In 1996 Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow U.S. victims of terrorism to sue designated State sponsors of terrorism for their terrorist acts. The courts have handed down large judgments against the terrorist State defendants, generally in default, and successive Administrations have intervened to block the judicial attachment of frozen assets to satisfy judgments. After a court ruled that Congress never created a cause of action against terrorist States themselves, but only against their officials, employees, and agents, plaintiffs have based claims on state law. The limited availability of defendant States' assets for satisfaction of judgments has made collection difficult. Congress passed a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (H.R. 4986), to provide a federal cause of action against terrorist States and to facilitate enforcement of judgments, authorizing the President to waive the provision with respect to Iraq. The President issued a waiver and now seeks a waiver for Libya and other States whose designation may be lifted. The measure, i 1/2 1083 of P.L. 110-181, is the latest in a series of actions Congress has taken over the last decade to assist plaintiffs in lawsuits against terrorist States. The 107th Congress enacted as .

In 1996 Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow U.S. victims of terrorism to sue certain States responsible for terrorist acts. The terrorist state defendants have refused to appear in court, the courts have handed down large default judgments, the Clinton and Bush Administrations have intervened to block collection on those judgments, and Congress has repeatedly enacted measures to facilitate payment. Further complexity has been added by attempts in one suit to abrogate an international agreement, the enactment of retaliatory legislation in some of the terrorist States, the occupation of Iraq and suspension of its status as a terrorist State, and a proposal to compensate victims through an administrative process. Recently, a court ruled that Congress has never created a cause of action against terrorist States themselves, but only against their officials, employees and agents, and only for their private conduct, not for their official acts. The 107th Congress enacted as part of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 ("TRIA")(P.L. 107-297) a provision that overrides long-standing Administration objections and allows the blocked assets of terrorist States to be used to pay the compensatory damages portions of court judgments against such States; however, the meaning of "blocked ...

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which granted the President the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those ... who] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" against the United States. Many persons subsequently captured during military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere were transferred to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for detention and possible prosecution before military tribunals. Although nearly 800 persons have been held at Guantanamo at some point since early 2002, the substantial majority of Guantanamo detainees have ultimately been transferred to another country for continued detention or release. Those detainees who remain fall into three categories: (1) persons placed in non-penal, preventive detention to stop them from rejoining hostilities; (2) persons who face or are expected to face criminal charges; and (3) persons who have been cleared for transfer or release, whom the United States continues to detain pending transfer. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees may seek habeas corpus review of the legality of their detention, several legal issues remain unsettled.

The detainee provisions passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2012, P.L. 112-81, affirm that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), P.L. 107-40, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, authorizes the detention of persons captured in connection with hostilities. The act provides for the first time a statutory definition of covered persons whose detention is authorized pursuant to the AUMF. During debate of the provision, significant attention focused on the applicability of this detention authority to U.S. citizens and other persons within the United States. The Senate adopted an amendment to clarify that the provision was not intended to affect any existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. This report analyzes the existing law and authority to detain U.S. persons, including American citizens and resident aliens, as well as other persons within the United States who are suspected of being members, agents, or associates of Al Qaeda or possibly other terrorist organizations as "enemy combatants."

In 1996 Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow U.S. victims of terrorism to sue designated State sponsors of terrorism for their terrorist acts. The courts have handed down large judgments against the terrorist State defendants, generally in default, and successive Administrations have intervened to block the judicial attachment of frozen assets to satisfy judgments. After a court ruled that Congress never created a cause of action against terrorist States themselves, but only against their officials, employees, and agents, plaintiffs have based claims on state law. The limited availability of defendant States' assets for satisfaction of terrorism judgments has made collection difficult. Congress passed a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (H.R. 1585), to provide a federal cause of action against terrorist States and to facilitate enforcement of judgments. After the President vetoed the bill based on the possible impact the measure would have on Iraq, Congress passed a new version, H.R. 4986, this time authorizing the President to waive its provisions with respect to Iraq. P.L. 110-181. The measure, i 1/2 1083 of P.L. 110-181, is the latest in a series of actions Congress has taken over the last decade to assist plaintiffs in .

