While blogs or Wikis undoubtedly have an important, expressive place in legal discourse, these short-form outlets leave the demand for timely, interactive legal discourse unfulfilled. Printed law journals and online repositories like SSRN or Berkeley Electronic Press cannot address these needs either. This article introduces Indiana Law Journal's expanded publication, the Indiana Law Journal Supplement, and explains how the new online, short-form journal meets the Journal's original purpose and fills an important void left by other outlets.

The Indiana Law Journal has consistently been one of the few top-tier law journals to both encourage and publish significant student works. Ideas that advance the practice of law are no less vital simply because students - at Indiana or elsewhere - developed them. The article describes how the Supplement enables the Journal to amplify the focus on ideas, rather than who holds them. By offering both the interactivity and timeliness of blogs and the established path of legal scholarship provided by traditional law reviews, the Journal can further the purposes it first outlined in 1925.

In June 2006, the Supreme Court invalidated President Bush’s military commission rules in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The Court held that the military commissions fell outside of the military court system established by Congress, and ruled the commissions unconstitutional as applied to both citizens and non-citizens. Congress responded with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“the Act”), new legislation to establish military commissions. The Act fails to balance properly the Court’s fairness requirements with the extraordinary demands placed on the laws of war by terrorism.

This Note summarizes whether terrorist attacks implicate the laws of war, what protections are due parties detained in the War on Terror, and concludes that only the laws applicable to non-international armed conflicts govern Al Qaeda’s attacks. After examining Justice Kennedy’s safe harbor in his Hamdan concurrence, the Note considers the procedures of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. In light of the Court’s decision in Hamdan, as well as the provisions of the Geneva Conventions that it incorporates, the Military Commissions Act fails to uphold the fairness standards expressed by the Court. The Act would require significant revisions before it could withstand constitutional scrutiny, even in wartime.