Law Commons^™

Finding Effective Constraints On Executive Power: Interrogation, Detention, And Torture, Deborah N. Pearlstein

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Loaded Dice And Other Problems: A Further Reflection On The Statutory Commander In Chief, Christopher H. Schroeder

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: War, Terrorism and Torture: Limits on Presidential Power in the 21st Century. Convened by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Indiana University School of Law- Bloomington, prominent legal scholars, human rights advocates and government lawyers gathered in Bloomington on October 7, 2005.

Comment - Assuring Continuity Of Government, Sanford Levinson

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

Reply to Seth Tillman's article , Comment - Assuring Continuity of Government, 4 Pierce L. Rev. 201 (2006), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol4/iss2/4

[Excerpt]”What makes Tillman’s proposal distinctive, and important, is that it presents a statutory solution to at least aspects of the problem. It is an audacious proposal well worth discussing at greater length than I have time for in preparing this brief comment. Before turning to the specifics of his proposal, though, it is worth spelling out the possible situation that underlies the concern displayed by an increasing number of thoughtful Americans about the issue of continuity in government. […] …

Anti-Terrorist Finance In The United Kingdom And United States, Laura K. Donohue

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article adopts a two-tiered approach: it provides a detailed, historical account of anti-terrorist finance initiatives in the United Kingdom and United States-two states driving global norms in this area. It then proceeds to a critique of these laws. The analysis assumes-and accepts-the goals of the two states in adopting these provisions. It questions how well the measures achieve their aim. Specifically, it highlights how the transfer of money laundering tools undermines the effectiveness of the states' counterterrorist efforts-flooding the systems with suspicious activity reports, driving money out of the regulated sector, and using inappropriate metrics to gauge success. This …