Ramy prawne reżimu detencji wojskowej w prawie amerykańskim w świetle aktualnego orzecznictwa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.11.2014.27.02Keywords:
military detention, Guantanamo, “war on terror”, law of national securityAbstract
Military detention framework in American law – analysis of current case law
The practice of military detention of persons captured during the “global war on terror” has raised controversy both in the United States and abroad. This article, being the first in a series of articles analyzing the post‑2001 case law on military detention, focuses on the basic legal framework. The principal legal basis for military detention is the 2001 Congressional Authorization of Use of Military Force against organizations responsible for 9/11 attacks. Bush and Obama Administrations’ claim that the AUMF authorizes military detention has been accepted by the Supreme Court in a 2004 case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and codified by Congress in 2011. The article briefly considers and rejects main objections against its constitutionality. More complex are the issues raised by the application of other legal rules that potentially apply to military detention: Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution and international law of armed conflict, but under the current D.C. Circuit case law, neither of them limits the President’s detention authority. Instead, judges decide habeas corpus claims brought by the detainees on the basis of judge‑made common law rules.
Downloads
PlumX Metrics of this article
References
Podmiotowa
Google Scholar
Akty prawne
Google Scholar
U.S.C., ch. 153: Habeas Corpus, §§ 2241 et seq. (1947 z późn. zm.).
Google Scholar
Agreement between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval Stations, Feb. 23, 1903, Treaty Series No. 418 (1903).
Google Scholar
An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States, Apr. 30, 1790, 1st Cong., 2nd Sess., ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112 (1790).
Google Scholar
An Act for the Safe Keeping and Accommodation of Prisoners of War, July 6, 1812, 12th Cong., 1st Sess., ch. 128, 2 Stat. 777 (1812).
Google Scholar
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104‑132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
Google Scholar
Authorization for Use of Military Force, Sept. 18, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107‑40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001)
Google Scholar
Constitution of the United States, Sep. 17, 1788 (za: United States Code, 2006 ed.).
Google Scholar
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2006), Pub. L. No. 109‑148,
Google Scholar
Div. A, Title X, 119 Stat. 2680, 2739‑44 (2005).
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, T.I.A.S. No. 3364 (1949).
Google Scholar
Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, July 27, 1929, 47 Stat. 2021 (1929).
Google Scholar
Hague Convention (IV): Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277 (1907).
Google Scholar
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95‑20, 6 I.L.M. 368, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (1967).
Google Scholar
Lease to the United States by the Government of Cuba of Certain Areas of Land and Water for Naval or Coaling Stations in Guantanamo and Bahia Honda, July 2, 1903, Treaty Series No. 426 (1903).
Google Scholar
Magna Carta, 9 Hen. III (1225).
Google Scholar
Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109‑366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006).
Google Scholar
Military Commissions Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111‑84, Div. A, Title XVIII, 123 Stat. 2190, 2574 (2009) (10 U.S.C., ch. 47a).
Google Scholar
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012, Pub. L. No. 112‑81, 125 Stat. 1298 (2011) (10 U.S.C., § 801 note).
Google Scholar
Statute of Treasons of 1351 (A Declaration which Offences shall be adjudged Treason), 25 Edw. III st. 5 ch. 2 (1351).
Google Scholar
Treaty Defining Relations with Cuba, May 29, 1934, 48 Stat. 1683, Treaty Series No. 866 (1934).
Google Scholar
War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93‑148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541 et seq.).
Google Scholar
Projekty aktów prawnych
Google Scholar
Detainee Security Act of 2011, H.R. 968, 112th Cong. (2011).
Google Scholar
Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act, S. 3081, 111th Cong. (2010).
Google Scholar
Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2008, S. 3401, 110th Cong. (2008).
Google Scholar
Military Detainee Procedures Improvement Act of 2011, S. 551, 112th Cong. (2011).
Google Scholar
Terrorist Detention Review Reform Act, S. 3707, 111th Cong. (2010).
Google Scholar
Akty wykonawcze
Google Scholar
Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees, Army Regulation 190‑8, OPNAVINST 3461.6, AFJI 31‑304, MCO 3461.1 (1997).
Google Scholar
Memorandum from President George W. Bush to the Vice President et al., Humane Treatment of Taliban and al Qaeda Detainees (7 II 2002).
Google Scholar
Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Legal Status of Taliban and al Qaeda (19 I 2002).
