14.3 Military Tribunals and Enemy Combatants

The War Powers and Commander-in-Chief Authority chapter explores military tribunals and enemy combatants. These concepts highlight the tension between national security and individual rights during wartime, challenging the limits of presidential power.

Supreme Court decisions have shaped the legal landscape for military tribunals and enemy combatant treatment. These rulings balance security concerns with due process rights, influencing how the U.S. handles detainees in the ongoing war on terror.

Military Tribunals and Enemy Combatants

Defining Key Concepts

Top images from around the web for Defining Key Concepts

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:(H.A.S.C. No. 109-116) STANDARDS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND TRIBUNALS (IA gov.gpo.fdsys ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:(H.A.S.C. No. 109-116) STANDARDS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND TRIBUNALS (IA gov.gpo.fdsys ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Defining Key Concepts

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:(H.A.S.C. No. 109-116) STANDARDS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND TRIBUNALS (IA gov.gpo.fdsys ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Division of Powers – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Finding Constitutional Texts - Comparative Law Research Guide - Research Guides at Florida State ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:(H.A.S.C. No. 109-116) STANDARDS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND TRIBUNALS (IA gov.gpo.fdsys ... View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Military tribunals are special courts established by the military to try members of enemy forces and other persons for violations of the laws of war or other offenses
• Enemy combatants are individuals who engage in hostilities against the United States or its allies without meeting the criteria for lawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions
• The term "unlawful enemy combatant" describes individuals who are not considered prisoners of war and may be subject to trial by military tribunals
• Military commissions, a type of military tribunal, have historically been used to try enemy combatants and other individuals accused of war crimes (ex: Nuremberg Trials) or acts of terrorism (ex: Guantanamo Bay detainees)

Constitutional Basis for Military Tribunals

Congressional Authority

• Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "define and punish offenses against the law of nations," which has been interpreted to include the authority to establish military tribunals
• The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 provide the legal framework for the operation of military tribunals

Presidential Authority

• The President, as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, has the authority to convene military tribunals in times of war or armed conflict
• The Supreme Court has recognized the constitutionality of military tribunals in cases such as Ex parte Quirin (1942) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)
• International law, including the Geneva Conventions, sets forth standards for the treatment and trial of enemy combatants

Due Process Rights in Military Tribunals

Debated Extent of Rights

• The extent of due process rights afforded to enemy combatants in military tribunals has been a subject of debate and legal challenges
• Critics argue that military tribunals may not provide the same level of due process protections as civilian courts, such as the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to a jury, and the rules of evidence
• The admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion or torture in military tribunals has been a controversial issue (ex: enhanced interrogation techniques)

Established Procedures and Rights

• In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court held that a U.S. citizen detained as an enemy combatant has the right to challenge the basis of their detention before a neutral decision-maker
• The Military Commissions Act of 2006 established procedures for military commissions, including the right to counsel, the presumption of innocence, and the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses

Supreme Court and Presidential Authority

Interpreting Limits on Presidential Power

• The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting the limits of the President's authority to establish and use military tribunals and detain enemy combatants
• In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), the Court held that the military commissions established by the Bush administration violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions
• The Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) affirmed that enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions in federal courts

Balancing National Security and Individual Rights

• In Rasul v. Bush (2004), the Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay
• The Supreme Court's decisions have shaped the legal landscape surrounding military tribunals and the treatment of enemy combatants, balancing national security concerns with individual rights and the rule of law