Abel Girma IB History Mr Greenough March 2013 “An unnatural alliance that was bound to fall apart after the defeat of the common enemy.” To what extent does this statement explain the origin of the Cold War? World War II ended in May 1945 when the Allied troops met in Berlin‚ marking the defeat of the Nazi government. The US and USSR cooperated during the war to defeat the Axis although each had prewar tensions and differing ideologies which were reflected by disagreements over plans for post-War
Free Soviet Union World War II Cold War
was‚ as historian Caroline Kennedy-Pipe says‚ it was an ‘alliance of desperation‚ not trust’‚ and thus it would appear one of convenience‚ rather than voluntarial. One of the more simplistic reasons for the alliance was the need to defeat a common enemy – by uniting‚ it would be both easier and more efficient to work together to achieve a common goal. Stalin was afraid of German invasion‚ and so the Nazi-Soviet Pact signed on the 28th August‚ 1939 was a promise of neutrality between each other if
Premium World War II Soviet Union Cold War
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Thompson‚ 1 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Detained Enemy Combatants Michael Thompson Liberty High School AP Government 4A Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was a very controversial case in the early 21st century. With terrorism being a striking topic at the time‚ the rights of alleged enemy combatants was argued in the Supreme Court in 2004. This case determined the rights of enemy combatants and assured the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of Due Process is available to all U
Premium United States George W. Bush President of the United States
Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror POL201: American National Government (GSI1323E) Instructor: July 8‚ 2013 Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror Habeas Corpus has been a part of our history for many years. It has been used only when the feel the need to use it and also it has been suspended by two of our former president. Habeas Corpus “is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person ’s imprisonment or detention
Premium Supreme Court of the United States President of the United States United States
ruling on the validity of holding Padilla under the material witness warrant was issued‚ President George Bush made an order to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant. The president’s order was justified by public law 107-40‚ which authorizes the detention of an American citizen designated as an enemy combatant. Padilla’s detention as an enemy combatant was because he was closely associated with al Qaeda‚ which was at war with the U.S. He had also engaged in war like activities such as preparing for
Premium United States Supreme Court of the United States George W. Bush
the President has power under his right as the Commander- in- Chief‚ he is still subject to the interpretation of what is legally right based upon the laws of the Constitution. Such laws allow him the right to detain and try prisoners of war/ enemy combatants based upon military statutes and political authorizations. U.S. citizens hold certain civil liberties‚ one in particular being the right to know the charges brought against them in the event that they are detained for any crime. This civil
Premium President of the United States Supreme Court of the United States United States
2012). An assumption made by the Bush administration in selecting this location was that it was beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The administration wanted to avoid any judicial oversight of how it handled detainees‚ characterized as “enemy combatants.” A possible legal challenge to indefinite detention with no formal charges or judicial proceedings might arise from the habeas corpus provision of the Constitution. Article I‚ Section 9 of the Constitution states‚ “The Privilege of the Writ
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus Boumediene v. Bush
The decisions the President has to make must be in the best interest of the country‚ and of the world. Although war is unpopular with many people‚ it is unavoidable in certain circumstances. During wartime‚ many American people want known enemy combatants to have their rights upheld while being detained. Unfortunately‚ this is not always feasible. One has to understand that the taking of the liberty of a handful of people to save the lives of thousands‚ or even millions of people is an unavoidable
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus
In the Judiciary Act of 1789‚ the courts granted the power to issue habeas corpus to prisoners in federal custody. What does the United States do with enemy combatants? Should they be protected under habeas corpus? In this paper‚ I will discuss the role of habeas corpus and if it should be used on enemy combatants of war on terror. In English habeas corpus was passed by King Charles II in 1679. The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 became known as the Habeas Corpus Parliament of England
Premium Supreme Court of the United States President of the United States United States
there are instances throughout history where it was suspended. For example‚ President Bush signed a law in 2006 which would suspend it to persons "determined by the United States to be an enemy combatant in the Global War on terror" (Longley‚ Par. 1). This was an effort to reduce terrorism and create trial methods for those identified as terrorists. At the time‚ this was a controversial law because many believed that even a domestic terrorist
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States President of the United States