Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Georgetown University Law Center (3)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (3)
- Penn State Law (2)
- Selected Works (2)
- University of Michigan Law School (2)
-
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (1)
- Liberty University (1)
- Montclair State University (1)
- Pace University (1)
- Seattle University School of Law (1)
- The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law (1)
- University of Arkansas, Fayetteville (1)
- University of Massachusetts School of Law (1)
- University of Richmond (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Articles (3)
- Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works (3)
- Arkansas Law Review (1)
- Catholic University Law Review (1)
- Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works (1)
-
- Faculty Publications (1)
- International Bulletin of Political Psychology (1)
- Journal Articles (1)
- Judith L Ritter (1)
- Michigan Journal of International Law (1)
- Michigan Journal of Race and Law (1)
- Pace Law Review (1)
- Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs (1)
- Seattle University Law Review (1)
- Senior Honors Theses (1)
- University of Richmond Law Review (1)
- Victor C. Romero (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 21 of 21
Full-Text Articles in National Security Law
Protecting Due Process During Terrorism Adjudications: Redefining "Crimes Against Humanity" And Eliminating The Doctrine Of Complimentary Jurisdiction In Favor Of The International Criminal Court, Daniel N. Clay
Arkansas Law Review
“When we sit in judgment we are holding ourselves out as people—as the kind of a community—that are worthy of this task. It is the seriousness, the gravity, of the act of judgment which gives rise to our legitimate and laudable emphasis on procedural fairness and substantive accuracy in criminal procedure. But these things focus on the defendant—the one judged. I am concerned about us who would presume to sit in judgment. Who are we that we should do this? Whether we intend to do so or not, we answer this question in part through the way we conduct our …
A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr
A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr
Senior Honors Theses
Since the 9/11 attacks, American legislation and legal policy in regards to classifying and processing captured terrorists has fallen short of being fully effective and lawful. Trial and error by the Bush and Obama administrations has uncovered two key lessons: (1) captured terrorists are not typical prisoners of war and thus their detainment must involve more legal scrutiny than the latter; and (2) captured terrorists are not ordinary criminals and thus the civilian criminal court system, due to constitutional constraints, is not capable of adequately trying every count of terrorism. Other nations, including France and Israel, approach this problem with …
Adrift At Sea: How The United States Government Is Forgoing The Fourth Amendment In The Prosecution Of Captured Terrorists, Frank Sullivan
Adrift At Sea: How The United States Government Is Forgoing The Fourth Amendment In The Prosecution Of Captured Terrorists, Frank Sullivan
Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs
No abstract provided.
Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, Bruce Ching
Catholic University Law Review
In its 1984 decision New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court announced the public safety exception, under which statements made by un-Mirandized suspects can be admissible when made in response to questions reasonably asked to protect the safety of the arresting officers or the general public. During the investigation of terrorism cases, law enforcement agencies have begun to extend the time of un-Mirandized questioning of suspects, with the hope that courts will find that the public safety exception makes the suspects’ statements admissible in the ensuing prosecutions.
This Article argues that in announcing the public safety exception, …
Decoupling 'Terrorist' From 'Immigrant': An Enhanced Role For The Federal Courts Post 9/11, Victor C. Romero
Decoupling 'Terrorist' From 'Immigrant': An Enhanced Role For The Federal Courts Post 9/11, Victor C. Romero
Victor C. Romero
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft has utilized the broad immigration power ceded to him by Congress to ferret out terrorists among noncitizens detained for minor immigration violations. Such a strategy provides the government two options: deport those who are not terrorists, and then prosecute others who are. While certainly efficient, using immigration courts and their less formal due process protections afforded noncitizens should trigger greater oversight and vigilance by the federal courts for at least four reasons: First, while the legitimate goal of immigration law enforcement is deportation, Ashcroft's true objective in targeting …
Terrorism Trials In Article Iii Courts, Laura K. Donohue
Terrorism Trials In Article Iii Courts, Laura K. Donohue
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Some individuals reject Article III courts as a forum for bringing terrorist suspects to justice on the grounds that the ordinary judicial system cannot handle such cases. As an empirical matter, this claim is simply false. Since 2001, myriad terrorism trials have progressed through the criminal system. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that between 2001 and 2010, there were 998 defendants indicted in terrorism prosecutions. Eighty-seven percent of the defendants were convicted on at least one charge. According to the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys, from FY 2004 to FY 2009, there were 3,010 terrorism prosecutions. It …
Special Administrative Measures: An Example Of Counterterror Excesses And Their Roots In U.S. Criminal Justice, Francesca Laguardia
Special Administrative Measures: An Example Of Counterterror Excesses And Their Roots In U.S. Criminal Justice, Francesca Laguardia
Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works
This article examines the creation and implementation of pretrial Special Administrative Measures [SAMs], a version of pretrial solitary confinement now used most often to confine terror suspects in the federal criminal justice system. Through an in-depth archival study, this article brings attention to the importance of 20th-century criminal justice trends to the 21st-century response to the threat of terrorism, including an increasingly preventive focus and decreasing judicial checks on executive action. The findings suggest that practices believed to be excessive responses to the threat of terrorism are in fact a natural outgrowth of late modern criminal justice.