Google Scholar
Notice, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non‑Citizens in the War against Terrorism, Presidential Military Order, 66 F.R. 57,833 (13 XI 2001).
Google Scholar
Decyzje sądowe i administracyjne 32 County Sovereignty Comm. v. Dep’t of State, 292 F.3d 797 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Google Scholar
Al Maqaleh v. Gates, 605 F.3d 84 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Google Scholar
Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Google Scholar
Al‑Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010) („Al Bihani I”).
Google Scholar
Al‑Bihani v. Obama, 594 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C. 2009).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209105675
Google Scholar
Al‑Bihani v. Obama, 619 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) („Al Bihani II”).
Google Scholar
Al‑Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Google Scholar
Al‑Marri v. Wright, 487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-04434-9.50056-7
Google Scholar
The Ambrose Light, 25 F. 408 (S.D.N.Y. 1885).
Google Scholar
American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. v. Meese, 712 F.Supp. 756 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
Google Scholar
The Amy Warwick (The Prize Cases), 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635 (1863).
Google Scholar
Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 235 (1819).
Google Scholar
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833).
Google Scholar
Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 37 (1800).
Google Scholar
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
Google Scholar
Bourn’s Case, Cro. Jac. 543, 79 Eng. Rep. 465 (K.B. Mich. 17 Jac. I).
Google Scholar
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986).
Google Scholar
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973).
Google Scholar
Bravo v. United States, 532 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir. 2008).
Google Scholar
Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1447456
Google Scholar
Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945).
Google Scholar
Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953).
Google Scholar
Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110 (1814).
Google Scholar
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Google Scholar
Case of Fries, 9 F.Cas. 826 (C.C.D.Pa. 1799) (No. 5126).
Google Scholar
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831).
Google Scholar
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Google Scholar
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002).
Google Scholar
Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F.2d 429 (10th Cir. 1956).
Google Scholar
Cuban American Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995).
Google Scholar
Dutton v. Warden, FCI Estill, 37 Fed.Appx. 51 (4th Cir. 2002).
Google Scholar
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
Google Scholar
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866).
Google Scholar
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
Google Scholar
Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 13 L.Ed. 276 (1850).
Google Scholar
Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233 (2nd Cir. 2003).
Google Scholar
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 7 L.Ed. 415 (1829).
Google Scholar
Garcia‑Mir v. Meese, 788 F.2d 1446 (11th Cir. 1986).
Google Scholar
Gersman v. Group Health Ass’n, Inc., 975 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Google Scholar
Gherebi v. Bush, 374 F.3d 727 (9th Cir. 2004).
Google Scholar
Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, 969 F.2d 1326 (2nd Cir. 1992).
Google Scholar
Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Gracey, 809 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Google Scholar
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.2005.494033019999
Google Scholar
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
Google Scholar
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450, 185 A.L.R. Fed. 751 (4th Cir. 2003).
Google Scholar
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
Google Scholar
Hamilton v. McClaughry, 136 F. 445 (C.C.D. Kan. 1905).
Google Scholar
Handel v. Artukovic, 601 F.Supp. 1421 (C.D. Cal. 1985).
Google Scholar
Harbury v. Deutch, 233 F.3d 596 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
Google Scholar
Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884).
Google Scholar
Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943).
Google Scholar
Holmes v. Laird, 459 F.2d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
Google Scholar
Hopfmann v. Connolly, 471 U.S. 459 (1985) (per curiam).
Google Scholar
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
Google Scholar
Huynh Thi Anh v. Levi, 586 F.2d 625 (6th Cir. 1978).
Google Scholar
Igartua‑De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145 (1st Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Google Scholar
In re Goering and Others (Major War Criminals Case), 13 Ann. Dig. 203, 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172 (I.M.T. (Nuremberg) 1946).
Google Scholar
In re Medina, 19 I. & N. Dec. 734, Interim Decision 3078 (B.I.A. 1988).
Google Scholar
In re Territo, 156 F.2d 142 (9th Cir. 1946).
Google Scholar
In re Wulzen, 235 F. 362 (S.D. Ohio 1916).
Google Scholar
In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.4443.327-c
Google Scholar
Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F.Supp.2d 424 (D.N.J. 1999).
Google Scholar
Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Google Scholar
Jobson’s Case, Latch 160, 82 Eng. Rep. 325 (K.B. 14 Jac. I).
Google Scholar
Jogi v. Voges, 425 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2005).
Google Scholar
Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).
Google Scholar
Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202 (1890).
