E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Gerard, I think you've correctly described what the Supreme Court would hold. The problem is, when the Supreme Court decided Hamdi, it ignored a key distinction between how the law of war (or "IHL," for "international humanitarian law") treats international armed conflict ("IAC") and how it treats non-international armed conflict ("NIAC"). IHL permits the detention of prisoners of war for the duration of the hostilities in IAC. As Gabor Rona has pointed out, however, IHL neither authorizes nor forbids the detention of fighters in NIAC -- it leaves that issue entirely to domestic law. At the time Hamdi was apprehended, the conflict was an IAC, so his detention was authorized by IHL until that conflict ended. But by the time the Supreme Court issued its ruling three years later, the IAC phase of the conflict had indeed ended (upon the fall of the Taliban), and the conflict was now a NIAC -- meaning that domestic law and not IHL governed the appropriateness of Hamdi's detention. The Supreme Court held that the AUMF (which is, of course, domestic law -- although Rona would argue that the relevant domestic law is Afghanistan's) allowed Hamdi's continuing detention, but it did so by concluding that the AUMF incorporated the principles of IHL -- and those principles don't actually have anything to say about detention in NIAC.
In short, I think the Supreme Court was wrong in holding that the law of war authorized Hamdi's continuing detention in 2004. But I'm pretty sure the Court gets to say what the law is. In light of that (occasionally regrettable) fact, I think Gerard's analysis hits the mark: the AUMF still permits detention post-bin Laden, but may cease to do so if/when we are no longer actively fighting in Afghanistan.
Liza Goitein is Co-Director, Liberty and National Security Program, The Brennan Center for Justice. You can reach her by e-mail at goiteine at exchange.law.nyu.edu Posted
6:49 PM
by Guest Blogger [link]