9/11 Terrorism Cases Analysis
September 11, 2001 changed America forever. The 9/11 cases challenged the government power and its relation to individual rights during times of war. Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization funded by Osama bin Laden targeted the American government in a series of deadly attacks on 9/11 that killed over 3000 people and injured scores of others. The United States declared an act of war against Terrorism and soon was heavily involved in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Similar to the Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) Supreme Court cases where Congress authorization forces the government to comply with an order. The 9/11 cases were no ordinary in nature but it was different from similar cases. One must understand the complexity of the cases and the course of action
…show more content…
Since the government leased that portion of the land from Cuba, for most of its time there was a lack of government oversight (Ryan 14). Some were U.S. citizens and others not (Hoffer 2017). It was possible for the U.S. to have their. In Allan A. Ryan’s book, “The 9/11 Terror Cases: Constitutional Challenges in the War Against Al Qaeda” he explored the 9/11 cases with both historical and legal context. The Unitary Code of Military Justice (1950) established military law and within outlined military commissions (Ryan 88-89). The four detainees in the 9/11 cases were subjected to the UCMJ standards although, a military commission rarely occurs in the United States (Ryan 89). One possible reason for having the cases held in a military court as opposed to the U.S. federal court was that the standards were lower, though similar. Another reason is that the government feared having court cases heard in U.S. federal courts. They could be set free due to insufficient evidence (Hoffer 2017). Plus, the voluntary acceptance of the Geneva Conventions code for treating prisoners during wartime could be ignored since member of Al Qaeda were not included (Ryan …show more content…
They had different circumstances. Both Hadmi and Padilla were U.S. citizens while Rasul and Hamdan were not (Hoffer 2017). It is important to realize the amount of power then-President Bush had after 9/11. Though, in fairness the country was at war and a precedent had been set regarding Presidential power during that time. After the attack, the passage of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) by Congress gave Bush clearance to move on against terrorism. It stated, “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons… in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (Ryan 5). Essentially, the resolution enabled the government to use it maximum power in finding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so the President had the right to do so at his discretion. But, what is especially important in the AUMF is the ability for the government to search for individuals plotting attacks against the United States. It played a crucial role in the 9/11 cases as the government would make their arguments defending their practices. The Supreme Court declared that the government overstepped their powers with the detainees (Ryan 187-188). Although, the 9/11 cases were recent, its historical significance cannot
Since the government leased that portion of the land from Cuba, for most of its time there was a lack of government oversight (Ryan 14). Some were U.S. citizens and others not (Hoffer 2017). It was possible for the U.S. to have their. In Allan A. Ryan’s book, “The 9/11 Terror Cases: Constitutional Challenges in the War Against Al Qaeda” he explored the 9/11 cases with both historical and legal context. The Unitary Code of Military Justice (1950) established military law and within outlined military commissions (Ryan 88-89). The four detainees in the 9/11 cases were subjected to the UCMJ standards although, a military commission rarely occurs in the United States (Ryan 89). One possible reason for having the cases held in a military court as opposed to the U.S. federal court was that the standards were lower, though similar. Another reason is that the government feared having court cases heard in U.S. federal courts. They could be set free due to insufficient evidence (Hoffer 2017). Plus, the voluntary acceptance of the Geneva Conventions code for treating prisoners during wartime could be ignored since member of Al Qaeda were not included (Ryan …show more content…
They had different circumstances. Both Hadmi and Padilla were U.S. citizens while Rasul and Hamdan were not (Hoffer 2017). It is important to realize the amount of power then-President Bush had after 9/11. Though, in fairness the country was at war and a precedent had been set regarding Presidential power during that time. After the attack, the passage of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) by Congress gave Bush clearance to move on against terrorism. It stated, “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons… in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (Ryan 5). Essentially, the resolution enabled the government to use it maximum power in finding those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so the President had the right to do so at his discretion. But, what is especially important in the AUMF is the ability for the government to search for individuals plotting attacks against the United States. It played a crucial role in the 9/11 cases as the government would make their arguments defending their practices. The Supreme Court declared that the government overstepped their powers with the detainees (Ryan 187-188). Although, the 9/11 cases were recent, its historical significance cannot