Google Scholar
Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903).
Google Scholar
Khalid v. Bush, 355 F.Supp.2d 311 (D.D.C. 2005).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcrad.2005.04.001
Google Scholar
Khan v. Obama, 741 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76700-0_62
Google Scholar
King v. Overton, 1 Sid. 387, 82 Eng. Rep. 1173 (K.B. Mich. 20 Car. II).
Google Scholar
King v. The Earl of Crewe ex parte Sekgome, 2 K.B. 576 (C.A.) (1910).
Google Scholar
Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kiyemba I).
Google Scholar
Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kiyemba II).
Google Scholar
Linder v. Calero Portocarrero, 747 F.Supp. 1452 (S.D. Fla. 1990).
Google Scholar
Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804).
Google Scholar
Luckey v. Miller, 929 F.2d 618 (11th Cir. 1991).
Google Scholar
Madison‑Hughes v. Shalala, 80 F.3d 1121 (6th Cir. 1996).
Google Scholar
Marks v. United States, 161 U.S. 297 (1896).
Google Scholar
Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.36819761513
Google Scholar
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819).
Google Scholar
McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc).
Google Scholar
Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008).
Google Scholar
Miller v. The Resolution, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 19 (Ct. App. in Cases of Capture 1781).
Google Scholar
Mitchell v. Laird, 488 F.2d 611 (D.C. Cir. 1973).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5866.611
Google Scholar
Montoya v. United States, 180 U.S. 261 (1901).
Google Scholar
Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909).
Google Scholar
National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Albright, 251 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
Google Scholar
The Nereide, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 388, 3 L.Ed. 769 (1815).
Google Scholar
Padilla ex rel. Newman v. Bush, 233 F.Supp.2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Google Scholar
Padilla v. Hanft, 389 F.Supp.2d 678 (D.S.C. 2005).
Google Scholar
Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2005).
Google Scholar
Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 352 F.3d 695 (2nd Cir. 2003).
Google Scholar
Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 505 F.2d 989 (2nd Cir. 1974).
Google Scholar
The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900).
Google Scholar
People’s Mojahedin Org. of Iran v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 182 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Google Scholar
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Google Scholar
Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).
Google Scholar
Rasul v. Myers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4016/10712.01
Google Scholar
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).
Google Scholar
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989).
Google Scholar
Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453 (1891).
Google Scholar
Russell v. Commissioner, 678 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1982).
Google Scholar
Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931).
Google Scholar
Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-195303000-00015
Google Scholar
Sosa v. Alvarez‑Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).
Google Scholar
Spaulding v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 154 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1946).
Google Scholar
Sutton v. Tiller, 46 Tenn. 593, 98 Am.Dec. 471, 1869 WL 2594 (1869).
Google Scholar
Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1 (1801).
Google Scholar
Tel‑Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Google Scholar
Texas Co. v. State ex rel. Coryell, 180 P.2d 631, 198 Okla. 565 (1945).
Google Scholar
The Three Friends, 166 U.S. 1 (1897).
Google Scholar
United States v. 129 Packages, 27 F.Cas. 284 (C.C.E.D.Mo. 1806) (No. 15,941).
Google Scholar
United States v. Fort, 921 F.Supp. 523 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Google Scholar
United States v. Lindh, 212 F.Supp.2d 541 (E.D.Va. 2002).
Google Scholar
United States v. Noriega, 808 F.Supp. 791 (S.D. Fla. 1992).
Google Scholar
United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1999).
Google Scholar
United States v. Smith, 27 F.Cas. 1192 (C.C.D.N.Y. 1806) (No. 16,342).
Google Scholar
United States v. Verdugo‑Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
Google Scholar
Verano v. De Angelis Coal Co., 41 F.Supp. 954 (M.D. Pa. 1941).
Google Scholar
Vermilya‑Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377 (1948).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1948.10483268
Google Scholar
Warafi v. Obama, 409 Fed.Appx. 360 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Google Scholar
Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888).
Google Scholar
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896).
Google Scholar
Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U.S. 535 (1949).
Google Scholar
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).
Google Scholar
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
Google Scholar
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Google Scholar
Pisma procesowe
Google Scholar
Appendix to the Petition for Certiorari, Rasul v. Bush, Docket No. 03‑343, 542 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2003), 2 IX 2003.
Google Scholar
Brief for Louis Henkin et al. as Amici Curiae, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 05‑184, 548 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2006).
