Law Commons^™

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

Seattle University Law Review

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 …

Terrorism, Territorial Sovereignty, And The Forcible Apprehension Of International Criminals Abroad, Jimmy Gurule

Jimmy Gurule

No abstract provided.

Defending Human Rights In The "War" Against Terror, Douglass Cassel

Douglass Cassel

No abstract provided.

The United States Supreme Court Rulings Of Detention On "Enemy Combatants" - Partial Vindication Of The Rule Of Law, Douglass Cassel

Douglass Cassel

No abstract provided.

Liberty, Judicial Review, And The Rule Of Law At Guantanamo: A Battle Half Won, Doug Cassell

Douglass Cassel

In Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), five members of the Supreme Court held that foreign prisoners at Guantanamo enjoy the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus; that their imprisonment had lasted too long for the Court to await completion of statutory review by lower courts of military tribunal findings that the prisoners were "enemy combatants"; and that the statutory judicial review was too deficient to substitute for the Great Writ. Four Justices vigorously dissented. On the surface they differed on the history of the reach of the common law writ of habeas corpus, and on the procedural guarantees …

International Human Rights Law And Security Detention, Douglass Cassel

Douglass Cassel

This article analyzes the grounds, procedures, and conditions required by International Human Rights Law for preventive detention of suspected terrorists as threats to security. Such detention is generally permitted, provided it is based on grounds and procedures previously established by law; is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or disproportionate; is publicly registered and subject to fair and effective judicial review; and the detainee is not mistreated and is compensated for any unlawful detention. In Europe, however, preventive detention for security purposes is generally not permitted. If allowed at all, it is permitted only when a State in time of national emergency formally …

Beyond The Battlefield, Beyond Al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture Of Counterterrorism, Robert M. Chesney

Michigan Law Review

By the end of the first post-9/11 decade, the legal architecture associated with the U.S. government’s use of military detention and lethal force in the counterterrorism setting had come to seem relatively stable, supported by a remarkable degree of cross-branch and cross-party consensus (manifested by legislation, judicial decisions, and consistency of policy across two very different presidential administrations). That stability is certain to collapse during the second post-9/11 decade, however, thanks to the rapid erosion of two factors that have played a critical role in generating the recent appearance of consensus: the existence of an undisputed armed conflict in Afghanistan, …

Table Of Contents

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Gideon: Looking Backward, Looking Forward, Looking In The Mirror, Steven Zeidman

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Does The Right To Counsel On Appeal End As You Exit The Court Of Appeals?, Nancy P. Collins

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Undersigned Attorney Hereby Certifies -- The Washington Supreme Court Rule On Standards And Its Implications, Justice Sheryl Gordon Mccloud, Justice Susan Owens, Marc Boman, Joanne Moore

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

G Forces: Gideon V. Wainwright And Matthew Adler's Move Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis, Janet Moore

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Improving Access To Justice: Plain Language Family Law Court Forms In Washington State, Charles R. Dyer, Joan E. Fairbanks, M. Lynn Greiner, Kirsten Barron, Janet L. Skreen, Josefina Cerrillo-Ramirez, Andrew Lee, Bill Hinsee

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Dark Medicine: How The National Research Act Has Failed To Address Racist Practices In Biomedical Experiments Targeting The African-American Community, Anietie Maureen-Ann Akpan

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Driving While License Suspended - Third Degree, A Framework For Requesting Alternative Sentences, Sahar Fathi

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Securing Food Justice, Sovereignty & Sustainability In The Face Of The Food Safety Modernization Act (Fsma), Eve Kerber

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

About The Authors

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Jacqueline Mcmurtrie

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Gideon At Fifty -- Golden Anniversary Or Mid Life Crisis, Kim Taylor-Thompson

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Fifty Years After Gideon: It Is Long Past Time To Provide Lawyers For Misdemeanor Defendants Who Cannot Afford To Hire Their Own, Robert C. Boruchowitz

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Legal Financial Obligations: Fulfilling The Promise Of Gideon By Reducing The Burden, Travis Stearns

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Congress' Encroachment On The President's Power In Indian Law And Its Effect On Executive-Order Reservations, Mark R. Carter Jd, Phd

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Do We Have It Right This Time? An Analysis Of The Accomplishments And Shortcomings Of Washington's Indian Child Welfare Act, Karen Gray Young

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

The Memory Gap In Surveillance Law, Patricia L. Bellia

Patricia L. Bellia

U.S. information privacy laws contain a memory gap: they regulate the collection and disclosure of certain kinds of information, but they say little about its retention. This memory gap has ever-increasing significance for the structure of government surveillance law. Under current doctrine, the Fourth Amendment generally requires government agents to meet high standards before directly and prospectively gathering a target's communications. The law takes a dramatically different approach to indirect, surveillance-like activities, such as the compelled production of communications from a third party, even when those activities yield the same information as, or more information than, direct surveillance activities. Because …

The "Lone Wolf" Amendment And The Future Of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Law, Patricia E. Simone, Patricia L. Bellia

Patricia L. Bellia

In December 2004, Congress adopted an important change to the statutory framework authorizing domestic surveillance of foreign powers and their agents, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The change, directly prompted by the events of September 11, 2001, makes it easier for the government to conduct surveillance of so-called lone wolf terrorists - that is, terrorists who act in sympathy with the aims of an international terrorist group but not on its behalf, or terrorists whose link to an international terrorist group cannot be demonstrated. Although the logic of the lone wolf amendment at first seems quite compelling, the amendment …

Masquerading Justiciability: The Misapplication Of State Secrets Privilege In Mohamed V. Jeppesen--Reflections From A Comparative Perspective, Galit Raguan

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Hamdan V. United States: A Death Knell For Military Commissions?, Jennifer Daskal

Jennifer Daskal

In October 2012, a panel of the D.C. Circuit dealt a blow to the United States’ post- September 11, 2001 decade-long experiment with military commissions as a forum for trying Guantanamo Bay detainees. Specifically, the court concluded that prior to the 2006 statutory reforms, military commission jurisdiction was limited to violations of internationally-recognized war crimes; that providing material support to terrorism was not an internationally-recognized war crime; and that the military commission conviction of Salim Hamdan for material support charges based on pre-2006 conduct was therefore invalid. Three months later, a panel of the D.C. Circuit reached the same conclusion …

Continued Oversight Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act : Hearing Before The S. Committee On The Judiciary, 113th Cong., October 2, 2013 (Statement By Professor Carrie F. Cordero, Geo. U. L. Center), Carrie F. Cordero

Testimony Before Congress

From my perspective, the challenge for members of this Committee is to identify whether there are actual problems with either the law or process, and then craft remedies that address those specific issues. I am here to urge caution in implementing “quick fixes” that may sound appealing based on public or media-driven pressure, but that could have lasting consequences at a practical level that could negatively impact Intelligence Community operations and the nation’s security for years to come.

Continued Oversight Of The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act : Hearing Before The S. Committee On The Judiciary, 113th Cong., October 2, 2013 (Remarks By Professor Laura K. Donohue, Geo. U. L. Center), Laura K. Donohue

Testimony Before Congress

Congress introduced the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to make use of new technologies and to enable the intelligence community to obtain information vital to U.S. national security, while preventing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal intelligence-gathering entities from engaging in broad domestic surveillance. The legislature sought to prevent a recurrence of the abuses of the 1960s and 1970s that accompanied the Cold War and the rapid expansion in communications technologies.

Congress purposefully circumscribed the NSA’s authorities by limiting them to foreign intelligence gathering. It required that the target be a foreign power or an agent thereof, …

Masthead

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.