Rule of Law Commons^™

The Boundaries Of Habeas: Due Process, The Suspension Clause, And Judicial Review Of Expedited Removal Under The Immigration And Nationality Act, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Interrogation Expert Warns Against Use Of Torture 2-2-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

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 …

Social Justice And Silicon Valley: A Perspective On The Apple-Fbi Case And The “Going Dark” Debate, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rule Of Law In The Age Of The Drone: Requiring Transparency And Disqualifying Clandestine Actors—The Cia And The Joint Special Operations Command, Thomas Michael Mcdonnell

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Since shortly after 9/11, weaponized drones have be-come part of the fabric of United States policy and practice in countering Islamic terrorist organizations and personnel. Although many diplomats, UN officials, and scholars have criticized the widespread use of this weapon system for “targeted killing,” drones are here to stay. But how much investigation and oversight must a democratic country carry out over such a program, and more critically, how can a country do so effectively when the Executive has handed primary responsibility for drone targeted killing attacks to its clandestine forces, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations …

Newsroom: Closing Guantanamo Isn't Enough 03-14-2016, Jared Goldstein

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Surveillance, Secrecy, And The Search For Meaningful Accountability, Sudha Setty

Faculty Scholarship

One of the most intractable problems in the debate around maintaining the rule of law while combating the threat of terrorism is the question of secrecy and transparency. In peacetime, important tenets to the rule of law include transparency of the law, limits on government power, and consistency of the law as applied to individuals in the policy. Yet the post-9/11 decision-making by the Bush and Obama administrations is characterized with excessive secrecy that stymies most efforts to hold the government accountable for its abuses. Executive branch policy with regard to detention, interrogation, targeted killing and surveillance are kept secret, …

Targeted Killing: United States Policy, Constitional Law, And Due Process, Mark Febrizio

Senior Honors Theses

The increased incorporation of targeted killing, primarily through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, into United States policy raises salient questions regarding its consistency with the U.S. Constitution. This paper contrasts interpretations of constitutional due process with the current legal framework for conducting targeted killing operations. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution establishes the due process owed to U.S. citizens. This paper determines that the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was accomplished in a manner inconsistent with constitutional due process and demonstrates an over-extension of executive branch power. This paper examines one scholarly recommendation that seeks to increase …

Cross-Border Targeted Killings: "Lawful But Awful"?, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Since September 11, the United States has waged two very open wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These two wars have killed nearly 7,000 U.S. military personnel and left some 50,000 American troops wounded; they have also left an unknown number of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and civilians dead or wounded. But alongside these two costly and visible wars, the United States has also been waging what amounts to a third war.

This third war is a secret war, waged mostly by drone strikes, though it has also involved a smaller number of special operations raids. The author calls this third …

Legal Affairs: Dreyfus, Guantánamo, And The Foundation Of The Rule Of Law, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Dreyfus affair reminds us that the rule of law and basic human rights are not self-executing. In a democracy, individual rights and the rule of law are designed to check popular power and protect the individual from the majority. Yet paradoxically, they cannot do so without substantial popular support. Alfred Dreyfus received two trials—or at least the trappings thereof—and was twice wrongly convicted. The rule of law was initially unable to stand between an innocent man and the powerful men who sought to frame him. But the issue of Dreyfus's guilt or innocence was not …

Anticipatory Self-Defense And The Israeli-Iranian Crisis: Some Remarks, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Neo-Democracy, National Security, And Liberty, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In his new book, Liberty and Security, Conor Gearty, professor of law at the London School of Economics and one of the United Kingdom’s leading authorities on civil liberties and national security, argues that many Western nations are in effect “neo-democracies” that fail systematically to live up to the fundamental egalitarian premises of true democracy, and that this development is seen in particular in the context of counter-terrorism policy. This review assesses that claim, and maintains that while Gearty is correct that many counter-terrorism measures are predicated on double standards, that critique is insufficient to answer the many difficult questions …

Drones And The International Rule Of Law, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay will proceed in four parts. First, it will briefly discuss the concept of the international rule of law. Second, it will offer a short factual background on US drone strikes (to the extent that it is possible to provide factual background on a practice so shrouded in secrecy). Third, it will highlight some of the key ways in which post 9/11 US legal theories relating to the use of force challenge previously accepted concepts and seek to redefine previously well-understood terms. Fourth, it will offer brief concluding thoughts on the future of the international rule of law in …

Beyond War: Bin Laden, Escobar, And The Justification Of Targeted Killing, Luis E. Chiesa, Alexander K.A. Greenawalt

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Using the May 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden as a case study, this Article contributes to the debate on targeted killing in two distinct ways, each of which has the result of downplaying the centrality of international humanitarian law (IHL) as the decisive source of justification for targeted killings.