Special Administrative Measures And The War On Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend The Constitution?, Andrew Dalack
Special Administrative Measures And The War On Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend The Constitution?, Andrew Dalack
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
Our criminal justice system is founded upon a belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. This belief is what foists the burden of proving a person’s guilt upon the government and belies a statutory presumption in favor of allowing a defendant to remain free pending trial at the federal level. Though there are certainly circumstances in which a federal magistrate judge may—and sometimes must—remand a defendant to jail pending trial, it is well-settled that pretrial detention itself inherently prejudices the quality of a person’s defense. In some cases, a defendant’s pretrial conditions become so onerous that they become punitive …
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 …
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
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 …
Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society And Individual Rights After 9/11, David Cole
Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society And Individual Rights After 9/11, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Had someone told you, on September 11, 2001, that the United States would not be able to do whatever it wanted in response to the terrorist attacks of that day, you might well have questioned their sanity. The United States was the most powerful country in the world, and had the world’s sympathy in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Who would stop it? Al Qaeda had few friends beyond the Taliban. As a historical matter, Congress and the courts had virtually always deferred to the executive in such times of crisis. And the American polity was unlikely to object …
The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole
The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …
Terrorism And The Law: Show Trials And Why The Show Must Go On, Ibpp Editor
Terrorism And The Law: Show Trials And Why The Show Must Go On, Ibpp Editor
International Bulletin of Political Psychology
The author discusses the nature and meaning of terrorism trials during the United States’ war on terror.
Searching For Remedial Paradigms: Human Rights In The Age Of Terrorism, Frances Howell Rudko
Searching For Remedial Paradigms: Human Rights In The Age Of Terrorism, Frances Howell Rudko
Faculty Publications
Nine years after the unprecedented terrorist attacks on September 11, judicial response to various governmental and individual methods of combating terrorism remains deferential and restrained. The courts have heard at least three types of cases brought by advocates for three distinct groups: the alleged perpetrators of terrorism; the victims of terrorist attacks; and third party humanitarian groups. Implicit in the practical question of how to deal effectively with terrorism is the broader consideration which Congress, the President and others must also address: how to respond to the terrorists' extreme human rights violations without violating international humanitarian law.
"Intelligence" Searches And Purpose: A Significant Mismatch Between Constitutional Criminal Procedure And The Law Of Intelligence-Gathering, Robert C. Power
"Intelligence" Searches And Purpose: A Significant Mismatch Between Constitutional Criminal Procedure And The Law Of Intelligence-Gathering, Robert C. Power
Pace Law Review
No abstract provided.
Law Enforcement And Intelligence Gathering In Muslim And Immigrant Communities After 9/11, David A. Harris
Law Enforcement And Intelligence Gathering In Muslim And Immigrant Communities After 9/11, David A. Harris
Articles
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, law enforcement agencies have actively sought partnerships with Muslim communities in the U.S. Consistent with community-based policing, these partnerships are designed to persuade members of these communities to share information about possible extremist activity. These cooperative efforts have borne fruit, resulting in important anti-terrorism prosecutions. But during the past several years, law enforcement has begun to use another tactic simultaneously: the FBI and some police departments have placed informants in mosques and other religious institutions to gather intelligence. The government justifies this by asserting that it must take a pro-active stance in order …
The Fourth Amendment And Terrorism, John Burkoff
The Fourth Amendment And Terrorism, John Burkoff
Articles
The important questions we need to ask and to answer B in the perilous times in which we live B is whether the Fourth Amendment applies in the same fashion not just to run of the mill criminals, but also to terrorists and suspected terrorists, individuals who are committing or who have committed B or who may be poised to commit B acts aimed at the destruction of extremely large numbers of people? Professor Burkoff argues that we can protect ourselves from cataclysmic threats of this sort and still maintain a fair and objective application of Fourth Amendment doctrine that …
'A Flame Of Fire': The Fourth Amendment In Perilous Times, John Burkoff
'A Flame Of Fire': The Fourth Amendment In Perilous Times, John Burkoff
Articles
The important questions we need to ask and to answer in the perilous times in which we live is whether the Fourth Amendment applies in the same fashion not just to run of the mill criminals, but also to terrorists and suspected terrorists, individuals who are committing or who have committed B or who may be poised to commit B acts aimed at the destruction of extremely large numbers of people? Professor Burkoff argues that we can protect ourselves from cataclysmic threats of this sort and still maintain a fair and objective application of Fourth Amendment doctrine that respects our …
Assassination, The War On Terrorism, And The Constitution, Rodney A. Smolla
Assassination, The War On Terrorism, And The Constitution, Rodney A. Smolla
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Decoupling 'Terrorist' From 'Immigrant': An Enhanced Role For The Federal Courts Post 9/11, Victor C. Romero
Decoupling 'Terrorist' From 'Immigrant': An Enhanced Role For The Federal Courts Post 9/11, Victor C. Romero
Journal Articles
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft has utilized the broad immigration power ceded to him by Congress to ferret out terrorists among noncitizens detained for minor immigration violations. Such a strategy provides the government two options: deport those who are not terrorists, and then prosecute others who are. While certainly efficient, using immigration courts and their less formal due process protections afforded noncitizens should trigger greater oversight and vigilance by the federal courts for at least four reasons: First, while the legitimate goal of immigration law enforcement is deportation, Ashcroft's true objective in targeting …
The Political Offense Exception As Applied In French Cases Dealing With The Extradition Of Terrorists, Thomas E. Carbonneau
The Political Offense Exception As Applied In French Cases Dealing With The Extradition Of Terrorists, Thomas E. Carbonneau
Michigan Journal of International Law
This article does not attempt to deal with all of the multifarious aspects of contemporary terrorism; its ambition is much more modest in scope, centering upon traditional legal mechanisms and doctrines that can be adapted to deal with terrorism. Using the decisional law of France as an illustrative model, this article analyzes the transnational and political character of terrorist acts and seeks to establish the implications of those characteristics for litigation dealing with the extradition of terrorist offenders. Several assumptions underlie the analysis. First, the effort to repress international crime is seen as a laudable objective of the international legal …