Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 10 P31 docx

there were bombings and shootings in Wallace’s Alabama. In the same year a federal judge ordered the University of Alabama to allow two black students to enroll. When Wallace vowed to prevent them from entering the university, U.S. attorney general ROBERT F. KENNEDY traveled to Alabama to warn him that the Kennedy administration would enforce the court’sdecree. On June 11, 1963, Wallace, having advised citizens of Alabama to stay away from the university, stood at a podium before the school door. Attorney General Kennedy telephoned once more, only to be told that the governor was unavailable. As reporters, photographers, and police officers watched, Wallace held up his hand to prevent Vivian Malone and James Hood from ente ring. Then he holed himself up inside the school for four hours. Meanwhile, President Kennedy federalize d the Alabama NATIONAL GUARD, which then moved in and forced Wallace to abandon his “schoolhouse stand” and admit the student s. In 1964 Wallace sought the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. He did well in two early primaries, but the endorsement went to Senator BARRY M. GOLDWATER, of Arizona. Wallace ran again as an independent in 1968, with moderate success, and sought the Demo- cratic nomination four years later. In this race, he swept aside challengers such as George S. McGovern, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, and John V. Lindsay in the Florida primary. But he would not complete the race. On May 15, 1972, moments after giving a speech at a Laurel, Maryland, shopping center, Wallace was shot five times. His would-be assassin, Arthur Bremer, was caught, convicted, and sentenced to 53 years in prison. The shooting left the governor paralyzed from the waist down. It also began a provocative transformation of identity. Reelected as governor in 1974, and serving consecutive terms until his retirement in 1986, Wallace gradually retreated from his segrega- tionist views, admitting that he may have been wrong all along. Poor health forced Wallace to forego running for a fifth term as governor in 1986, but he left a legacy far different from the one suggested by his first term in office. In contrast to the obstinate figure blocking the door to the University of Alabama, he had become a leader recognized for lasting contributions to both blacks and whites. Wallace appointed several African Americans to important state posts. He also helped to establish a statewide junior college system, increased state aid to black universities, increased support for inner cities, and improved industrial development. Wallace’s health continued to decline and for several years he suffered from Parkinson’s disease. Wallace died at the age of 79 on September 13, 1998, in Montgomery, Alabama. At the time of his death, many of his political appointees still held statewide office. FURTHER READINGS Carter, Dan T. 2000. The Politics of Rage: George Wallace, the Origins of the New Conservatism, and the Transformation of American Politics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press. Frederick, Jeffrey. 2007. Stand Up for Alabama: Governor George C. Wallace. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: Univ. of Alabama Press. Lesher, Stephan. 1995. George Wallace: American Populist. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ———. 1994. George Wallace. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley. Wallace, George, Jr., and James Gregory. 1975. The Wallaces of Alabama. Chicago: Follet Publishing. CROSS REFERENCE School Desegregation. v WALLACE, JOHN WILLIAM John William Wallace served as reporter of decisions for the U.S. Supreme Court from 1863 to 1875. Wallace is noted for being the last reporter to privately publish decisions of the Court and for having his name on the spine of each volume. For example, the citation 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 indicates that the decision is to be found on page 590 of volume 87 of United States Reports (the cumulative number of volumes, regardless of the reporter), which is volume 20 of those reports published by Wallace. Wallace was born on February 17, 1815, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The son of a dist in- guished Philadelphia lawyer, Wallace gradua ted from the University of Pennsylvania in 1833. He studied law in his father’s office but decided to devote himself to being a law librarian. In 1841 Wallace became the librarian of the Law Association of Philadelphia. He assumed his first reporting task in 1849, when he published the first of three volumes of the opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. WE HAVEN'T BEEN AGAINST PEOPLE . W E'VE BEEN AGAINST BIG GOVERNMENT TRYING TO TAKE OVER AND WRITE A GUIDELINE FOR YOU AND TELL YOU HOW TO CROSS THE STREET , WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR UNION AND YOUR BUSINESS WHEN YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IT YOURSELF . —GEORGE C. WALLACE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 288 WALLACE, JOHN WILLIAM During the 1840s and early 1850s Wallace concentrated on the scholarly examination of English law reports and reporters. In 1844 he published The Reporters, Chronologically Arranged: with Occasional Remarks upon their Reporting Merits. The work was warmly received for its scholarship and commentary and was republished frequently in the nine- teenth century. Wallace also provided notes on U.S. cases included in a series of volumes