First, we argue that the IHL rules governing the killing of combatants in wartime should be understood to apply more strictly in cases involving the targeting of single individuals, particularly when the targeting occurs against nonparadigmatic combatants outside the traditional battlefield. As applied to the bin Laden killing, we argue …

Legal Obligations: The Proper Role Of White House Lawyers, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

An opinion issued on Aug. 1, 2002, by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel held that the federal statute that makes it a crime to commit torture outside the United States should not be read to “apply to the President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.” The opinion further concluded that if the statute did criminalize interrogations ordered by the president, it was unconstitutional.

The memorandum, which has become known as the “torture memo,” figures prominently in the ongoing public debate about whether there should be …

True Believers At Law: National Security Agendas, The Regulation Of Lawyers, And The Separation Of Powers, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

Ideological agendas distort the deliberation required for sound legal advice about national security. Elite government lawyers after September 11 advanced a theory at the expense of context, labeling legal constraints as "lawfare" against American interests. The lawfare critics failed to recognize that legal constraints can empower decision makers by reinforcing reputational and other long-term values. They also failed their history test, ignoring the lessons of presidents from Jefferson to Kennedy who rejected a rigid adherence to ideology in the national security realm. By discounting context, the construction of the lawfare paradigm produced dire results, including the torture memos drafted by …

Less Safe, Less Free: A Progress Report On The War On Terror: Address To The Terrorism & Justice Conference At The University Of Central Missouri, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Bush Administration since 9-11 has adopted a strategy, which in some sense depends upon the ability to predict with incredible accuracy at what will happen in the future. It was given its name by the U.S. Attorney General during the first Bush Administration, Missouri’s John Ashcroft, who argued that what we need in the wake of 9-11 is a “preventive paradigm.” The argument is understandable: when facing foes who are willing to commit suicide in order to inflict mass casualties on innocent civilians, it is not enough to bring them to justice after the fact. The perpetrators are dead--and …

When To Push The Envelope: Legal Ethics, The Rule Of Law, And National Security Strategy, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Rule Of Law And The Military Commission, Stephen J. Ellmann

Articles & Chapters

This essay examines the underlying foundations of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. After laying out many of the features of the conflicting positions taken by the majority and dissents in the case, the article argues that the majority's judgment was by no means determined by the plain meaning of the statutory provisions at issue, nor even by the Steel Seizure framework of overlapping zones of executive and legislative power. Instead, three factors deserve special emphasis. The first is the Court's effort to protect, and catalyze, Congressional authority. The second is the Court's understanding of its own role …

Beyond Absolutism: Legal Institutions In The War On Terror, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Guantanamo And The Conflict Of Laws: Rasul And Beyond, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Judging Terror In The "Zone Of Twilight" Exigency, Institutional Equity, And Procedure After September 11, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Duty Of A National Security Lawyer In A Time Of Terror, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

National security lawyers are probably not in the forefront of the public’s mind when one refers to government lawyers, but they serve a vital mission within the public sector. This article explores the duties and responsibilities inherent in that mission, and discusses the continuing role of the national security lawyer after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.

Benign Hegemony? Kosovo And Article 2(4) Of The U.N. Charter, Jules Lobel

Articles

The 1999 U.S.-led, NATO-assisted air strike against Yugoslavia has been extolled by some as leading to the creation of a new rule of international law permitting nations to undertake forceful humanitarian intervention where the Security Council cannot act. This view posits the United States as a benevolent hegemon militarily intervening in certain circumstances in defense of such universal values as the protection of human rights. This article challenges that view. NATO's Kosovo intervention does not represent a benign hegemony introducing a new rule of international law. Rather, the United States, freed from Cold War competition with a rival superpower, is …

Instruction On Communism And Its Contrast With Liberty Under Law, Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Powell Speeches

No abstract provided.