With a renewed emphasis on national and homeland security, the United States is once again seeking to balance the needs of the state with both the rights of its citizens as well as those of other nations. This book represents an interdisciplinary approach to the legal dilemmas borne out by the war on terror-against the specific background of Afghanistan, Iraq, and this new kind of conflict. It is a strong contribution to a broader debate visible since 9/11, which will remain in the public eye for the foreseeable future. It addresses the overlap between religion, ethics, armed conflict, and law, within the context of the current conflict. While many issues in areas such as intelligence, reconciliation of civil liberties, dealing with terrorist threats, and the permissible bounds of interrogation, treatment of prisoners and laws governing armed conflict have long standing precedents under domestic and international law, this war has challenged even long standing legal interpretations. The contributors to this volume explore those precedents and contemporary challenges to them. Now that traditional wars between nation states are no longer the rule, the terrorist threat has gained credence (popularly, terrorism and its claimed breeding ground in failed states), linked in practice to issues of intervention on the territory of states harboring such groups. In military circles the idea of armed struggle between modern military forces and what were formerly called guerillas has now largely been replaced by asymmetric warfare and the concept of intelligence and preventive action interchangeably within U.S. borders and overseas. Opposing views contemplate that different-and presumably lower-legal standards may apply in internal armed conflicts. Such legal issues are visible under current circumstances of asymmetric warfare in conjunction with questions about prisoner status and detentions, including the permissible bounds of interrogation versus torture following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq but also the treatment at the Guantanamo Bay facility of alleged Al Q'aeda captives from Afghanistan. All of the contributors in this book explore the changing circumstances against which these contentious new legal issues now unfold. The experts strike no consensus. Indeed, one of the work's many strengths can be attributed to the fact that the many facets of the ongoing debate are represented herein.

Ten years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, Rethinking the Law of Armed Conflict in an Age of Terrorism, edited by Christopher Ford and Amichai Cohen, brings together a range of interdisciplinary experts to examine the problematic encounter between international law and challenges presented by conflicts between developed states and non-state actors, such as international terrorist groups. Through examinations of the counter-terrorist experiences of the United States, Israel, and Colombia--coupled with legal and historical analyses of trends in international humanitarian law--the authors place post-9/11 practice in the context of the international legal community's broader struggle over the substantive content of international rules constraining state behavior in irregular wars and explore trends in the development of these rules. From the beginning of international efforts to rewrite the laws of armed conflict in the 1970s, the legal rules to govern irregular conflicts of the "state-on-nonstate" variety have been contested terrain. Particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, policymakers, lawyers, and scholars have debated the merits, relevance, and applicability of what are said to be competing "war" and "law enforcement" paradigms of legal constraint--and even the degree to which international law can be said to apply to counter-terrorist conflicts at all. Ford & Cohen's volume puts such debates in historical and analytical context, and offers readers an insight into where the law has been headed in the fraught years since September 2001. The contributors provide the reader with differing perspectives upon these questions, but together their analyses make clear that law-governed restraint remains a cardinal value in counter-terrorist war, even as the law stands revealed as being much more contested and indeterminate than many accounts would have it. Rethinking the Law of Armed Conflict in an Age of Terrorism provides an important conceptual framework through which to view the development of the law as the policy and legal communities move into the second decade of the "global war on terrorism."

Many years after the United States initiated a military response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the nation continues to prosecute an armed conflict against transnational terrorist groups. Today, it remains just as vital to understand how the law of armed conflict applies to and regulates military operations executed within the scope of this armed conflict against transnational non-state terrorist groups. In The War on Terror and the Laws of War, seven legal scholars, each with experience as military officers, focus on how to strike an effective balance between the necessity of using armed violence to subdue a threat to the nation with the humanitarian interest of mitigating the suffering inevitably associated with that use. Each chapter addresses a specific operational issue, including the national right of self-defense, military targeting and the use of drones, detention, interrogation, and trial by military commission of captured terrorist operatives, while illustrating how the law of armed conflict influences resolution of that issue. This Second Edition carries on the critical mission of continuing the ongoing dialogue about the law from an unabashedly military perspective, bringing practical wisdom to the contentious topic of applying international law to the battlefield. Book jacket.

When a soldier in the field of battle is under attack in a small village and comes upon a villager who could be a combatant or a civilian, what rules govern how that soldier should act? If the soldier detains the villager and determines that the villager is an unaffiliated combatant, what do the rules of detention require? In The War on Terror and the Laws of War, six legal scholars with experience as military officers bring practical wisdom to the contentious topic of applying international law to the battlefield. The authors apply their unique expertise to issues that have gained greater urgency during the United States' wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: including categorizing targets and properly detaining combatants. The modern battlefield has proven to be a difficult arena in which to apply traditional legal rules. The War on Terror and the Laws of War brings clarity to the subject with an insider's perspective.

In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism. The Court overturned a ruling that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens detained abroad. This report provides an overview of the law of war and the historical treatment of wartime detainees, in particular the U.S. practice; describes how the detainees¿ status might affect their rights and treatment; and summarizes activity of the 108th and 109th Congresses related to detention in connection with the war against terrorism.

This title describes how the practice and evolution of warfare have turned international humanitarian law into an enigmatic law that is complex to understand, interpret, and enforce. It identifies the challenges that advocates of international humanitarian law face, which range from genocide, asymmetrical warfare, and terrorism to rape as a weapon. The author demonstrates that this branch of international law is in constant evolution.

Helen Duffy's analysis of international law and practice in relation to terrorism and counter-terrorism provides a framework for analysing the lawfulness of the many legislative, policy and judicial developments which have proliferated since 9/11. Among the many specific issues she addresses are targeted killings and the death of Osama bin Laden, detentions (including Guantanamo Bay), sanctions regimes, surveillance, extraordinary renditions, the prohibition on 'association' or 'support' for terrorism and the evolving preventive role of criminal law. She also considers the unfolding responses to political and judicial wrongs committed in the war on terror, such as the impact of the courts on human rights protection. While exploring areas of controversy, uncertainty and flux, she questions post-9/11 allegations of gaping holes, inadequacies or transformation in the international legal order and concludes by highlighting characteristics of the 'war on terror' and questioning its longer term implications.