Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Stacking The Deck Against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits On The Government's Power To Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens As Enemy Combatants, Nickolas A. Kacprowski
Stacking The Deck Against Suspected Terrorists: The Dwindling Procedural Limits On The Government's Power To Indefinitely Detain United States Citizens As Enemy Combatants, Nickolas A. Kacprowski
Seattle University Law Review
This Note examines Padilla v. Bush as an example of the contemporary application of enemy combatant law. This Note argues that in present and future applications of enemy combatant law, courts should treat Padilla as the preferred model of application because Padilla preserves more Constitutional protections, specifically the right to counsel in bringing a habeas petition, than do Hamdi or Quirin. The Padilla decision is preferable to Hamdi because Padilla restricts the movement of enemy combatant law away from the ex- press criminal protections of the Constitution. In contrast, Hamdi greatly accelerates such movement.
Quirin Revisited, Carl W. Tobias
Quirin Revisited, Carl W. Tobias
Law Faculty Publications
Six decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ex parte Quirin, in which the Justices determined that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt possessed the requisite constitutional authority to institute and use a military commission.
On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush promulgated an Executive Order (Bush Order) that authorized the establishment and application of military commissions as well as purported to eliminate whatever jurisdiction federal courts might have by statute and to deny federal court access to individuals prosecuted or detained for terrorism. The Bush administration substantially premised that the Order and jurisdiction-stripping proviso on Ex parte Quirin. It has …