known as the British Crown Cases Reserved (1839–1853). In 1863 Wallace became the seventh re- porter of decisions for the Supreme Court, replacing JEREMIAH S. BLACK. Between 1863 and 1875 Wallace published 23 volumes of reports, which form volumes 68–90 of United States Reports. His volumes were praised for their accuracy and quality of editing. Wallace resigned in 1875 after Cong ress appropriated $25,000 to be used for publishing Court decisions. After leaving his position, Wallace wrote many scholarly articles and became president of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Wallace died on January 12, 1884, in Philadelphia. WALLACE V. JAFFREE Wallace v. Jaffree , 472 U.S. 38, 105 S. Ct. 2479, 86 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1985) involved a court challenge to the constitutionality of an Alabama statute authorizing a daily period of silence in Alabama’s public schools for meditation or voluntary prayer. The case was noteworthy not only because of the Supreme Court’s decision but also because of conclusions reached by the lower courts in the same case. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Chief Judge W. Brevard Hand came to the surprising conclusion that the Establishment Clause of the FIRST AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution prohibited only the federal gov- ernment from establishing a state religion and that the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT did not make the prohibition binding on the states. Thus, reasoned Judge Hand, the federal Constitution presented no bar to Alabama’s establishment of a state religion. Judge Hand found that “the relevant LEGISLATIVE HISTORY surrounding the adoption of both the First Amendment and of the Fourteenth Amendment, together with the plain language of those amendments, leaves no doubt that those amendments were not intended to forbid John W. Wallace. COLLECTION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES John William Wallace 1815–1884 ❖ ❖ ◆ 1815 Born, Philadelphia, Pa. ◆ 1833 Graduated from Univ. of Pa. ◆ 1849 Reporter, Third Circuit Court of Appeals 1861–65 U.S. Civil War ▼▼ ▼▼ 18001800 18501850 18751875 19001900 18251825 1844 Published The Reporters, Chronologically Arranged: with Occasional Remarks upon their Reporting Merits 1884 Died, Philadelphia, Pa. 1863–75 Served as reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court 1812–14 War of 1812 I WAITED IN VAIN TO HEAR THE COMMERCIAL LAW OF MY OWN , FREE, GREAT, COMMERCIAL COUNTRY B ECAUSE NO MAN CAN SAY THAT SUCH A SYSTEM EXISTS . —JOHN W. WALLACE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WALLACE V. JAFFREE 289 religious prayers in the schools which the states and their political subdivisions mandate.” Jaffree, 554 F. Supp. at 1128.] In Jaffree, the district court thus openly rejected decades of settled SUPREME COURT precedents reaching the opposite conclusion. Judge Hand’s opinion was delivered on January 14, 1983. His remarkable conclusions werequickly appealed tothe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the disappointed PLAINTIFF, Jaffree, also made a simultaneous application for a stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 11, 1983, Justice LEWIS F. POWELL granted Jaffree’s application for a stay of Judge Hand’s opinion. Justice Powell stated that the district court was bound by the Supreme Court’s previous decisions, which held that the Establishment Clause, as made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, does indeed prohibit a state from authorizing prayer in the public schools. The Eleventh Circuit reversed Judge Hand’s opinion on May 12, 1983 (Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526, 1536 [11th Cir. 1983]). It concluded that both Alabama Code sections in question, § 16-1-20.1 and § 16-1-20.2, were unconstitu- tional (Jaffree, 705 F.2d at 1535-36), and it agreed with Justice Powell that the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause cases were clear and controlling on the facts as presented to Judge Hand. The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged the extensive scholarly debate over the interplay between the First and Fourteenth Amendments; however, the court made it clear that the U.S. Supreme Court had already considered and decided the historical implications surrounding the Establishment Clause and concluded that its present interpretation of the First and Four- teenth Amendm ents is consistent with the historical evidenc e. In explicit language, the Court of Appeals reiterated that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws; its interpretations may not be disregarded (Jaffree, 705 F.2d at 1532). The state subsequently appealed the ruling of the Eleventh Circuit. Eventually, Wallace v. Jaffree reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to question the application of the Establishment Clause to the states. Jaffree presented the Supreme Court with an opportunity to re-examine the incorporation of the Establishment Clau se, but not a single justice on the Supreme Court expressed any desire to reconsider the Supreme Court deci- sions that had consistently applied the Estab- lishment Clause to the states. The justices refused to comment at length on the district court’s remarkable conclusion that the federal Constitution imposes no obstacle to Alabama’s establishment of a state religion. But the Court did find it appropriate to restate how firmly embedded in constitutional JURISPRUDENCE is the proposition that the states are restrained from