Google Scholar
Brief for Petitioner‑Appellant, Al‑Bihani v. Obama, No. 09‑5051, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Google Scholar
Brief for the Petitioner, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, No. 03‑1027, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), 17 III 2004.
Google Scholar
Brief for the Respondents, Boumediene v. Bush, Nos. 06‑1195, 06‑1196, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), 9 X 2007.
Google Scholar
Brief for the Respondents, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Docket No. 03‑6696, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), 29 III 2004.
Google Scholar
Brief for United States, Rasul v. Bush, Docket No. 03‑334, 542 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2004), 3 III 2004.
Google Scholar
Brief of Amici Curiae International Law Professors Listed Herein in Support of Petitioner, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, No. 05‑184, 548 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2006), 5 I 2006.
Google Scholar
Brief of Amici Curiae Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte in Support of Appellants, Hedges v. Obama, Nos. 12‑3176, 12‑3644, 2012 WL 3999839 (2nd Cir. 2012), 13 XI 2012.
Google Scholar
Respondents’ Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay (Docket #1690), In re: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Misc. No. 08‑442
Google Scholar
(TFH), 616 F.Supp.2d 63 (D.D.C. 2009), 13 III 2009.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0507.1970.tb01206.x
Google Scholar
Transcript of Oral Argument, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03‑6696, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), 28 IV 2004.
Google Scholar
Unclassified Brief for the Appellees, Al‑Bihani v. Obama, No. 09‑5051, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Google Scholar
Projekty ustaw
Google Scholar
Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act, 111th Cong., S. 3081 (2010).
Google Scholar
Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act, 111th Cong., H.R. 4892 (2010).
Google Scholar
Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act of 2008, 110th Cong., S. 3401 (2008).
Google Scholar
Detainee Security Act of 2011, 112th Cong., H.R. 968 (2011).
Google Scholar
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011, 112th Cong., H.R. 1540 (2011).
Google Scholar
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011, 112th Cong., S. 1867 (2011).
Google Scholar
Military Detainee Procedures Improvement Act of 2011, 112th Cong., S. 551 (2011).
Google Scholar
Terrorist Detention Review Reform Act, 111th Cong., S. 3707 (2010).
Google Scholar
Inne źródła
Google Scholar
Akerman A. T., Unlawful Traffic with Indians, 13 Op. Att’y Gen. 470 (1871).
Google Scholar
Bellinger III, J. B., Legal Issues in the War on Terrorism, Address at the London School of Economics, London, 31 X 2006.
Google Scholar
Bush G. W., Letter to Congressional Leaders Reporting on Combat Action in Afghanistan against al Qaida Terrorists and Their Taliban Supporters, 9 X 2001, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., 2001 Week. Comp. Pres. Doc. 1447.
Google Scholar
Butler B. F., Existence of War with the Seminoles, 3 Op. Att’y Gen. 307 (1838).
Google Scholar
Bybee J. S., Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention, 26 Op. O.L.C., 2002 WL 34482990 (8 VI 2002) (preliminary print).
Google Scholar
Bybee J. S., Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees, Memorandum for A. R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and W. J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense (O.L.C. 22 I 2002) (unpublished opinion).
Google Scholar
Bybee J. S., Re: The President’s Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations, 26 Op. O.L.C., 2002 WL 34482991 (13 III 2002) (preliminary print).
Google Scholar
Executive Office of the President, Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1540, 24 V 2011, [online] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr1540_20110524.pdf.
Google Scholar
Hamilton A., The Federalist No. 23 (1788), [w:] The Federalist, red. G. W. Carey, J. McClellan, Indianapolis 2001.
Google Scholar
Hamilton A., The Federalist No. 34 (1788), [w:] The Federalist, red. G. W. Carey, J. McClellan, Indianapolis 2001.
Google Scholar
Harmon J. M., Presidential Power to Use the Armed Forces Abroad without Statutory Authorization, 4A Op. O.L.C. 185 (1980).
Google Scholar
House Armed Services Committee Press Release, 8 III 2011, [online] http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=b8435f9f‑9a0b‑4608‑a410‑de8ca8dfa602.
Google Scholar
House Committee on Armed Services, Report to Accompany H.R. 6054 (Military Commissions Act of 2006), together with the Additional and Dissenting Views, H.R. Rep. No. 109‑664, Part 1, 15 IX 2006, 109th Cong., 1st Sess.
Google Scholar
House Rules and Manual, 112th Congress, red. J. V. Sullivan, H. Doc. No. 111‑157, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (2012).
