Monday, April 22, 2013

Tsarnaev, the AUMF, Hamdi, Haupt, Padilla, and the Confederate Soldiers: Drawing the Boundary Between Criminal and Military Cases

By Mike Dorf

The White House just charged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in a civilian criminal court.  Provided the government wants to execute or otherwise punish Tsarnaev, that was always the only real option.  After all, in the Hamdan case, the Supreme Court held that military commissions could not be used to try detainess without congressional authorization.  Congress provided such authorization in the Military Commission Acts of 2006 and 2009, but only for aliens, not citizens.

So what were Senator Lindsey Graham and others going off about over the weekend in suggesting that  Tsarnaev be sent off to Gitmo as an enemy combatant to whom the constitutional rules of criminal procedure do not apply?  One possibility is that they hoped to strip Tsarnaev of his citizenship first, then ship him to Gitmo.  This may actually be realistic because Tsarnaev is a relatively recently naturalized citizen, but I think it may first require a treason conviction in a civilian court--and so would defeat the purpose of shipping Tsarnaev to Gitmo.  (I could be wrong about that.  I'm not an immigration law expert.  Corrections in comments on this and other points of course welcome.)

Perhaps what Graham was suggesting that Tsarnaev should be held and interrogated as an unlawful enemy combatant for some extended period--substantially longer than the FBI thinks it can interrogate a terrorism suspect even under its expansive view of the public safety exception to Miranda (as discussed in my post earlier today).  That too now appears to be off the table--but with Sen. Graham having raised an interesting set of constitutional questions, I'll address them here.  Unfortunately, they may arise again in another case.

1) Citizenship.  Graham and others were correct that Tsarnaev's U.S. citizenship does not necessarily pose a constitutional obstacle to subjecting him to military jurisdiction.  The 2004 Hamdi case affirmed that principle, even as it rejected the Bush Administration's claims that U.S. citizens (and, a fortiori, foreigners) lack judicially enforceable due process rights.  A majority of the Court rejected the position espoused by two Justices--the odd couple of Stevens and Scalia--under which a U.S. citizen charged with fighting for the enemy is entitled to be tried for treason in a civilian court.

2) The AUMF.   Hamdi suggests another potential obstacle to military detention, however.  In dissent on this point, Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, contended that Hamdi could not be held in military custody because Congress had not authorized such custody, and accordingly the Non-Detention Act barred it.  The plurality opinion of Justice O'Connor rejected that argument because the plurality thought that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) counted as authorization of detention of enemy combatants, even though it didn't expressly mention enemy combatants.  But the AUMF only applies to "those nations, organizations, or persons [that the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."  Is Tsarnaev part of an organization that was involved in 9/11?  Maybe by virtue of working with his brother, who may have received training from al Q'aeda affiliates, he is.  But that looks like a factual question, at least as a threshold matter.  If I had to predict, I'd say that five Justices of the SCOTUS would not now find an obstacle in the Non-Detention Act + AUMF, regardless of what the facts show.  But that's the legal realist in me, not the legal scholar.  (One further possibility is that the Court might say that the Non-Detention Act has nothing to do with military custody.  This argument was advanced by the government in Hamdi but the plurality didn't reach it because they found statutory authorization in the AUMF.)

3) Quirin and Haupt.  One might think that Hamdi is inapplicable to Tsarnaev's case because Hamdi was apprehended in a foreign theater of war, whereas Tsarnaev was apprehended here at home.  But the Hamdi plurality relied in substantial part for its conclusion that U.S. citizens may be subject to military jurisdiction on Ex Parte Quirin, the Nazi Saboteur Case, which arose on U.S. soil.  One of the German soldiers who was there subject to military jurisdiction was a man named Haupt, who, the Court assumed arguendo, was a U.S. citizen.  That made no difference.  The Court stated: "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war."  So Haupt's case looks like a crucial precedent for the argument for military custody for someone like Tsarnaev.

4) Padilla.  However, Haupt, even while acting in violation of the law of war, was clearly engaged in warfare, as his actions were taken in pursuit of the aims of an enemy in a recognizable war, and presumably on orders from enemy superiors.  That's not quite true of Hamdi but, assuming the facts as alleged by the government as of 2004, it was still clear enough that Hamdi was affiliated with an enemy force, albeit an irregular one.  What's most troubling about subjecting someone like Tsarnaev to military jurisdiction--and what wasn't true of either Haupt or Hamdi--is that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev may well have been acting on their own, in ways that make them largely indistinguishable from domestic lone-wolf criminals.  To be sure, we don't know that yet.  Perhaps further details will emerge indicating that Tamerlan was on a mission at least loosely directed by the Taliban, al Q'aeda or some other affiliated force as to which it could be said that a state of war exists with the United States.  But even with some such evidence, the best analogy is probably to the case of Jose Padilla--another U.S. citizen who received some foreign training and whom the U.S. at least initially sought to subject to military custody and adjudication.  The SCOTUS never passed on the lawfulness of so treating Padilla but a fair number of scholars thought that the most sensible set of results in the Hamdi and Padilla cases would have been to allow military adjudication for Hamdi but not for Padilla, based on the location of the acts with which they were charged.

5) The Confederate Soldiers.  What about the fact that we have a gigantic precedent for the proposition that military custody and adjudication are constitutionally permissible for U.S. citizens committing hostile acts on U.S. soil--namely, the treatment of Confederate captives during the Civil War?  These many cases seem to me much more like Haupt's case than like that of Padilla or Tsarnaev: There is an organized enemy force.  Thus, Confederates who violate the law of war (by, e.g., slipping behind enemy lines out of uniform to sabotage railways) are still clearly enemy combatants when doing so.  There is no difficulty in saying the war paradigm applies to them.  That could turn out to be true of a Padilla or Tsarnaev, but it seems to me that at least there needs to be some substantial threshold adjudication of affiliation with some sort of enemy force before people like them are taken outside of the civilian criminal justice system.

6) The Two Basic Questions.  The real constitutional questions, then, are both substantive and procedural.  As a substantive matter: What must the government show when it wishes to submit a U.S. citizen to military custody and adjudication for acts perpetrated on U.S. soil?  To prevent military justice from swallowing civilian criminal justice, I would want a showing of some substantial affiliation with an enemy force.  Now it's true that demanding such a showing means that a truly decentralized organization will avoid having its "soldiers" subject to military jurisdiction.  But I'm not sure that's a problem because such people--the sort of person who simply goes to a jihadi or other radical website and is inspired to commit an act of terrorism without ever receiving any training or orders--really isn't a "soldier," and the rules of war were not designed with such a person in mind.

As for the procedural issues, I would want at least access to a civilian court to determine whether the relevant substantive showing has been made.  Habeas would be available for this purpose after the fact, but ideally such access should be made available in advance.  Putting in place such a system no doubt requires some new legislation.  The problem, of course, is that there aren't many political rewards for Congress in further restricting the limits on military custody and adjudication.  Indeed, we will probably see bills introduced going in the other direction--allowing for the possibility of military trials for U.S. citizens in circumstances like Tsarnaev's.  I don't think such legislation is likely to be enacted, but I think it's even less likely that we'll see the sort of legislation I favor being enacted.

Finally, I want to be clear that what I've said in this post goes to the constitutional permissibility, under existing precedents, of subjecting someone like Tsarnaev to military custody and adjudication.  If I were writing on a clean slate, I would almost certainly require civilian courts more frequently than the SCOTUS has.  And even given existing precedent, I have been discussing the question of what can be done, not what ought to be done.  Even if the Administration could, consistent with the Constitution and existing statutes, subject Tsarnaev to military custody and adjudication, there are good policy reasons why it shouldn't.  In charging Tsarnaev criminally, the Justice Dep't got this one right.

32 comments:

Paul Scott said...

Is it that it was a bomb? Is it that it involved more than one person? Is it that the suspects are currently (as I understand it) of Muslim faith? Is it that one lived and Mass. does not have the death penalty?

I am struggling to find the difference between this mass murder and several others in our recent past - that makes this an act of terrorism and the others just mass killings subject to normal . Take for instance, James Holmes - who killed more people in a single instance. Why was there never any concern that he should be treated as an "enemy combatant?"

As the facts stand right now, these two seem to be "run of the mill" mass killers. Maybe those "in the know" have facts at their disposal unknown to me, but as things are as I know them, I can't understand why this is being treated so differently.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Paul: I'm with you in wanting to see the case handled by the ordinary criminal courts, but presumably what people like Sen. Graham have in mind is that Tamerlan Tsarnaev's trip to Russia put him in contact with organizations that are affiliated with al Q'aeda and thus at war with the U.S. I don't think that's enough but it's closer to war than James Holmes. The key here is coordination with a hostile and at least somewhat organized force fighting us. But even that idea is mushy. Compare the Sicilian mafia. So there needs to be some reference to political aims, rather than simply crime.

BTW, I've now updated the beginning of the post to link to the criminal complaint that was filed in court today. You'll see that it charges Tsarnaev under a Code section that is in a part of Title 18 that deals more generally with "terrorism" as defined therein. However, nothing in the complaint or the Code section requires that the govt prove terrorism as a motive or otherwise.

Paul Scott said...

"Compare the Sicilian mafia"

I agree that when there are Czechoslovakians involved, it is important to consider mafia ties.

Paul Scott said...

On a serious note, is that really all it is? A Russian returns home to Russia and that fact alone justifies this? What if he had not made the trip? Is he really any more or less likely to have made contact with "organizations affiliated with al Q'aeda?"

I mean I do agree that a pair of recently nationalized Muslims are more likely to be associated with a terrorist organization than is a single American-born white guy of presumably Christian origin. But is that the sort of distinction we want to make permissible? Maybe this is a harder case than I am making it out to be, but if it is it seems to me there needs to be more information available on which to draw those conclusions.

Paul Scott said...

The other thing of note is that no terrorist organization has laid claim to this. If one of them did it and is not taking credit, that seems a new move for them.

Sam Rickless said...

An intern in Senator Graham's office who described himself to me as a lawyer today said that it was legally permissible for the government to treat Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant under Hamdi, and this without the constitutional protections usually afforded U.S. citizens, *merely in order to discover the extent of Tsarnaev's connections to listed terrorist organizations*. Isn't that lovely? On such a theory, the President could throw anyone in the brig for a while just in order to discover whether he is a terrorist. All the President needs to do is designate a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant and, presto, the 5th amendment no longer applies. If I were Stalin, I couldn't have come up with a better end around the Constitution myself. Of course we need the showing you describe in your post. Without it, the 5th amendment is a (very bad) joke. Until such a showing, Tsarnaev needs to be treated as a criminal suspect, period.

matt30 said...

Thanks for this!

Paul.K said...

If I had to predict, I'd say that five Justices of the SCOTUS would not now find an obstacle in the Non-Detention Act + AUMF, regardless of what the facts show. But that's the legal realist in me, not the legal scholar. (One further possibility is that the Court might say that the Non-Detention Act has nothing to do with military custody. This argument was advanced by the government in Hamdi but the plurality didn't reach it because they found statutory authorization in the AUMF.)Runescape Gold | Gold für WOW

qiong zhang said...

That is awesome. Your "Motherland" is undoubtedly a ought to inside my touring upcoming. The actual culture, customs and the buy cosplay costumes possibility to always be separate regarding incredible all-natural means seems to be enough to start researching whenever, where and how I will help to make that journey an actuality. Appreciate your sharing this knowledge, appears like you had a nice period.