curtailing individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Justice SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR wrote a con- curring opinion stating that the First and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees preclude the federal and state governments from making any law establishing a government-sponsored religion. Three members of the Supreme Court dissented in Jaffree: Chief Justice WARREN BURGER, Justice BYRON R. WHITE, and Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST. Chief Justice Burger and Justice White did not challenge the Court’s previous decisions applying the Establishment Clause to the states, but Justice Rehnquist focused his DISSENT on what he believed is the proper reading of the Establishment Clause. Instead of the metaphorical “wal l of separation” be- tween church and state, he concluded that the Founders intended for the Establishment Clause to prevent the federal government from estab- lishing a national church or preferring one religious denomination over another. His dis- sent did not suggest that he had any intention of re-examining the application of the First Amendment to the states. Rather, he accepted without comment the incorporation of the First Amendment and focused his comments on the proper scope of application for the Establish- ment Clause. Wallace v. Jaffree enjoys the dubious distinc- tion of being listed as one of the ten worst non- Supreme Court decisions, in Bernard Schwartz’s A Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Law. Regarding Judge Hand’s conclu- sion that the Establishment Clause did not apply to the state, Schwartz asked rhetorically, “What should be said about the decision of a federal district judge that “overruled” settled Supreme Court jurisprudence?” GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 290 WALLACE V. JAFFREE FURTHER READINGS Hellman, Arthur D., William D. Araiza, and Thomas E. Baker. 2006. First Amendment Law: Freedom of Expres- sion and Freedom of Religion. Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis. Fraser, James W. 1999. Between Church and State: Religion and Public Education in a Multicultural America. New York: St. Martin’s. Schwartz, Bernard. 1997. A Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Law. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Urofsky, Melvin I. 2002. Religious Freedom: Rights and Liberties under the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. CROSS REFERENCE Religion. WALNUT STREET PRISON The Walnut Street Prison was a pioneering effort in prison reform. Originally built as a conven- tional jail just before the American Revolution, it was expanded in 1790 and hailed as a model of enlightened thinking about criminals. The prison, in fact, was known as a “penitentiary” (from the Latin word for remorse). It was designed to pro- vide a severe environment that left inmates much time for reflection, but it was also designed to be cleaner and safer than past prisons. The Walnut Street Prison was one of the forerunners of an entire school of thought on prison construction and reform. The prison was built on Walnut Stree t, in Philadelphia, as a city jail in 1773 to alleviate overcrowding in the existing city jail. Although designed by ROBERT SMITH, Pennsylvania’s most prominent architect, the building was a typical U-shaped building, designed to hold groups of prisoners in large rooms. By and large the role of prisons was to incarcerate criminals. There was little regard for their physical well-being, nor were there any attempts to rehabilitate them. Prisons were overcrowded and dirty, and inmates attacked each other regularly. Those who served their sentences came out of prison probably more inclined toward a criminal life than they were before their incarceration. It was the Quakers of Philadelphia who came up with the concept for what they called a penitentiary—a place where prisoners could reflect on their crime and become truly sorry for what they had done. The Quakers believed that through reflection and repentance, inmates would give up crime and leave prison rehabili- tated. Shortly after the American Revolution, a group of Quakers formed the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, whose goal was made clear in its name. (Later the group became known as the Penn- sylvania Prison Society.) In the years after the Revolution this group worked to encourage prison reform, and its efforts finally paid off in 1790 when the Walnut Street Jail became the first state penitentiary in the country. The main addition to the Walnut Street complex was a new cellblock called the “Penitentiary House.” Built in the courtyard of the existing structure, it included a series of small cells designed to hold individual prison- ers. The cells and the corridors connecting them were designed to prevent prisoners from communicating with each other. Windows were high up (the cells had nine-foot high ceilings) and grated and louvered to prevent prisoners from looking onto the street. Each cell had a mattress, a water tap, and a privy pipe. Inmates were confined to their cells for the duration of their confinement . The only person they saw was the guard and then only briefly once per day. They were sometimes allowed to read in their cells, but for the most part they sat in solitude. The Quakers saw this solitary confinement not as a punishment but as a time for reflection and remorse. That was the reason the inmates were not put to work. Labor, said penitentiary proponents, would preoccupy