Google Scholar
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Boumediene Decision for Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Hearing Before the House Committee on Armed Services, H.A.S.C. No. 110‑166, 110th Cong., 2nd Sess. (30 VII 2008).
Google Scholar
Koh H. H., Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, The Obama Administration and International Law, Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington, 25 III 2010, [online] http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm.
Google Scholar
Lee Ch., Treason, 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 84 (1798).
Google Scholar
Lieber F., Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, U.S. War Dep’t, General Order No. 100 (24 IV 1863), Washington 1898.
Google Scholar
Lincoln A., Proclamation Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress, 12 Stat. 1258 (15 IV 1861).
Google Scholar
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Final Report, Washington 2004, [online] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO‑911REPORT/pdf/GPO‑911REPORT.pdf.
Google Scholar
Philbin P. F., Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists, 25 Op. O.L.C., 2001 WL 36175681 (6 XI 2001) (preliminary print).
Google Scholar
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Report on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, S. Exec. Rep. 102‑23, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess., 31 I.L.M. 645 (1993).
Google Scholar
Speed J., Reply of the Attorney General to the Resolution of the Senate Relative to the Prosecution of Jefferson Davis for Treason, 11 Op. Att’y Gen. 411 (1866).
Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State, United States Responses to Selected Recommendations of the Human Rights Committee (2007).
Google Scholar
Williams G. H., The Modoc Indian Prisoners, 14 Op. Att’y Gen. 249 (1873).
Google Scholar
Yoo J. C., Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens, 26 Op. O.L.C., 2002 WL 34482988 (27 VI 2002) (preliminary print).
Google Scholar
Yoo J. C., The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them, 25 Op. O.L.C., 2001 WL 34726560 (25 IX 2001) (preliminary print).
Google Scholar
Yoo J. C., Delahunty R. J., Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States, 25 Op. O.L.C., 2001 WL 36190674 (23 X 2001) (preliminary print).
Google Scholar
Przedmiotowa
Google Scholar
Abramowitz D., The President, the Congress, and Use of Force: Legal and Political Considerations in Authorizing Use of Force against International Terrorism, „Harvard International Law Journal” 2002, Vol. 43.
Google Scholar
Baker Jr. J. S., A War, Yes; against Terror, No, „Michigan State Journal of International Law” 2010, Vol. 19.
Google Scholar
Baty T., Morgan J. H., War. Its Conduct and Legal Results, London 1915.
Google Scholar
Bellia Jr. A. J., Clark B. R., The Federal Common Law of Nations, „Columbia Law Review” 2009, Vol. 109.
Google Scholar
Bellinger III J. B., A Counterterrorism Law in Need of Updating, „Washington Post” 2010, 26 XI, [online] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‑dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/.html.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8322.2010.00760.x
Google Scholar
Bellinger III J. B., Padmanabhan V. M., Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges for the Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law, „American Journal of International Law” 2011, Vol. 105, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.105.2.0201.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1734922
Google Scholar
Blackstone W., Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765‑1769), red. G. Sharswood, B. Field, Philadelphia 1893.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00248899
Google Scholar
Bradley C. A., Chevron Deference and Foreign Affairs, „Virginia Law Review” 2000, Vol. 86, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073844.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1073844
Google Scholar
Bradley C. A., Goldsmith J. L., Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, „Harvard Law Review” 2005, Vol. 118.
Google Scholar
Bradley C. A., Goldsmith J. L., Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, „Harvard Law Review” 1997, Vol. 110, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1342230.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1342230
Google Scholar
Bradley C. A., Goldsmith J. L., Foreign Relations Law. Cases and Materials, New York 2009.
Google Scholar
Bynkershoek C. van, Quaestionum juris publici libri duo (1737), Oxford 1930, Classics of International Law, 14. Publications of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law.
Google Scholar
Carnahan B. M., In re Medina: Are the 1949 Geneva Conventions Self‑Executing?, „Air Force Law Review” 1987, Vol. 26.
Google Scholar
Cerone J., Misplaced Reliance on the „Law of War”, „New England Journal of International and Comparative Law” 2007, Vol. 14.
Google Scholar
Chesney R. M., Who May be Held? Military Detention through the Habeas Lens, „Boston College Law Review” 2011, Vol. 52.
