Viewing Hamdan Through a Military Lens
Geoffrey S. Corn
South Texas College of Law
January 6, 2009
Oklahoma City University Law Review, Forthcoming
The Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld triggered an avalanche of legal commentary, criticism, and debate. What is somewhat surprising, however, is the relative paucity of analysis regarding the impact of this opinion on the planning and execution of military operations, a subject at the heart of the challenge brought by Hamdan. From a military perspective, this opinion provided an important reaffirmation of something military operational lawyers had always known: treating captured enemies humanely is an essential component of preserving the demarcation line between disciplined military operations and battlefield anarchy. In rejecting the selective invocation of the laws of war, the Supreme Court seemed to understand and confirm that this area of law reflects a delicate balance between authority and obligation, a principle reflected in longstanding Department of Defense policies. This brief essay will address this aspect of the opinion, and how the Court's impetus for cooperative military policy ultimately strengthened the had of the government.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 12
Keywords: Law of War, law of armed conflict, humanitarian law, internaitonal law, war on terror, terrorism, military commissions, war crimes, seperation of powers, national security
JEL Classification: K10, K19Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 9, 2009
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.734 seconds