the inmates and keep them from reflecting on their crimes. The Walnut Street Prison became in part the model for what became known as the “Pennsylvania System” of prison design and philosophy. Other prisons built on the In 1790, Philadelphia’s Walnut Street jail was expanded to alleviate overcrowding. The result was the first U.S. penitentiary, the Walnut Street Prison, shown in the background of this 1799 engraving by William Russell Birch. HULTON ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION WALNUT STREET PRISON 291 Pennsylvania model included a prison in Pittsburgh in 1821, the Eastern State Peniten- tiary (Cherry Hill) in eastern Philadelphia in 1836, and the Trenton State Prison in New Jersey the same year. The concepts of solitary confinement and repentance were key compo- nents of prison life at these institutions, although some Pennsylvania System prisons did introduce labor to the inmates. Visitors from overseas who were interested in prison reform visited Walnut Street, Eastern State, and similar prisons to see how they operated and to gain knowledge about prison reform strategies. Meanwhile, in 1821 a prison was opened in the small upstate New York town of Auburn. That prison, which relied on individual cell- block architecture, required inmates to work 10 hours per day, six days per week. A number of prison reformers believed that by making the inmates work in an atmosphere free of corrup- tion or criminal behavior, they would build new sets of values. The work would rehabilitate them because it would give them a sense of purpose, discipline, and order. This system became known as the “Auburn System,” and it was followed in 1826 with the opening of Sing Sing prison on the banks of the Hudson River. Soon it was clear that the Auburn system worked better at rehabilitating prisoners than the Pennsylvania system, and in the next century the Auburn system became the domi- nant one. Many prisons built to operate under the Pennsylvania System switched to the Auburn System. Vestiges of the Pennsylvania System exist in the philosophy of humane punishment, although no prison in the U.S. as of 2003 would place anyone in near-total isolation except in extreme circumstances. As for Walnut Street, its success was short- lived despite the good intentions of the Quakers. The practical matter of housing prisoners became more pressing than the desire among prison officials to rehabilitate the inmates. Walnut Street became overcrowded and dirty, and there was no sign that isolated prisoners were being rehabilitated through solitude. By the 1830s the prison had outlived its usefulness, and it was closed in 1835. Later it was razed, and a library now stands on the site. FURTHER READINGS Edge, Laura B. 2009. Locked Up: A History of the U.S. Prison System. Minneapolis, Minn.: Twenty-First Century Books. Hirsch, Adam Jay. 1992. The Rise of the Penitentiary: Prisons and Punishment in Early America. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. Johnston, Norman. 2000. Forms of Constraint: A History of Prison Architecture. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press. WANT The absence or deficiency of what is needed or desired. Want of jurisdiction, for example, is a lack of authority to exercise in a particular manner a power possessed by a tribunal or board. WANT OF CONSIDERATION A comprehensive term for all transactions or situations where no inducement to a contract was intended to pass between the parties thereto and, therefore, no legally enforceable contract is created. Want of consideration differs from failure of consideration, which refers to a situation wherein consideration was originally existing and valid but has since become valueless or ceased to exist. WANTON Grossly careless or negligent; reckless; malicious. The term wanton implies a reckless disre- gard for the consequences of one’s behavior. A wanton act is one done in heedless disregard for the life, limbs, health, safety, reputation, or property rights of another individual. Such an act is more than NEGLIGENCE or gross negligence; it is equivalent in its results to an act of willful misconduct. A wanton injury is one precipitated by a conscious and intentional wrongful act or by an omission of a known obligation with reckless indifference to potential harmful consequences. WAPENTAKE A local division of a shire or county in old ENGLISH LAW ; the term used north of the Trent River for the territory called a hundred in other parts of England. The name wapentake is said to come from weapon and take, an indication that it referred to an area organized for military purposes. WAR Open and declared conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 292 WANT Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war. In addition, Congress is given sole authority by the Constitution “To raise and support armies” and “To provide for calling forth the MILITIA to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel inva- sions.” The U.S. Constitution also spells out the military powers of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : he or she serves as commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces. Throughout U.S. history, there have been conflicts between the legislative and executive branches over who has the greater military power. In practice, regard- less of constitutional doctrin e, the EXECUTIVE BRANCH usually prevails. Executive Military Power Such PRESIDENTIAL POWER is illustrated by Presi- dent ABRAHAM LINCOLN’s actions at the beginning of the Civil War. In the ten weeks between the fall of Fort Sumter and the convening of Congress in July 1861, Lincoln made war preparations based on his authority as com- mander in chief. He initiated the drafting of men for military service, approved of a Southern naval blockade, and suspended the writ of HABEAS CORPUS. Congress later ratified most of Lincoln’s actions. In the twentieth century, several U.S. presidents have committed U.S. armed forces without a declaration of war. In 1903 and 1904, President THEODORE ROOSEVELT took military action in Panama and the Dominican Repub lic without consulting Congress. President WOO- DROW WILSON sent troops into Mexico without congressional approval. However, the most serious infractions began in 1951, when Presi- dent HARRY S. TRUMAN ordered troops to Korea as part of a UNITED NATIONS “police action.” This was followed, in the 1960s and 1970s, by the VIETNAM WAR, which Presidents JOHN F. KENNED Y, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, and RICHARD M. NIXON prosecuted without a congressional declaration; in the 1980s, by the invasion of Grenada, which President RONALD REAGAN carried out without a declaration of war; in the 1990s, by the Gulf War, which was prosecuted by President GEORGE H .W. BUSH without a formal declaration of war; and, in the 2000s, by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which were undertaken by President GEORGE W. BUSH. Congress attempted to alter the balance of power by passing the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541 et seq.), which restricts the presi dent’s power to mobilize the military during undeclared war. In a national emergency, the act allows the president to dispatch troops without consulting Congress. The president must, however, notify Congress within 48 hours, and the duration of time that troops can be commi tted in a foreign location is limited. The act also provides a VETO mechanism that allows Congress to force a recall of troops at any time. The act has not prevented subsequent presidents from taking military action. For example, in 1990, without seeking approval from Congress, President George H.W. Bush sent troops to Saudi Arabia in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In 2002, with war with Iraq imminent, President George W. Bush proposed a resolution that would allow him to declare war at a time of his own choosing, without having to consult with Congress first. Congress approved the authorization in 2002, and President Bush declared war on Iraq in March 2003. Status and Rights of Citizens During a time of war, the U.S. government may properly compel the services of all its citizens via military CONSCRIPTION, also known as the draft. Any citizen who resists compulsory military service may be prosecuted for draft evasion. Any citizen who actively takes up arms against the United States during a time of war or who gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during a time of war can be prosecuted for TREASON. The United States also has the power to recall nationals who are abroad and subject them to penalty if they do not obey. The government can take steps it deems necessary for national security against enemy ALIENS. Enemy aliens residing in the United States at the outbreak of a declared war or who enter the United States during a war are properly subject to arrest, detention, intern- ment, or DEPORTATION. Enemy Intercourse The general rule is that, during a declared war, all intercourse, correspondence, and traffic between U.S. citizens and subjects of enemy states that might be advantageous or provide comfort to the enemy are prohibited. For example, it is illegal to transmit money across enemy lines. In addition, a U.S. citizen cannot lawfully make a contract GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WAR 293 with a citizen of an enemy state while war exists, and any such contract is, therefore, void. The laws of war proscribe all trading with the enemy and all other commercial relations while a state of war exists. Requisition of Private Property In times of war, Congress and the president, as commander in chief, have the power to requisition private property necessary for the war effort. A military commander can seize or requisi- tion a citizen’s property for public use or to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. The commander can do this, however, only in situations involving imminent and impending danger or necessity. The services and production of a business organization, such as a shipping company, can properly be requisitioned. An individual whose private property is requisitioned is entitled to fair compensation. However, the compensation does not have to be paid in advan ce or at the time the property is seized. When compensation is made, the owner is entitled to receive the reasonable value of the property. The market value of the requisitioned property is generally used as the measure of fair compensation. Martial Rule Martial rule exists when military authorities exercise varying degrees of control over civilians in territory where, due to war or public commotion, the civil government is not able to maintain order and enforce the law. War Powers of the U.S. Government The power of the federal government to conduct war extends to every matter and activity that has an effect on its conduct and progress. The war powers embrace every phase of national defense, including the mobilization and use of all resources of the nation and the protection of war materials. Most of these