Overview

Analyses the ways American leaders have justified the use of military tribunals, the suspension of due process, and the elimination of habeas corpus. Though the war on terrorism is said to have generated unprecedented military situations, arguments for the Patriot Act and military tribunals following 9/11 resemble many historical claims for restricting civil liberties, more often than not in the name of necessity. Marouf Hasian Jr. examines the major legal cases that show how various generations have represented the need for military tribunals, and how officials historically have applied the term 'necessity.' George Washington cited the necessity of martial discipline in executing the British operative Major André. Tribunals tried and convicted more than 200 Sioux warriors during the Dakota Wars. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for many civilian and military prisoners during the Civil War. Twentieth Century military and civilian leaders selectively drafted their own codes, leading to the execution of German saboteurs during World War II. Further, General MacArthur's tribunal to investigate the wartime activities of Japanese General Yamashita raised the specter of 'victor's justice,' anticipating the outcry that attended the Nuremberg trials.            In those cases as in current debates about the prosecution of terrorists, Hasian argues that the past is often cited selectively, neglecting historical contexts and the controversies these cases engendered.

Full Product Details

9780817314750

Table of Contents

Reviews

Hasian's approach is illuminating. He asks us to think about 'necessity' as a rhetorical construct and to take seriously the contested and indeterminate nature of the term. . . . This is a great idea for a book, and the various historical moments Hasian surveys are consistently well-researched. --Paul Schiff Berman, University of Connecticut School of Law

Hasian (Univ. of Utah) has both a communications background and a law degree. He has also written two other texts: Legal Memories and Amnesias in America's Rhetorical Cu1ture (2000) and Colonial Legacies in Postcolonial Contexts: A Critical Rhetorical Examination of Legal Histories (2002). As such, he is well qualified to prepare this series of case studies of famous military trials in American history. Among the subjects discussed are the execution of British operative Major Andre during the American Revolutionary War, the suspension of habeas corpus under President Lincoln, and General MacArthur's tribunal that investigated the wartime crimes of Japanese General Yamashita. The author argues that in times of crisis, the authorities have traditionally called for special tribunals demanded by the word 'necessity.' He further contends that the authorities frequently have been selective in their references to the past and not very objective in their decision-making. The books bears some similarity to Defending Mohammad: Justice on Trial (CH, May'04, 41-5574) by Robert E. Precht and Terrorism and the Constitution (CH, Jan'03, 40-3074) by David Cole and James X. Dempsey. The book is clearly written and carefully footnoted. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers, lower-division undergraduates through graduate students. -- CHOICE

Hasian (Univ. of Utah) has both a communications background and a law degree. He has also written two other texts: <i>Legal Memories and Amnesias in America's Rhetorical Cu1ture</i> (2000) and <i>Colonial Legacies in Postcolonial Contexts: A Critical Rhetorical Examination of Legal Histories</i> (2002). As such, he is well qualified to prepare this series of case studies of famous military trials in American history. Among the subjects discussed are the execution of British operative Major Andre during the American Revolutionary War, the suspension of habeas corpus under President Lincoln, and General MacArthur's tribunal that investigated the wartime crimes of Japanese General Yamashita. The author argues that in times of crisis, the authorities have traditionally called for special tribunals demanded by the word 'necessity.' He further contends that the authorities frequently have been selective in their references to the past and not very objective in their decision-making. The books bears some similarity to <i>Defending Mohammad: Justice on Trial</i> (CH, May'04, 41-5574) by Robert E. Precht and <i>Terrorism and the Constitution</i> (CH, Jan'03, 40-3074) by David Cole and James X. Dempsey. The book is clearly written and carefully footnoted. Summing Up: Recommended. General readers, lower-division undergraduates through graduate students. --<i>CHOICE</i>

Author Information

Marouf Hasian Jr. is Professor of Communications at the University of Utah and author of Legal Memories and Amnesias in America’s Rhetorical Culture and Colonial Legacies in Postcolonial Contexts: A Critical Rhetorical Examination of Legal Histories.

Tab Content 6

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

Countries Available