Google Scholar
Chesney R. M., Goldsmith J. L., Terrorism and the Convergence of Criminal and Military Detention Models, „Stanford Law Review” 2008, Vol. 60.
Google Scholar
Coke E., Institutes of the Laws of England, in Four Parts (1628‑1644), London 1794‑1797.
Google Scholar
Davis K. C., An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process, „Harvard Law Review” 1942, Vol. 55, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1335092.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1335092
Google Scholar
Einspanier K. L., Burlamaqui, the Constitution, and the Imperfect War on Terror, „Georgetown Law Journal” 2008, Vol. 96.
Google Scholar
Elsea J. K., Grimmett R. F., Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force. Historical Background and Legal Implications, CRS Report for Congress RL31133, Washington 2011.
Google Scholar
Falkoff M. D., Knowles R., Bagram, Boumediene, and Limited Government, „DePaul Law Review” 2010, Vol. 59.
Google Scholar
Fallon R. H. [i in.], Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System, New York 2003, University Casebook Series.
Google Scholar
Federal Procedure. Lawyers Edition, St. Paul 1981‑2013 (wersja elektroniczna dostępna w systemie Westlaw).
Google Scholar
Fischer M. P., Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to „Armed Conflict” in the War on Terror, „Fordham International Law Journal” 2007, Vol. 30.
Google Scholar
Fisher L., Presidential War Power, Lawrence 2004.
Google Scholar
Garcia M. J. [i in.], Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center. Legal Issues, CRS Report for Congress R40139, Washington 2011.
Google Scholar
Garraway Ch., Afghanistan and the Nature of Conflict, [w:] The War in Afghanistan. A Legal Analysis, red. M. N. Schmitt, Newport 2009, International Law Studies, 85.
Google Scholar
Garrett B. L., Habeas Corpus and Due Process, „Cornell Law Review” 2012, Vol. 98.
Google Scholar
Geltzer J. A., Decisions Detained: The Court’s Embrace of Complexity in Guantanamo‑Related Litigation, „Berkeley Journal of International Law” 2010, Vol. 29.
Google Scholar
Geltzer J. A., Of Suspension, Due Process, and Guantanamo: The Reach of the Fifth Amendment after Boumediene and the Relationship between Habeas Corpus and Due Process, „University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law” 2012, Vol. 14.
Google Scholar
Goldsmith J. L., The Terror Presidency. Law and Judgment inside the Bush Administration, New York 2007.
Google Scholar
Goodman R., Jinks D., International Law, U.S. War Powers, and the Global War on Terrorism, „Harvard Law Review” 2005, Vol. 118.
Google Scholar
Gorman S. D., In the Wake of Tragedy: The Citizens Cry Out for War, but Can the United States Legally Declare War on Terrorism?, „Penn State International Law Review” 2003, Vol. 21.
Google Scholar
Grimmett R. F., Authorization for Use of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks (P.L. 107‑40). Legislative History, CRS Report for Congress RS22357, Washington 2006.
Google Scholar
Grotius H., The Rights of War and Peace (De iure belli ac pacis, libri tres; 1620), red. R.Tuck, Indianapolis 2005.
Google Scholar
Hafetz J., Calling the Government to Account: Habeas Corpus in the Aftermath of Boumediene, „Wayne Law Review” 2011, Vol. 57.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1972542
Google Scholar
Hale M., Historia placitorum coronae. The History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), red. S. Emlyn, E. Ingersoll, W. A. Stokes, Philadelphia 1847.
Google Scholar
Hawkins W., A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1716), red. J. Curwood, London 1824, Making of Modern Law.
Google Scholar
Henkin L., Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution, Oxford–New York 1996.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198260981.001.0001
Google Scholar
Henkin L., International Law as Law in the United States, „Michigan Law Review” 1984, Vol. 82, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1288495.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1288495
Google Scholar
Hertz R., Liebman J. S., Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure, New Providence 2011.
Google Scholar
Hollander B. N., The President and Congress – Operational Control of the Armed Forces. „Military Law Review” 1965, Vol. 27.
Google Scholar
Hyde Ch. Ch., International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Boston 1922.
Google Scholar
Preux J. de, Siordet F., Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.
Google Scholar
Commentary, przeł. A. P. de Heney, Geneva 1960, The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, red. J. S. Pictet, t. 3.
Google Scholar
Jinks D., September 11 and the Laws of War, „Yale Journal of International Law” 2003, Vol. 28.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.391640
Google Scholar
Jinks D., Sloss D., Is the President Bound by the Geneva Conventions?, „Cornell Law Review” 2004, Vol. 90.
