The September 11 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon have been nearly universally condemned as barbarous acts. About the horror, there can be no doubt. Yet even as they watched the Towers fall, and in the pivotal days that followed, leaders disagreed about how, exactly, to define what they were seeing. Was it war? Terrorism? A crime against humanity? An unprecedented combination of atrocities? Definitions matter, for they determine what sort of response is permissible and what body of international law applies.

In an attempt to clarify these issues, the Crimes of War Magazine immediately launched an Ongoing Special Edition on the ramifications of the September 11 attacks. As events unfold over the coming months, we will continue to invite leading experts to analyze and debate the legal challenges, crises and remedies provoked by the attacks themselves, the U.S. military response, the conduct of hostilities among all the factions on the ground, and potential opportunities in military, civilian, and transnational courts.

Our Special Edition focuses on:

• "Trial, Detention or Release?"
  Interviews and introduction by Anthony Dworkin
  Eight months after the attacks of September 11, the United States has more than four hundred people in detention at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan. The Defense Department has produced rules for the military commissions that have been authorized to try them, but it remains unclear what the captives might be charged with, or how long they could be detained. We explore the options that the administration seems to be considering, and ask whether they are in line with accepted legal principles.
  
  
• "POWs or Unlawful Combatants?"
  Interviews and Introduction by Stacy Sullivan
  In January 2002, amid an international outcry at the treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees being held by US forces at Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, the United States announced that the captives are not prisoners of war, but rather "unlawful combatants." Granting the detainees POW status would have entitled them to the protections of the Geneva Conventions and provided them with immunity for all lawful acts of war committed during the conflict in Afghanistan. Most of our legal experts believe the Bush Administration erred in denying the detainees POW status and set a dangerous precedent for US troops who might be detained by foreign enemies in the future.
  
  
• "Prosecuting Al Qaeda"
  Interviews and Introduction by Marguerite Feitlowitz
  How best to prosecute those responsible for September 11 has been a matter of intense debate among legal scholars. President Bush’s November 13 Executive Order establishing closed military commissions for non-U.S. citizens suspected of involvement with the terrorist network reassures those who privilege speed, expediency and security protections in a context of war and terrorist threat. Other commentators fear that defendants will be deprived of legal protections and dangerous precedents will be set. In "Prosecuting Al Qaeda," our experts set this this [executive] order in historical context, and analyze its strengths and weaknesses.

• "Terrorism and the Laws of War"
  Interviews and Introduction by Marguerite Feitlowitz
  a series of interviews with military and civilian scholars who debate the definition of the attacks, the parameters of self-defense, and the potential risk for war crimes in a U.S-led military campaign.
  
  
• "Is This a New Kind of War?"
  Interviews and Introduction by Marguerite Feitlowitz
  In response to President Bush’s late-September declaration that "the war [would] be fought not just by soldiers, but by police and intelligence forces, as well as in financial institutions," we asked a range of specialists if there was a paradigm shift in the nature of war. A U.S. military legal expert argues, "This is nothing new, war has always been fought on numerous fronts." A former State Department legal advisor insists the "paradigm shift happened in 1985, with the introduction of the concept of peremptory self-defense, in response to a terrorist attack by Libyan operatives." An eminent Islamic legal scholar says the "paradigm shift, for those who see one, is in the proof of our shared vulnerability, which should encourage us all to take international law more seriously."
  
  

In addition to expansive Expert Analyses on complex questions as they arise, there is On the News, an incisive monitor of important current events. We begin with reports of war crimes on both sides of the conflict: the Northern Alliance is accused of summarily executing prisoners of war; the Taliban have committed perfidy by ambushing Alliance forces under cover of a fake surrender. We present these reports in context, and provide additional references and commentary.

The aftermath of September 11 will be long, complicated, and controversial. The Crimes of War Project will continue to translate, illuminate, and analyze the conflicts on the ground, the most relevant laws, and the precedents that are bound to be established.