powers have not been used since WORLD WAR II, because the United States did not fight under a declaration of war while engaged in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. Congress has the authority to stimulate the production of the war equipment and supplies by all proper methods, including the payment of subsidies or the imposition of limits on profits. Congress can control the food supply during war to ensure that military and civilian needs are met. Other materials may be rationed as well, including gasoline. Congress also can regulate and contro l prices as a wartime emergency measure to prevent inflation. Price controls are designated to stabilize economic conditions, prevent speculative and abnormal increases in prices, increase production, and ensure a sufficient supply of goods at fair prices. The federal government can also impose rent control on housing. Civil liberties can also be curtailed during wartime. The government can censor news that affects national security, such as reports of troop movements. It is within the power of Congress to enact SEDITION laws that prohibit political speech that disrupts the war effort or gives AID AND COMFORT to the enemy. During the early months of U.S. involve- ment in World War II, President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT ordered the removal of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast. At the time the action was justified on national security grounds, because military commanders believed that California was vulnerable to Japanese spies and saboteurs. The U.S. Supreme Court, in KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944), upheld the removal. Thousands of Japanese Americans lost their property and businesses and were “relo- cated” to concentration camps for the duration of the war. The September 11 Attacks and the U.S Response The SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS against New York City and Washington, D.C., altered the way the world views military conflicts in a number of ways. Although the September 11 attacks were compared by many to the Pearl Harbor attack of 1941, there was one major difference between the two attacks. The attack on Pearl Harbor was carried out by the military forces of a sovereign nation, Japan, while the September 11 attacks were carried out by a decentralized terrorist organization—al Qaeda—whose members hailed from different countries. After the attacks, the first question, then, was what would be an appropriate response to a deadly attack by non-state, individual actors? The United States answered this question by announcing that it would hold responsible any GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 294 WAR country harboring members of al Qaeda. Since U.S. intelligence indicated that the Taliban government in Afghanistan had been allowing al Qaeda to use that country as sanctuary in which to plan the attacks, the U.S. military launched an invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban, which it successfully completed in the spring of 2002. The next issue was how the United States would address future threats from other countries that were avowed enemies of the United States. These countries possessed WEAP- ONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) that the countries had deployed in the past and were now capable of deploying against the United States via a terrorist organization. According to a January 2003 report by United Nations’ inspector Hans Blix, Iraq had failed to demon- strate that it had dismantled the stockpile of WMD it had built during the 1990s. Based in part on this report and intelligence gathered from other sources, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Whereas the invasion effectively removed Iraq President Saddam Hussein from power, no WMD were ever found. The United States’ pre-emptive military operation against Iraq, which was unprece- dented and controversial to begin with, received another black eye when it was revealed that many unlawful enemy combatants–a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of- war status under the Geneva Conventions because they failed to comply with the RULES OF WAR requiring armed combata nts to wear uniforms and carry arms openly–detained by the United States were undergoing harsh interrogation met hods that many believed constituted torture or WAR CRIMES. Although more than 500 U.S. military personnel were accused of war crimes in connection with the Iraq in vasion, fewer than 60 of them were convicted. However, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for further judicial proceedings brought against the U.S. military, when it ruled that persons detained at the U.S Naval Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to seek habeas CORPUS review regarding the legality of their detention. Boumediene v. Bush, —U.S.—, 128 S. Ct. 2229, 171 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2008). As the U.S. response to ongoing terrorist threats continues, historians, politicians, and the legal community struggle to place these recent developments in the larger context of more conventional experiences in prior military conflicts. FURTHER READINGS Hardy, Colleen E. 2009. The Detention of Unlawful Enemy Combatants During the War on Terror. