Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 15 of 15
Full-Text Articles in Law
On Clandestine Warfare, Robert E. Rodes
On Clandestine Warfare, Robert E. Rodes
Robert Rodes
Common moral judgments on many types of clandestine warfare, referred to by some as terrorism, seem to be more nuanced and less severe than our current legal judgments. This paper begins by offering a detailed typology of clandestine operations and measures to combat them, a few general reflections on the laws of war, and a critique of those laws as they now stand. It then proposes a substantial revision of the laws which govern clandestine warfare based on four basic principles of the laws and the morality of just war: the independence of jus in bello from the jus ad …
To Kill Or Capture Suspects In The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
To Kill Or Capture Suspects In The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
Presents a speech by law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, delivered at the Case Western Reserve School of Law's War Crimes Research Symposium, February 28, 2003. Legal implications of pursuing terror suspects using military action by the U.S. government; Components of armed conflict; Analysis of the United States' involvement in the internal armed conflict in the Philippines.
The Choice Of Law Against Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
The Choice Of Law Against Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
The Obama administration has continued to apply the wartime paradigm first developed by the Bush administration after 9/11 to respond to terrorism. In cases of trials before military commissions, indefinite detention, and targeted killing, the U.S. has continued to claim wartime privileges even with respect to persons and situations far from any battlefield. This article argues that both administrations have made a basic error in the choice of law. Wartime privileges may be claimed when armed conflict conditions prevail as defined by international law. These privileges are not triggered by declarations or policy preferences.
The Legal Case Against The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
The Legal Case Against The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
Lawful Self-Defense To Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Lawful Self-Defense To Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter
The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter
Judith L Ritter
By filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, a prisoner initiates a legal proceeding collateral to the direct appeals process. Federal statutes set forth the procedure and parameters of habeas corpus review. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) first signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, included significant cut-backs in the availability of federal writs of habeas corpus. This was by congressional design. Yet, despite the dire predictions, for most of the first decade of AEDPA’s reign, the door to habeas relief remained open. More recently, however, the Supreme Court reinterpreted a key portion …
Defending Human Rights In The "War" Against Terror, Douglass Cassel
Defending Human Rights In The "War" Against Terror, Douglass Cassel
Douglass Cassel
No abstract provided.
U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack
U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack
Wayne McCormack
One of the principal victims in the U.S. so-called "war on terror" has been the independence of the U.S. Judiciary. Time and again, challenges to assertedly illegal conduct on the part of government officials have been turned aside without addressing the merits, either because of overt deference to the Government or because of special doctrines such as state secrets and standing requirements. This paper catalogs the principal cases first by the nature of the government action challenged and then by the special doctrines invoked. The U.S. judiciary has virtually relinquished its valuable role of judicial review. In the face of …
Kiobel, Extraterritoriality, And The "Global War On Terrorism", Craig Martin
Kiobel, Extraterritoriality, And The "Global War On Terrorism", Craig Martin
Craig Martin
For the purpose of exploring the issues of extraterritoriality raised in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., this project sought to examine how the federal courts have considered extraterritoriality in cases arising in the so-called “global war on terror” (GWOT). The inquiry leads to some new and arguably important observations about extraterritoriality in the GWOT policies and related jurisprudence. The plaintiffs in Kiobel claimed, under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), that the defendant corporations were liable for complicity in Nigeria’s conduct of indefinite detention, torture, and extrajudicial killing. The U.S. Supreme Court departed from the issue of corporate liability under …
Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw
Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw
Gary M. Shaw
The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"
Terrorism And Associations, Ashutosh A. Bhagwat
Terrorism And Associations, Ashutosh A. Bhagwat
Ashutosh Bhagwat
The domestic manifestation of the War on Terror has produced the most difficult and sustained set of controversies regarding the limits on First Amendment protections for political speech and association since the anti-Communist crusades of the Red Scare and McCarthy eras. An examination of the types of domestic terrorism prosecutions that have become common since the September 11 attacks reveals continuing and unresolved conflicts between national security needs and traditional protections for speech and (especially) associational freedoms. Yet the courts have barely begun to acknowledge, much less address, these serious issues. In the Supreme Court’s only sustained engagement with these …
'Lesser Evils' In The War On Terrorism, Mark A. Drumbl
'Lesser Evils' In The War On Terrorism, Mark A. Drumbl
Mark A. Drumbl
No abstract provided.
Guantanamo, Rasul, And The Twilight Of Law, Mark A. Drumbl
Guantanamo, Rasul, And The Twilight Of Law, Mark A. Drumbl
Mark A. Drumbl
In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. In this paper, I explore what has happened since the Rasul decision: most notably, the introduction of combatant status review tribunals as a response to Rasul and the challenges that have been filed thereto and adjudicated in the federal courts (Khalid, In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases); the charges brought against certain detainees by military commissions and challenges to these commissions filed in the …
Analyzing The Legitimacy Of The Liberation Tigers Of Tamil Eelam’S Rebellion Against The Sri Lankan State, Paul R. Rickert
Analyzing The Legitimacy Of The Liberation Tigers Of Tamil Eelam’S Rebellion Against The Sri Lankan State, Paul R. Rickert
Paul R Rickert
No abstract provided.
Is Torture Justified In Terrorism Cases?: Comparing U.S. And European Views, Stephen P. Hoffman
Is Torture Justified In Terrorism Cases?: Comparing U.S. And European Views, Stephen P. Hoffman
Stephen P. Hoffman
This essay discusses issues of torture and some of the philosophical underpinnings. First, I define torture as it is used in international and human rights law. Then, I discuss three primary theories of torture: deontology, consequentialism, and threshold deontology. After setting this groundwork, I introduce particular issues in terrorism cases such as the “ticking bomb” scenario, which is often used to argue that torture may be appropriate and possibly required when done to save many lives. This invariably must include a discussion of the necessity doctrine, the legal doctrine allowing an individual to take extraordinary — even illegal — measures …