Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This note argues that given the recent changes in the 2009 MCA the overall scheme for prosecuting material support of terrorism offenses is satisfactory (i.e., material support crimes should remain under the jurisdiction of both forums), but that the jurisdiction of military commissions over material support offenses should be limited to those providing material support to further specific acts of terrorism (as opposed to generalized support) and to those giving aid to terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations (hereinafter ―FTOs) in active theaters of war.
American Punitive Damages Vs. Compensatory Damages In Promoting Enforcement In Democratic Nations Of Civil Judgements To Deter State-Sponsors Of Terrorism, Jeffrey F. Addicott
American Punitive Damages Vs. Compensatory Damages In Promoting Enforcement In Democratic Nations Of Civil Judgements To Deter State-Sponsors Of Terrorism, Jeffrey F. Addicott
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Unfortunately, while the United States has established several legal avenues for civil litigation by private citizens of terror attacks against States that sponsor terrorism, a major stumbling block in terms of effectiveness rests in the reality that fellow democratic nations in the international community refuse to honor or domesticate the monetary judgments of American courts. Acknowledging that there are a plethora of political and legal obstacles associated with establishing a workable mechanism for fellow democracies to enforce the “terror” judgments of American courts, one reason that is often raised by critics is the strong objection to the matter of American …
Trends And Issues In Terrorism And The Law: Foreword, Thomas J. Cleary
Trends And Issues In Terrorism And The Law: Foreword, Thomas J. Cleary
University of Massachusetts Law Review
The introduction to the issue discusses the history of UMass Law Review and its contribution to legal scholarship.
The Pond Betwixt: Differences In The U.S.-Eu Data Protection/Safe Harbor Negotiation, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
The Pond Betwixt: Differences In The U.S.-Eu Data Protection/Safe Harbor Negotiation, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
Faculty Publications
This article analyzes the differing perspectives that animate US and EU conceptions of privacy in the context of data protection. It begins by briefly reviewing the two continental approaches to data protection and then explains how the two approaches arise in a context of disparate cultural traditions with respect to the role of law in society. In light of those disparities, Underpinning contemporary data protection regulation is the normative value that both US and EU societies place on personal privacy. Both cultures attribute modern privacy to the famous Warren-Brandeis article in 1890, outlining a "right to be let alone." But …
A Jurisprudential Divide In U.S. V. Wong & U.S. V. June, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
A Jurisprudential Divide In U.S. V. Wong & U.S. V. June, Richard J. Peltz-Steele
Faculty Publications
In spring 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two consolidated cases construing the Federal Tort Claims Act, U.S. v. Kwai Fun Wong and U.S. v June, Conservator. The Court majority, 5-4, per Justice Kagan, ruled in favor of the claimants and against the Government in both cases. On the face of the majority opinions, Wong and June come off as straightforward matters of statutory construction. But under the surface, the cases gave the Court a chance to wrestle with fundamental questions of statutory interpretation. The divide in Wong and June concerns the role of the courts vis-à-vis Congress — one …
Do Med Schools Do It Better?: Improving Law School Admissions By Adopting A Medical School Admissions Model, Rebecca C. Flanagan
Do Med Schools Do It Better?: Improving Law School Admissions By Adopting A Medical School Admissions Model, Rebecca C. Flanagan
Faculty Publications
The differences between legal education and medical education start before students enter their post- graduate professions programs: the differences in the preparation begin during a period of undergraduate years. This article briefly compares pre-law and pre-medical undergraduate preparations, and discusses how the differences in preparation shape preparedness in professional school. Taking cues from the successes in pre-med preparation, this article provides recommendations for improving the law school admissions model by adopting more rigorous pre-law preparation standards. The recommendations in this articles are necessary prerequisite for law schools looking to produce the “practice ready” graduates that the public demands.