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Pub. Lewis, Michael W., ed. The War on Terror and the Laws of War: A Military Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Wittes, Benjamin, ed. 2009. Legislating the War on Terror: An Agenda for Reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. CROSS REFERENCES Armed Services; Arms Control and Disarmament; Japanese American Evacuation Cases; Korean War; Martial Law; Military Government; Military Law; Military Occupation; Militia; Milligan, Ex parte; Rules of War; Tonkin Gulf Resolution; War Crimes; World War I. WAR CRIMES Acts that violate the international laws, treaties, customs, and practices governing military conflict between belligerent states or parties. War crimes may be committed by a country’s regular armed forces, such as its army, navy, or air force, or by irregular armed forces, such as guerrillas and insurgents. Soldiers may be punished for war crimes, as may military and political leaders, members of the judiciary, industrialists, and civilians who are enlisted by a belligerent to contravene the RULES OF WAR. However, isolated instances of TERRORISM and single acts of rebellion are rarely, if ever, treated as war crimes punishable under the international rules of warfare. Instead, they are ordinarily treated as criminal violations punish- able under the domestic laws of the country in which they occur. Crimes against Peace Most war crimes fall into one of three categories: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and traditional war crimes. Crimes against peace include the planning, commence- ment, and waging of aggressive war, or war in violation of international agreements. Aggres- sive war is broadly defined to include any hostile military act that disregards the territorial boundaries of another country, disrespects the political independence of another regime, or otherwise interferes with the sovereignty of an internationally recognized state. Wars fought in SELF-DEFENSE are not aggressive wars. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WAR CRIMES 295 Following WORLD WAR II, for example, the Allies prosecuted a number of leading Nazi officials at the NUREMBERG TRIALS for crimes against peace. During the war, the Nazis had invaded and occupied a series of sovereign states, including France, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Austria. Because those invasions were made in an effort to accumulate wealth, power, and territory for the Third Reich, Nazi officials could not claim to be acting in self-defense. Thus, those officials who participated in the planning, initiation, or execution of those invasions were guilty of crimes against peace. Hermann Göring, chief of the Luftwaffe (the German Air Force), was one Nazi official who was convicted of crimes against peace at the Nuremberg trials. The international military tribunal presiding at Nuremberg, composed of judges selected from the four Allied powers (France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States), found that Göring had helped plan and carry out the invasions of Poland and Austria and had ordered the destruction of Rotterdam, Holland, after the city had effectively surrendered. Crimes against Humanity Crimes against humanity include the DEPORTA- TION , enslavemen t, torture, persecution, and extermination of certain peoples based on their race, religion, ethnic origin, or some other identifiable characteristic. This category of war crimes was created almost entirely from the catalog of atrocities committed by the Nazi regime in World War II. Although other regimes have since committed horrors of their own, the Nazis established the standard by which the wartime misconduct of all subse- quent regimes is now measured. As part of the Nazi blitzkrieg, the Germans constructed concentration camps around Eur- ope where they gassed, tortured, and inciner- ated millions of Jews and other persons they deemed impure or subversive to the so-called Aryan race. Millions of others who escaped this fate were deported to Nazi labor camps in occupied countries where they were compelled at gunpoint to work on behalf of the Third Reich. The Nazi leaders who were responsible for implementing this totalitarian system of terror were guilty of crimes against humanity. Many Nazi leaders were prosecuted for crimes against humanity during the Nuremberg trials. For example, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, head of the Nazi security organization in charge of the Gestapo (the German secret police), was convicted and sentenced to death based on evidence that he had authorized the extermina- tion of Jews at concentration camps and ordered the CONSCRIPTION and deportation of civilians to foreign labor camps. More than 50 years later, the United States was again involved in high-profile accusations of war crimes, only this time members of the U.S. military were accused of committing them. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., the administration of GEORGE W. BUSH declared WAR ON TERRORISM and launched military invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. During the course of those armed conflicts, the United States detained persons they deemed “unlawful combatants,” a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner -of-war status under the Geneva Conventions because they failed to comply with the rules of war requiring that armed combatants wear uniforms and carry arms openly. The U.S. military detained these alleged unlawful combatants all over the world. Some were detained locally, at prisons near the battlefields in Afgh anistan and Iraq, includ- ing a prison in Baghdad called Abu Ghraib. Former Nazi prison guard John Demjanjuk was deported from the United States in 2009 after a Munich court charged him with being an accessory to murder in the death of 29,000 Jews during World War II. