Statement by President Bush on Terrorism and Its Effects necessary and appropriate against those nations, organizations or persons he believes planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks..." He considered this authorization to be authorization to activate his unilateral emergency and war powers in order to carry out a war on terrorism in Afghanistan, fighting Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their allied fighters and holding thousands of people in custody for questioning in different locations, some of which are still classified. The Bush administration has claimed that these militants are not military combatants; they are therefore covered neither by the Geneva Conventions nor by the procedural protections of criminal justice. In other words, the administration allowed its intelligence and defense apparatus to detain prisoners indefinitely in secret locations, subject them to harsh interrogations, and even try them before military commissions in the absence appropriate and fair representation. I am not going to discuss the constitutionality of the war in Afghanistan that was fought without Congress's declaration of war for the following reasons. First, we simply view the authorization of military force noted above as Congressional consent in support of President Bush to activate his war and emergency powers as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy , as provided for in the Constitution. Second, the authorization literally allowed the president to use "the armed forces of the United States against those responsible for recent attacks against the United States...... middle of paper ...... pus petition to the name of British citizen Shafiq Rasul who was detained at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, challenging the US government's practice of indefinitely detaining foreign nationals. Rasul claimed that before being captured and apprehended during the US incursion into Afghanistan, he had been taken prisoner by the Taliban and held in their camps. The district court held that the judiciary had no jurisdiction and could not grant habeas corpus to Rasul and his fellow inmates. Rasul appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court accepted the case in November 2003. The main distinction between Rasul's case and Hamdi's case is that Hamdi dealt with the right of a small handful of American citizens detained by regime, while Rasul's case raises concerns over the detention of foreigners, who make up the majority of those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Essay / Statement by President Bush on Terrorism and Its Effects necessary and appropriate against those nations, organizations or persons he believes planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks..." He considered this authorization to be authorization to activate his unilateral emergency and war powers in order to carry out a war on terrorism in Afghanistan, fighting Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and their allied fighters and holding thousands of people in custody for questioning in different locations, some of which are still classified. The Bush administration has claimed that these militants are not military combatants; they are therefore covered neither by the Geneva Conventions nor by the procedural protections of criminal justice. In other words, the administration allowed its intelligence and defense apparatus to detain prisoners indefinitely in secret locations, subject them to harsh interrogations, and even try them before military commissions in the absence appropriate and fair representation. I am not going to discuss the constitutionality of the war in Afghanistan that was fought without Congress's declaration of war for the following reasons. First, we simply view the authorization of military force noted above as Congressional consent in support of President Bush to activate his war and emergency powers as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy , as provided for in the Constitution. Second, the authorization literally allowed the president to use "the armed forces of the United States against those responsible for recent attacks against the United States...... middle of paper ...... pus petition to the name of British citizen Shafiq Rasul who was detained at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, challenging the US government's practice of indefinitely detaining foreign nationals. Rasul claimed that before being captured and apprehended during the US incursion into Afghanistan, he had been taken prisoner by the Taliban and held in their camps. The district court held that the judiciary had no jurisdiction and could not grant habeas corpus to Rasul and his fellow inmates. Rasul appealed to the Supreme Court and the Court accepted the case in November 2003. The main distinction between Rasul's case and Hamdi's case is that Hamdi dealt with the right of a small handful of American citizens detained by regime, while Rasul's case raises concerns over the detention of foreigners, who make up the majority of those detained at Guantanamo Bay.

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch