Military Law and Military Justice?
Military justice, also known as military law is a set of procedures and laws that govern members of the armed forces. Different states have designed distinct and separate bodies of law governing their armed forces. Other states have adopted the use of special judicial in enforcing military justice (McCormack 9). Military justice has unique legal issues such as preservation of proper discipline and order, the legal nature of orders and proper conduct within members of the military force. Some states allow their system of military justice to handle civil offences, which have been committed by members of their armed forces. Military justice differs from the implementation of military authority on civilians as a form of civil authority. This is commonly referred to as martial law and is often declared in times of emergency such as civil unrest or war. Most states have restrictions as to when and how martial law should be enforced or declared (Hall 21).
Military justice (military law), as a branch of law regulating the government’s military force, is entirely disciplinary in nature. This penal law includes has incorporated the analogous elements of civilian criminal law. The law has many and varied sources that have considerable relationships with the constitution. However, since the public law emerged from the constitution, the primary source of the law that governs the military force has been considered the constitution (McCormack 27). Apart from the constitution, other sources have been associated with the emergence of military law. Some of these sources are written while others are unwritten that govern the military establishments, as well. The international law was the source of the law on treaties and war that affect the establishments of the military. Congress law made significant contributions to statutes of the military justice such as the uniform code. Customs and usage of the armed forces and the court system have contributed to the daily decisions in clarifying the gray areas: these have all added up to the present military law (McCormack 44).
Elucidate the Laws of War. What is a Just War?
In order for a war to qualify as a just war, it must meet a dozen of principles. First, force has been seen to be a source of destruction and many people assume that it should not be used. Therefore, need to use force must be overcome by use of viable and peaceful war alternatives. It must be made clear that the alternatives being used are fruitless and a war can be a just. Secondly, the cause of the war must be just in nature: this means that the principal aim of the war must be to correct a profound, grave, and enduring evil that might directly impair the safety or freedom of the people who are contemplating the war (McCormack 51).
Thirdly, a competent and lawful authority must consent to the use of violence. Therefore, the nation must design internal laws on the usage of military violence so that war can be part of the nation’s public policy. This means that it will not be held as an artificial personal preference of the person running the government (Hall 56). The fourth principle requires that a probability of success is fundamental: this means that the cause of war must not send men and women to death. For any war to be a just war, it must use proportional force to the harm that it intends to eradicate. Therefore, the war must not cause harm to persons using military force. This is for achieving an absolute, just goal of the war. In conclusion, a just war must be fairly fought, and it should be brought to an end quickly. The above principles of a just war have been universally accepted. However, the major issue with most wars is that they tend to be more adventurist and strategic than just (McCormack 68).
What is the justification for preventive detention and torture as part of Counterterrorism (CT) operation?
Members of terrorist organizations place themselves in exceptional situations that do not allow the application of the rights granted to prisoners. Terrorists operate like spies and not like soldiers. For this reason, terrorists are not regarded as members of the combat concerning the conventions and treaties that ban torture. Therefore, it is normal for them to be given a different treatment when they are captured. This approach suggests that terrorists undertake actions that exclude them from protection from torture as indicated in treaties such as the Geneva Conventions (Hall 27). Their actions justify the argument that terrorists should not be given the legal protection normally given to other citizens on the foundation of law. Moreover, terrorism has created the foundation of the global context that provides justification to the suspension of the rights of suspects. People who are suspected to assist terrorists or to be part of terrorism groups do not belong to humanity. Therefore, it is possible and necessary for them to be tortured if this is the only means of obtaining information from them.
The issue of preventing terrorist attacks is a matter that requires urgency. Investigators may lack enough time to interrogate suspects thus torture may be the only means of acquiring information quickly. For example, if the matter were about a ticking time bomb, this situation would probably call for a serious imminent threat that justifies the use of torture. Preventing a bomb from exploding is crucial if it is likely to send thousands of people to death. The rationales of an exceptional nature and urgency have been widely used to provide justification to torture and detention of terrorism suspects. Many authors have justified torture and detention when they are the only means of averting serious crimes and imminent threat. In this context, it is necessary to violate the rights of terrorism suspects in order to defend the rights of potential victims of terrorism (McCormack 49).
What are the short- and long-term implications of Peace and Anti-War movements on American politics?
The Peace and Anti-War movements had vital short- and long-term impacts on American politics. The movement weakened support for the Republican Party and contributed to the taking over of the Democratic Party. However, the impact of the anti-war movement cannot be separated from the loss of the president’s party experienced in the midterm elections, in 2006. Nevertheless, the newly elected democratic majorities failed to enact the anti-war Legislations that they designed. Further, they did not make effective use of power provided by the purse in restraining the Bush administration from war powers (Hall 66).
The Peace and the U.S. In establishing credibility by creating space for the government is represented in anti-war rallies. The Peace and Anti-War movements helped senator Barrack Obama to win the 2008 contest against Hillary Clinton paving the way for his victory as the U.S. president. Moreover, the Peace and Anti-War policies are different from those might have been introduced by other presidential candidates like President John McCain. In implementing the policies, President John McCain would have withdrawn U.S. military forces from Iraq just as Obama did. He would have focused mostly on a residual military force in areas of Iraq. However, it remains unclear whether McCain would have brought to an end the conflict in Afghanistan as Obama did (Hall 73).
The election of Barrack Obama as the president of America played a fundamental role in demobilizing the Peace and Anti-War movements. As a result, the Peace and Anti-War movements have since been in abeyance. However, hardcore opponents of to protests against anti-war activities. Nevertheless, their activities are conducted under other movements like Wall Street. The in a non-violent and non-disruptive nature of the anti-war policy. During the Bush administration, Protest had become a normal political routine for social movements. However, politicians were no longer paying attention to activities of such movements when they considered it unthreatening. During the Antiwar movements, violence between demonstrators who clashed with the police appeared to move policy towards the direction of the perpetrators of violence (McCormack 188).
McCormack, Wayne. Understanding the Law of Terrorism. New York: Lexis Nexis, 2007. Print
Hall, Simon. Peace and Freedom: The Civil Rights and Antiwar Movements in the 1960s.
Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Print