By: Jordan
Response… what is seen here is, of course, appropriate. On wonders why the prosecutors didn’t simply charge him with aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the laws of war instead of “material...
View ArticleBy: Benjamin G. Davis
Very important stuff! So much for the Seminole War if my memory serves me right. Good riddance. Best, Ben
View ArticleBy: Mariya
This is great news, and the hopes are other appeals will follow suit (e.g. al Bahlul). There is a good blog post by Steve Vladeck on the possible implications of Hamdan on other trials: <a...
View ArticleBy: publius
The prosecutors didn’t charge Hamdan with aiding the enemy because under the MCA aiding the enemy has a duty of loyalty to the USA element. Hamdan obviously did not have such a duty. MST, under the...
View ArticleBy: BattleJAG
The title of your post is incorrect–it should be “MST Not a War Crime Prior to 2006.” The significance of 2006 (vice 2001) is that Congress defined MST as an offense in 2006, and at least Judge...
View ArticleBy: Jennifer
The first paragraph of the opinion strongly suggests that the court regards the “war against al Qaeda” as having begun in 2001. The opinion also ties the UCMJ provision that applied prior to 2006 to...
View ArticleBy: Jordan
Battle JAG: and he is wrong -- Congress is bound by the laws of war. It has no power to make the laws of war either. See, e.g., the many cases and ops. of Att'y Gens. (esp. the 1865 Opinion), views...
View ArticleBy: Kevin Jon Heller
<p>Battlejag and Jennifer,</p> <p>Your points are well taken. I used the 2001 date because I was referring to Hamdan's conduct, not to the MCA in particular. But yes, the decision...
View Article