Google Scholar
Katz S. N., A New American Dilemma? U.S. Constitutionalism vs. International Human Rights, „University of Miami Law Review” 2003, Vol. 58.
Google Scholar
Keitner Ch. I., Rights beyond Borders, „Yale Journal of International Law” 2011, Vol. 36.
Google Scholar
Killian J. H., Costello G. A., Thomas K. R. [i in.], The Constitution of the United States of America. Analysis and Interpretation. Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002, Washington 2004, Senate Documents, 108‑17.
Google Scholar
Klein A., Wittes B., Preventive Detention in American Theory and Practice, „Harvard National Security Journal” 2011, Vol. 2.
Google Scholar
Koch Ch. H., Administrative Law and Practice, Eagan 2010.
Google Scholar
Koh H. H., Is International Law Really State Law?, „Harvard Law Review” 1998, Vol. 111.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1342484
Google Scholar
Kuhn W. E., The Terrorist Detention Review Reform Act: Detention Policy and Political Reality, „Seton Hall Legislative Journal” 2011, Vol. 35.
Google Scholar
Lewis G. G., Mewha J., History of Prisoner of War Utilization by the United States Army, 1776‑1945, Washington 1955, Dep’t of the Army Pamphlet, 20‑213.
Google Scholar
Lobel J., The Use of Force to Respond to Terrorist Attacks: The Bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, „Yale Journal of International Law” 1999, Vol. 24.
Google Scholar
Marcinko M., „Status terrorysty” w świetle międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego, [w:] Walka z terroryzmem w świetle prawa międzynarodowego, red. K. Lankosz, M. Chorośnicki, P. Czubik, Bielsko‑Biała 2005.
Google Scholar
McGinnis J. O., Losing the Law War: The Bush Administration’s Strategic Errors, „Georgia State University Law Review” 2008, Vol. 25.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1010354
Google Scholar
Mortlock D., Definite Detention: The Scope of the President’s Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants, „Harvard Law & Policy Review” 2010, Vol. 4.
Google Scholar
Murphy R., Radsan A. J., Due Process and Targeted Killing of Terrorists, „Cardozo Law Review” 2009, Vol. 31.
Google Scholar
Murphy S. D., Decision Not to Regard Persons Detained in Afghanistan as POWs, „American Journal of International Law” 2002, Vol. 96, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2693945.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2693945
Google Scholar
Nanda V. P., Pansius D. K., Litigation of International Disputes in U.S. Courts, Eagan 2005 (wersja elektroniczna dostępna w systemie Westlaw) (suplement 2013).
Google Scholar
Nesbitt N. H., Meeting Boumediene’s Challenge: The Emergence of an Effective Habeas Jurisprudence and Obsolescence of New Detention Legislation, „Minnesota Law Review” 2010, Vol. 95.
Google Scholar
Neuman G. L., The Extraterritorial Constitution after Boumediene v. Bush, „Southern California Law Review” 2009, Vol. 82.
Google Scholar
Operational Law Handbook, red. S. Condron, Charlottesville 2011.
Google Scholar
Oppenheim L. F. L., International Law, t. 2: War and Neutrality, London 1906.
Google Scholar
Parks W. H., Combatants, [w:] The War in Afghanistan. A Legal Analysis, red. M. N. Schmitt, Newport 2009, International Law Studies, 85.
Google Scholar
Paulsen M. S., Youngstown Goes to War, „Constitutional Commentary” 2002, Vol. 19.
Google Scholar
Paust J. J., War and Enemy Status after 9/11: Attacks on the Laws of War, „Yale Journal of International Law” 2003, Vol. 28.
Google Scholar
Posner E. A., Sunstein C. R., Chevronizing Foreign Relations Law, „Yale Law Journal” 2007, Vol. 116.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20455756
Google Scholar
Priester B. J., Terrorist Detention: Directions for Reform, „University of Richmond Law Review” 2009, Vol. 43.
Google Scholar
Ramsey M. D., The Constitution’s Text in Foreign Affairs, Cambridge (Mass.) 2007.
Google Scholar
Restatement of the Law, Third: Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Philadelphia 1987.
Google Scholar
Rosas A., The Legal Status of Prisoners of War. A Study in International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Helsinki 1976, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae.
Google Scholar
Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 9.