Camelia Alyka said...

I'm extremely pleased to uncover this web site. I want to to thank you for ones time just for this wonderful read!! I definitely really liked every part of it and i also have you book-marked to look at new things on your website. rodotex nano sabun kojic sabun susu beras obat gemuk

Stefen Curry said...

The Court stated: "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because in violation of the law of war." So Haupt's case looks like a crucial precedent for the argument for military custody for someone like Tsarnaev.fifa 14 ultimate team coins  Elo boost  fifa ut coins  elo boosting service 

Clark Lyman said...

I am interested in this topic and would like to find out some more information as my friend need information on this topic. Assar Poker : Number One Slot : Pixar Casino

DANNY JACKMAN said...

Excellent Blog! I would like to thank for the efforts you have made in writing this post. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. Sub Poker : Panthar Poker : King Poker Choice : Groom Poker : Pro Poker Mania : Luxury Slot : Summer Slot : Temple Slot : Golden Night Casino : Lucky One Casino : Stud Casino Room : Typical Gambling

jorden jems said...

Great blog loved reading it thanks for sharing this. 7game slot : Lenny casino game : palace casino wheel : Maxino casino games : 77vegas casino : 88poker games : sky pokernet : silver poker news : online poker kings : free win pokies : casino memory : ezine poker

lyla lubis said...


Absolutely fantastic posting! Lots of useful information and inspiration, both of which we all need!Relay appreciate your work.. Maybe those "in the know" have facts at their disposal unknown to me, but as things are as I know them, I can't understand why this is being treated so differently. As the facts stand right now, these two seem to be "run of the mill" mass killers.
produk kecantikan korea | perawatan wajah murah | agen produk kecantikan | obat herbal asma

Toko Fashion Kita said...

My spouse and i constantly come across a new challenge & diverse in this article.I must thank you for the initiatives you have made in writing this article. Now you make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept.
serum rambut botak
serum penumbuh rambut
pembesar payudara herbal
cream pembesar payudara
abayweb

amine lahragui said...


thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه

alice smith said...

I am really impressed with your efforts and really pleased to visit this post.
Kirloskar Monobloc

Cantika Natasha said...

Hi! I could have sworn I’ve visited this web site before but after going through many of the articles I realized it’s new to me
healtybeautycare | kioscantiksehat | terapi anak autis

aminos lahragui said...



thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق

Camelia Alyka said...

I'm bookmarking and may be tweeting this to my followers! Outstanding blogging site and superb design
Kosmetik Online | Obat Pelangsing Herbal | Jam Dinding | Kado Unik | Crystal X | Akbar | Toko Online Murah

Affiliate Marketing said...

Inspection causes 13 to miss Cup qualifying : Women MMA makes leap with top two fights on UFC 184 : Live: Aussies fight back after horror show : UFC 184 matchups : Aaron Hernandez sent urgent text to friend on night of murder : Browns, vet McCown agree to 3-year deal : Crash and burn: Aussies; worst ever ODI collapse : Stadium near LAX a terror risk, report says : Kiwi spin wizard destroys Oz : UK Free Online Casnio Slot

Peter Roil said...

sbo-casino : cyprusopenpoker : usonlinepokersites : panoramapoker : 4-casinos : fulltiltpokerreferralcode

obat herbal said...

cara menghilangkan kutil kelamin dan cara mengobati kutil di sekitar kemaluan dan kutil di kemaluan dan obat kutil di kemaluan dan obat kutil kelamin atau jengger ayam dan obat perontok kutil kelamin dan pengobatan kutil kelamin dan cara mengobati kutil kelamin dan kutil kelamin dan obat kutil kelamin dan obat kutil kelamin wanita merupakan solusi pengobatan herbal dari denature indonesia

jaring futsal dan rumput futsal said...

