992-93 (2002); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 575-77 (2005); and Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 995-96 (1999). See generally The Relevance of Foreign Legal Materials in U.S. Constitutional Cases: A Conversation Between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer, 3 INT'L J. CONST. L. 519 (2005); See also Tushnet, Mark, Transnational/Domestic Constitutional Law, 37 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 239 (2003)Google Scholar; Kochan, Donald J., Sovereignty and the American Courts at The Cocktail Party of International Law: The Dangers of Domestic Judicial Invocations of Foreign and International Law, 29 Fordham Int'L L.J. 507 (Feb. 2006)Google Scholar; and Drezner, Daniel W., On the Balance Between International Law and Democratic Sovereignty, 2 Chi. J. Int'L L. 321 (2001).Google Scholar

19 See, e.g., H.R. Res. 568, 108th Cong. (2004), available at <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:hr568ih.txt.pdf (last visited Nov. 29, 2006). See also Library of Congress, Bill Summary &Status-House Resolution 97, <//thomas.loc.gov> (search for H Res 97), and available at <http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_biHs&docid=f:hr97ih.txt.> (last visited Nov. 29, 2006).

20 See 3 Int'l Comm. Of Red Cross Commentary: Geneva Con vention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War , avail able at <http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebList?ReadForm&id=375&t=com> (last visited Nov. 29, 2006); Knut Dormann, Elements of war crimes under the rome statute of the international criminal court: sources and com mentary, ch. 7 (Cambridge Univ. Press 2002); Jean Pictet, Humanitarian law and the protection of war victims 32 (Henry Dunant Inst. 1975) and Jennifer K. Elsea, CRS Report for Congress, Lawfulness of Interrogation Techniques under the Geneva Conventions 10 (Sept. 8,2004), available at <http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32567.> (last visited Nov. 29, 2006).

21 10 U.S.C. §938b(g).

22 MCA, supra note 2, at §5(a).

23 See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 2757 (2006) (dis cussing Geneva Conventions and conspiracy to commit a war crime). See also Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Oral Argument, March 28, 2006, at 12-38 available at <//www.supremecourtus.-gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/05-184.> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006).

24 See David Scheffer, Why Hamdan is Right about Conspiracy Liability, The JURIST, March 30, 2006, available at <http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/why-hamdan-is-right-about-conspiracy.php> (last visited Nov. 28, 2006) and re printed in 15(1) ILSA Quarterly, Oct. 2006, at 29. See also Elias Bantekas, Principles of direct and superior re sponsibility in int'l Humanitarian law (Manchester Univ. Press (2002)).

25 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, art. 50, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3114, 75 UNTS 135; Geneva Conven tion for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea, art. 51, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3217, 75 UNTS 85; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 130, supra note 5; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, art. 147, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 UST 3516, 75 UNTS 287.

26 See Prosecutor v. Tadic, 112 ILR 1 (1997), aff'd in part 124 ILR 61 (1999), available at <http://www.un.org/icty/tadic/appeal/judgement/index.> (last visited Nov. 29, 2006); Int'l Comm. of the Red Cross, Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, eds., Customary Int'l Humanitarian law (Cambridge Univ. Press 2005); and Michael Byers, Custom, power, and the power of rules: Interna tional relations and customary international law (Cambridge Univ. Press 1999).

27 See MCA, supra note 2, §6(b); 18 U.S.C. §2441(d)(3).

28 See 10 U.S.C. §950v(a)(4).

29 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Section 8(2)(b)(iv), July 17,1998, Annex 11, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/ 9 (1998).

30 See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S.Ct. 2749 (2006). For example, as the Supreme Court noted in Hamdan, “The President has stated that the conflict with the Taliban [in Afghanistan] is a conflict to which the Geneva Conventions apply.” Id. at 2795, fn. 60.