Google Scholar
Rotunda R. D., Nowak J. E., Treatise on Constitutional Law. Substance and Procedure, St. Paul 2007.
Google Scholar
Shumate B. E., New Rules for a New War: The Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees Captured in Afghanistan, „New York International Law Review” 2005, Vol. 18.
Google Scholar
Solum, L. B., Stare Decisis, Law of the Case, and Judicial Estoppel, [w:] Moore’s Federal Practice, red. D. R. Coquillette [i in.], t. 18, New York 2007.
Google Scholar
Sparrow T. L., Indefinite Detention after Boumediene: Judicial Trailblazing in Uncharted and Unfamiliar Territory, „Suffolk University Law Review” 2011, Vol. 44.
Google Scholar
Sprout H. H., Theories as to the Applicability of International Law in the Federal Courts of the United States, „American Journal of International Law” 1931, Vol. 26, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2189349.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2189349
Google Scholar
Stern R. L., Gressman E., Supreme Court Practice, Washington 2002.
Google Scholar
Stromseth J. E., Understanding Constitutional War Powers Today: Why Methodology Matters, „Yale Law Journal” 1996, Vol. 106, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/797312.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/797312
Google Scholar
Turns D., The Treatment of Detainees and the „Global War on Terror”: Selected Legal Issues, [w:] International Law and Military Operations, red. M. D. Carsten, Newport 2008, International Law Studies, 84. Vattel E. de, The Law of Nations, or, the Principles of Law of Nature (1758), red. B. Kapossy, R. Whatmore, Indianapolis 2008, Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics.
Google Scholar
Vazquez C. M., The Four Doctrines of Self‑Executing Treaties, „American Journal of International Law” 1995, Vol. 89, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203933.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2203933
Google Scholar
Vladeck S. I., The D.C. Circuit after Boumediene, „Seton Hall Law Review” 2011, Vol. 41.
Google Scholar
Vladeck S. I., Insular Thinking about Habeas, „Iowa Law Review Bulletin” 2012, Vol. 97.
Google Scholar
Vladeck S. I., Lederman, M. S., The NDAA: The Good, the Bad, and the Laws of War – Part II, Lawfare, 31 XII 2011, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the‑ndaa‑the‑good‑the‑bad‑and‑the‑laws‑of‑war‑part‑ii/.
Google Scholar
Wallach E. J., Partisans, Pirates, and Pancho Villa: How International and National Law Handled Non‑State
Google Scholar
Fighters in the „Good Old Days” before 1949 and that Approach’s Applicability to the „War on Terror”, „Emory International Law Review” 2010, Vol. 24.
Google Scholar
Wedgwood R., Responding to Terrorism: The Strikes against bin Laden, „Yale Journal of International Law” 1999, Vol. 24.
Google Scholar
Weingarten J., The Detention of Enemy Combatants Act, „Harvard Journal on Legislation” 2006, Vol. 43.
Google Scholar
Weisburd A. M., The Executive Branch and International Law, „Vanderbilt Law Review” 1988, Vol. 41.
Google Scholar
Winthrop W., Military Law and Precedents, Washington 1920, Document (United States. War Department), 1001.
Google Scholar
Wittes B., Chesney R. M., Reynolds L., The Emerging Law of Detention 2.0. The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking, Governance Studies at Brookings, Washington 2012, [online] http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/ /5/guantanamo%20wittes/05_guantanamo_wittes.pdf.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1839793
Google Scholar
Wittes B., House‑Senate Side‑by‑Side of NDAA Provisions: Part I, Lawfare, 7 XII 2011, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/house‑senate‑side‑by‑side‑of‑ndaa‑provisions‑part‑i/.
Google Scholar
Wittes B., Klaidman Post #1: Where that March 13 Brief Came From, Lawfare, 10 VI 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/06/klaidman‑post‑1‑where‑that‑march‑13‑brief‑came‑from/.
Google Scholar
Wormuth F. D., Firmage E. B., To Chain the Dog of War. The War Power of Congress in History and Law, Urbana 1989.
Google Scholar
Wright Ch. A., Miller A. R., Federal Practice and Procedure, St. Paul 1969‑2012.
Google Scholar
Young E. A., Sorting Out the Debate over Customary International Law, „Virginia Journal of International Law” 2002, Vol. 42.
Google Scholar
Zeisberg M. A., War Powers. The Politics of Constitutional Authority, Princeton 2013.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691157221.001.0001
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
