One of the most complex issues related to the "Global War on Terror" that has confronted policy makers, military commanders, legal advisors, and even federal courts has been determining where the "battlefield" in this war starts and ends. This is not surprising. The characterization of the struggle against international terrorism as a "war" by the United States had the effect of forcing the proverbial square peg into the round hole. The law that had evolved up to Sept. 11, 2001 to regulate "war" had simply not addressed a military struggle between the armed forces of a nation-state and operatives of a non-state terrorist organization operating all over the globe.
This disparity between the law that regulates wars and the war the U.S. has embarked upon has produced a variety of legal dilemmas. Many of these are the product of an administration that clearly sought to exploit a lack of regulatory coverage to achieve its objectives by any means. This exploitation has manifested itself in controversies related to the designation and treatment of captured personnel, the trial and punishment by military commission of these detainees, and the legitimacy of "taking the fight" against terror targets to places like Pakistan and Somalia. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $18 monthly or $118/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: U.S. Must Rethink Unsustainable Counterterrorism Strategy
- Diplomatic Fallout: West Needs New Rules to Contain Proxy Wars With Russia
- Despite U.S. Efforts, Root Causes of Migration Crisis Prevail in Central America
- The Realist Prism: U.S. Watches From Sidelines as Global Leaders Gather in Brazil
- Turkey’s Schizophrenic Opposition Unlikely to Defeat Erdogan and Unified AKP