Nice article, thanks for the information. It's very complete information. I will bookmark for next reference
jaring futsal | jaring golf | jaring pengaman proyek |
jaring pengaman bangunan | jaring pengaman gedung

herbal medicine said...

obat kutil di kemaluan obat kutil kelamin cara mengobati kutil di sekitar kemaluan kutil di sekitar kemaluan cara mengobati kutil di kemaluan obat kutil kelamin di apotik kutil di sekitar kelamin wanita

obat herbal said...

obat kutil di kemaluan obat kutil kelamin cara mengobati kutil di sekitar kemaluan kutil di sekitar kemaluan cara mengobati kutil di kemaluan obat kutil kelamin di apotik kutil di sekitar kelamin wanita

hadi agustin said...

pengobatan herbal alami untuk mengatasi berbagai macam penyakit tanpa efek samping
Obat Herbal Penghancur Batu Ginjal Obat Herbal Kanker Payudara Tanpa Operasi Pencegahan Kanker Serviks Obat Herbal Batuk Kering Dan Berdahak Obat Herbal Kanker Serviks Stadium 4 Khasiat Jelly Gamat Gold G Suplemen Kecantikan Pelangsing Badan Alami Crystal X Obat Herbal Untuk Wajah Bopeng Obat Tradisional Pemutih Wajah Dan Jerawat Obat Herbal Osteoarthritis Lutut Obat Herbal Sinusitis Kronis

Bambang Wisanggeni said...

CARA CEPAT MENGOBATI KUTIL KELAMIN
OBAT HERBAL UNTUK KONDILOMA AKUMINATA
OBAT HERBAL UNTUK KUTIL KELAMIN
MENGOBATI KUTIL DI PENIS
KUTIL KELAMIN PADA WANITA
OBAT KUTIL KELAMIN TRADISIONAL
MENGOBATI KUTIL DI VAGINA
OBAT KUTIL YANG MANJUR
MENGOBATI KUTIL DI ANUS

Herbal de nature said...




Obat Alternatif Kanker Rahim
Obat kutil kelamin tradisional yang manjur
SOLUSI UNTUK PENGOBATAN KUTIL KELAMIN CARA HERBAL
OBAT WASIR HERBAL AMAN TANPA EFEK SAMPING
OBAT PENYAKIT SIPILIS UNTUK WANITA YANG MANJUR
obat sipilis tradisional
MENGENALI TANDA KUTIL KELAMIN | OBAT KUTIL KELAMIN TRADISIONAL
PENGOBATAN AMBEYEN SECARA ALAMI
Konsultasi Gratis Penyakit Kelamin
Mencegah dan Mengatasi Ambeyen Saat Hamil

Herbal de nature said...

Cara obati penyakit sipilis
Bagaimana cara mengobati penyakit sipilis
Mengobati kutil di vagina
Mengenali gejala gonore atau kencing nanah
Cara cepat obati kutil kelamin
kutil vagina
lecet di penis
lecet di penis
lecet di penis
lecet di penis
lecet di penis
lecet di penis
bernanah di penis
bernanah di penis
bernanah di penis
bernanah di penis
bernanah di penis
bernanah di penis
kutil membandel
kutil kelamin di kemaluan
kutil di kemaluan
bernanah di penis
kutil di alat kelamin
raja singa
raja singa
raja singa
kutil
kutil di sekitar selangakangan
kutil di sekitar selangakangan

obat herbal said...

Obat kencing Nanah De Nature Obat Herbal obat Kutil Kelaminkutil kelamin pada ibu hamil dan cara mengobati kutil di kemaluan kutil di sekitar kelamin wanita dan kutil di sekitar kemaluan wanita dan cara mengobati kutil di sekitar kemaluan dab tumbuh kutil di sekitar kemaluan dan bahaya dan resiko penyakit kutil kelamin dan kutil di sekitar kelamin pria dan kutil di sekitar kemaluan merupakan solusi pengobatan herbal dari denature indonesia