Bush The Detainees And The Constitution

Focuses on the recent "Enemy Combatant Cases" to provide a stern critique of the legal and constitutional basis for the enormous expansion of presidential power during the Bush administration's "War on Terror," and the challenges (especially in the Supreme Court) that such expansion has inspired.

The American presidency has long tested the capacity of the system of checks and balances to constrain executive power, especially in times of war. While scholars have examined presidents starting military conflicts without congressional authorization or infringing on civil liberties in the name of national security, Stuart Streichler focuses on the conduct of hostilities. Using the treatment of war-on-terror detainees under President George W. Bush as a case study, he integrates international humanitarian law into a constitutional analysis of the repercussions of presidential war powers for human rights around the world. Putting President Bush’s actions in a wider context, Presidential Accountability in Wartime begins with a historical survey of the laws of war, with particular emphasis on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunal. Streichler then reconstructs the decision-making process that led to the president’s approval of interrogation methods that violated Geneva’s mandate to treat wartime captives humanely. While taking note of various accountability options—from within the executive branch to the International Criminal Court—the book illustrates the challenge in holding presidents personally responsible for violating the laws of war through an in-depth analysis of the actions taken by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the public in response. In doing so, this book not only raises questions about whether international humanitarian law can moderate wartime presidential behavior but also about the character of the presidency and the American constitutional system of government.

Under the Color of Law constitutes a full and critical scholarly commentary to the text of five key Bush administration legal memoranda formative of U.S. counterterrorism policy from 2001 to 2009. This volume is dedicated to the idea that these documents are worthy of being read and critically examined in themselves as primary text, precisely because the act of critical assessment may yield meaningful policy reform in the ongoing debate facing the nation over balancing security interests with the preservation of civil liberties. This volume is intended to provide counterpoint for, and antithesis to, positions vigorously defended by President Bush's attorneys working at the OLC inside the Department of Justice, and it is designed to be used primarily in conjunction with and examined as response to the Bush-era documents themselves. Martin Henn investigates five central questions, each framed around commentary to a specific administration document. This work addresses the Yoo-Flanigan Memorandum of September 25, 2001, and asks whether any President has constitutional power to initiate a foreign war without congressional authorization. Regarding President Bush's November 13 executive order of 2001, Henn asks whether an emergency of war permits any President to usurp judicial and legislative powers to interpret law and define and punish offences against the law of nations. Along with many other questions these documents initiate, the author carefully analyzes and seeks to answer questions regarding the Bush administration, the use of interrogational coercion and torture in the war on terror.

Passionate book, he focuses on the constitutional implications of expanded presidential power and why American citizens should care.

"This book explores the underlying rationales for preventive detention as a tool in this war on terror; analyzes the legal obstacles to creating a preventive detention regime; discusses how Israel and Britain have dealt with incapacitation and interrogation of terrorists; and compares several alternative ideas to the administration's enemy combatant policy under a methodology that looks at questions of lawfulness, the balance between liberty and security, and institutional efficiency. In the end, this book recommends using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor a narrow regime of preventive detention only to be used under certain prescribed circumstances where interrogation and/or incapacitation are the justifications. This book is an essential reference for collections in American studies, political science, and national security studies."--BOOK JACKET.

Recommendations -- Background: official sanction for crimes against detainees -- Torture of detainees in US counterterrorism operations -- Individual criminal responsibility -- Appendix: foreign state proceedings regarding US detainee mistreatment -- Acknowledgments and methodology.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are indelibly etched into our cultural memory. This is the story of how the legal ramifications of that day brought two presidents, Congress, and the Supreme Court into repeated confrontation over the incarceration of hundreds of suspected terrorists and “enemy combatants” at the US naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba. Could these prisoners (including an American citizen) be held indefinitely without due process of law? Did they have the right to seek their release by habeas corpus in US courts? Could they be tried in a makeshift military judicial system? With Guantánamo well into its second decade, these questions have challenged the three branches of government, each contending with the others, and each invoking the Constitution’s separation of powers as well as its checks and balances. In The 9/11 Terror Cases, Allan A. Ryan leads students and general readers through the pertinent cases: Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, both decided by the Supreme Court in 2004; Hamdan v. Bush, decided in 2006; and Boumediene v. Bush, in 2008. An eloquent writer and an expert in military law and constitutional litigation, Ryan is an adept guide through the nuanced complexities of these cases, which rejected the sweeping powers asserted by President Bush and Congress, and upheld the rule of law, even for enemy combatants. In doing so, as we see clearly in Ryan's deft account, the Supreme Court's rulings speak directly to the extent and nature of presidential and congressional prerogative, and to the critical separation and balance of powers in the governing of the United States.