Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) (1)
- Brooklyn Law Review (1)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Courts (1)
-
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Detention laws (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Disruption (1)
- Fourth amendment (1)
- Incapacitation (1)
- Information gathering (1)
- International Law Studies (1)
- International Law Studies Series U.S. Naval War College (1)
- Interrogation standard (1)
- Journal of National Security Law and Policy (1)
- Mosaic theory (1)
- National Security Law (1)
- Patriot Act (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Surveillance (1)
- Timothy McVeigh (1)
- United States v. Jones (1)
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in National Security Law
A Shattered Looking Glass: The Pitfalls And Potential Of The Mosaic Theory Of Fourth Amendment Privacy, David C. Gray, Danielle Keats Citron
A Shattered Looking Glass: The Pitfalls And Potential Of The Mosaic Theory Of Fourth Amendment Privacy, David C. Gray, Danielle Keats Citron
Faculty Scholarship
On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a landmark non-decision in United States v. Jones. In that case, officers used a GPS-enabled device to track a suspect’s public movements for four weeks, amassing a considerable amount of data in the process. Although ultimately resolved on narrow grounds, five Justices joined concurring opinions in Jones expressing sympathy for some version of the “mosaic theory” of Fourth Amendment privacy. This theory holds that we maintain reasonable expectations of privacy in certain quantities of information even if we do not have such expectations in the constituent parts. This Article examines and …
The Law Of Armed Conflict And Detention Operations In Afghanistan, Matthew C. Waxman
The Law Of Armed Conflict And Detention Operations In Afghanistan, Matthew C. Waxman
Faculty Scholarship
In reflecting on the arc of US and coalition detention operations in Afghanistan, three key issues related to the law of armed conflict stand out: one substantive, one procedural and one policy. The substantive matter – what are the minimum baseline treatment standards required as a matter of international law? – has clarified significantly during the course of operations there, largely as a result of the US Supreme Court's holding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The procedural matter – what adjudicative processes does international law require for determining who may be detained? – eludes consensus and has become more controversial …
Administrative Detention Of Terrorists: Why Detain, And Detain Whom?, Matthew C. Waxman
Administrative Detention Of Terrorists: Why Detain, And Detain Whom?, Matthew C. Waxman
Faculty Scholarship
This article aims to reframe the administrative detention debate, not to resolve it. In doing so, however, it aspires to advance the discussion by highlighting the critical substantive choices embedded in calls for legal procedural reform and by pointing the way toward appropriately tailored legislative options. It argues that the current debate’s focus on procedural and institutional questions of how to detain suspected terrorists has been allowed to overshadow the questions of why administratively detain, and whom to detain. Not only are the answers to these questions at least as important as the procedural rules in safeguarding and balancing liberty …
The Commercial Activity Exception Under The Fsia, Personhood Under The Fifth Amendment And Jurisdiction Over Foreign States: A Partial Roadmap For The Supreme Court In The New Millennium, Stephen J. Leacock
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
An "Effective Death Penalty"? Aedpa And Error Detection In Capital Cases, James S. Liebman
An "Effective Death Penalty"? Aedpa And Error Detection In Capital Cases, James S. Liebman
Faculty Scholarship
On June 11, 2001, the United States of America executed Timothy McVeigh. Dwarfed among the many unspeakable evils that Mr. McVeigh wrought is a speakable one I will address here, namely, the so-called Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA").
Abbreviated, AEDPA's political history is as follows: In November 1994, the "Gingrich Congress" was elected on its Contract with America platform. One of the planks of that platform – one of the few that actually ended up passing Congress – was the so-called "Effective Death Penalty Act." That proposal had little to do with the death penalty and, …