In 1996 Congress amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to allow U.S. victims of terrorism to sue designated State sponsors of terrorism for their terrorist acts. The courts have handed down large judgments against the terrorist State defendants, generally in default, and successive Administrations have intervened to block the judicial attachment of frozen assets to satisfy judgments. After a court ruled that Congress never created a cause of action against terrorist States themselves, but only against their officials, employees, and agents, plaintiffs have based claims on state law. The limited availability of defendant States' assets for satisfaction of judgments has made collection difficult. Congress passed a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2008 (H.R. 4986), to provide a federal cause of action against terrorist States and to facilitate enforcement of judgments, authorizing the President to waive the provision with respect to Iraq. The President issued a waiver and now seeks a waiver for Libya and other States whose designation may be lifted, which is soon likely to include North Korea. The measure, ? 1083 of P.L. 110-181, is the latest in a series of actions Congress has taken over the last decade to assist plaintiffs in lawsuits ...

As part of the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the United States has captured and detained numerous persons believed to have been part of or associated with enemy forces. Over the years, federal courts have considered a multitude of petitions by or on behalf of suspected belligerents challenging aspects of U.S. detention policy. Although the Supreme Court has issued definitive rulings concerning several legal issues raised in the conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, many others remain unresolved, with some the subject of ongoing litigation.

This book provides a background and analysis comparing military commissions as envisioned under the MCA to the rules that had been established by the Department of Defense (DOD) for military commissions and to general military courts-martial conducted under the UCMJ. After reviewing the history of the implementation of military commissions in the "global war on terrorism," this book provides an overview of the procedural safeguards provided in the MCA. This book identifies pending legislation, including H.R. 267, H.R. 1585, H.R. 2543, H.R. 2826, S. 1547, S. 1548, H.R. 1416, S. 1876, S. 185, S. 576, S.447, H.R. 1415 and H.R. 2710. Finally, the book provides two tables comparing the MCA with regulations that had been issued by the Department of Defense pursuant to the President's Military Order with standard procedures for general courts-martial under the Manual for Court-Martial. The first table describes the composition and powers of the military tribunals, as well as their jurisdiction. The second chart, which compares procedural safeguards required by the MCA with those that had been incorporated in the DOD regulations and the established procedures in courts-martial, follows the same order and format used in CRS Report RL31262, Selected Procedural Safeguards in Federal, Military, and International Courts, to facilitate comparison with safeguards provided in federal court and international criminal tribunals.

The United States is relying heavily on private firms to supply a wide variety of services in Iraq, including security. Based on the information available in published sources, this is the first time that the United States has depended on contractors to provide such extensive security in a hostile environment, although it has previously contracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere. This book summarises what is currently known publically about companies that provide personnel for security missions in Iraq and some sources of controversy surrounding them. A treatment of legal status and authorities follows, including an overview of relevant international law as well as Iraqi law, which currently consists primarily of Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) orders that remain in effect until superseded. The various possible means for prosecuting contractors under U.S. law in civilian or military courts are also detailed, followed by a discussion of possible issues for Congress. This is an edited, excerpted and augmented edition of various government publications.

This book provides historical background on the enactment of declarations of war and authorisations for the use of force and analyses their legal effects under international and domestic law. It also sets forth their texts in two appendices. Because the statutes that confer standby authority on the President and the executive branch potentially play such a large role in an armed conflict to which the United States is a party, the book includes an extensive listing and summary of the statutes that are triggered by a declaration of war, a declaration of national emergency, and/or the existence of a state of war. The book concludes with a summary of the congressional procedures applicable to the enactment of a declaration of war or authorisation for the use of force and to measures under the War Powers Resolution.

This book analyses the authority to detain American citizens who are suspected of being members, agents, or associates of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and possibly other terrorist organisations as "enemy combatants." The Department of Justice cites two World War II era cases, Ex parte Quirin and In re Territo, to support its contention that the President may order that certain U.S. citizens as well as non-citizens be held as enemy combatants pursuant to the law of war and Article II of the Constitution. Critics, however, question the assertion of executive authority to detain U.S. citizens, without ordinary due process of law, in order to prevent terrorist acts or gather intelligence; and some argue that Congress has prohibited such detention of U.S. citizens when it enacted 18 U.S.C. 4001. While the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the Bush Administration that Congress authorised such detentions in its authorisation for the President to use force against those he determines are responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the Second Circuit recently held that Congress has not authorised such detentions.