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 296 WAR CRIMES Others were shipped to the U.S Naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Untold numbers were sent by the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) to secret prisons across the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Asia, via a process known as “extraordinary rendition,” where they were reportedly subject to harsh interrogations. Over the course of the two wars, hundreds of detainees have alleged war crimes by the United States. Of the more than 500 U.S. military personnel who have been accused of war crimes in the last eight years, fewer than 60 of them have been convicted. However, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for further judicial proceedings brought against the U.S. military when it ruled that persons detained at the U.S Naval Facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a constitutional right to seek HABEAS CORPUS review regarding the legality of their detention. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. —, 128 S. Ct. 2229, 171 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2008). Traditional War Crimes Traditional war crimes consist of those acts that violate the accepted customs, prac tices, and laws of warfare that have been followed by civilized nations for centuries. These rules of war prescribe the rights and obligations of belliger- ent states, prisoners of war, and occupying powers, as well as those of combatants and civilians. They also set restrictions on the types of weapons that belligerents may employ during combat. Soldiers, officers, and members of the high command can all be held responsible for violating the accepted customs and practices of war, regardless of whether they issue an order commanding an illegal act or simply follow such an order. Soldiers, officers, and the high command can also be held responsible for failing to prevent war crimes. Military personnel in a position of authority have an obligation to instruct their subordinates on the customs and practices of war and a duty to supervise and oversee their conduct on the battlefield. A military commander who neglects this duty can be punished for any war crimes committed by his troops. Following World War II, for example, Japanese General Tomoyuki Yama- shita was prosecuted and sent enced to death by a U.S. military tribunal in the South Pacific for dereliction of duty in “failing to provide effective control” of his troops who had massacred, raped, and pillaged innocent noncombatant civilians and mistreated U.S. prisoners of war in the Philippines (Christenson 1991, 491). Recent Developments For more than five centuries, the rules of war have been applied to military conflicts between countries. Until the last decade, many observers contended that the rules of war do not govern hostilities between combatants in civil wars that take place wholly within the territorial bound- aries of a single state. However, during the 1990s, the UNITED NATIONS established two international military tribunals to investigate and prosecute war crimes that allegedly took place in the civil wars fought within Bosnia- Herzegovina and Rwanda. The two tri bunals indicted soldiers and other combatants in both countries for com- mitting a litany of war crimes, including the torture of political and military enemies, the programmatic raping of women, and GENOCIDE. Although the litigants questioned the jurisdic- tion and authority of each tribunal, trials proceeded against certain defendants who had been captured. Thus, the theater in which war crimes can be committed and punished has expanded from international military conflicts to intra-national civil wars. In 1998 the United Nations established the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC) with the signing of the Rome Treaty. The court, which came into force on July 1, 2002, is the first permanent international criminal tribunal. Many countries over the course of a number of years expressed the need for such a perma- nent court, but politics during the COLD WAR and other factors prevented its creation. The treaty, however, received widespread international support upon its signing. The ICC is empow- ered to hear three major types of cases, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The United States originally signed the treaty on December 31, 2000, but did so with reservations. One claim was that the court could be used to prosecute troops based on the political motivations of other nations. The United States introduced an amendment to the treaty that would have given U.N. security council members the right to VETO certain prosecutions, but the amendment w as rejected. Even when President BILL CLINTON signed the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WAR CRIMES 297 . cannot lawfully make a contract GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION WAR 293 with a citizen of an enemy state while war exists, and any such contract is, therefore, void. The laws of war. IT YOURSELF . —GEORGE C. WALLACE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 288 WALLACE, JOHN WILLIAM During the 1840s and early 1850s Wallace concentrated on the scholarly examination of English law reports. conflict between the armed forces of two or more states or nations. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 292 WANT Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress