|
Showing 1 - 16 of
16 matches in All Departments
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.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Poor Things
Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, …
DVD
R357
Discovery Miles 3 570
|