Tag Archives: Military Commissions

Symposium on Military Justice | October 2021

National Institute of Military Justice logo

Hosted by National Institute of Military Justice (in honor of NIMJ’s 30th anniversary)

The following pieces are from the “30 Years of Military Justice” symposium held on Oct. 28, 2021, with keynote speaker Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and in partnership with Georgetown University Law Center’s Center on National Security and the Law, the Journal of National Security Law & Policy, and the Georgetown National Security Law and Military Law Societies.

Keynote Address | Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Military Retiree Court-Martial Jurisdiction: Trials and Tribulations | Philip D. Cave & Kevin M. Hagey

The Good Officer? Evaluating General Milley’s Constitutional Dilemma | John C. Dehn

Tort Remedies in Military Prisons and Brigs | Brenner M. Fissell & Max Jesse Goldberg

Reassessing the Ahistorical Judicial Use of William Winthrop
and Frederick Bernays Wiener
| Joshua Kastenberg

Preliminary Hearings in the United States Military | Franklin D. Rosenblatt

Sentencing Considerations & Their Implications on Foreign Policy

At JNSLP’s Feb. 11, 2015 symposium on “Trials and Terrorism: The Implications of Trying National Security Cases in Article III Courts,” an expert panel was convened to discuss trends in sentencing considerations in Article III terrorism prosecutions, and what the implications for these cases portend for american foreign policy. The panel consisted of a judge, a government official and former prosecutor, academics,  and sentencing experts. 

The Implications of Trying National Security Cases in Article III Courts

The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan draws on his voluminous experience on the federal bench to illuminate some of the special concerns that attend terrorism and national security cases. Kaplan reviews several judicial challenges unique to terrorism cases, including classified information issues and the use of defendants’ statements in the course of prosecution. He concludes that Article III courts not only are capable of trying such cases, but they are the forum most consistent with our American values of fairness and transparency.