Law Commons^™

Continued Oversight Of U.S. Government Surveillance Authorities : Hearing Before The S. Committee On The Judiciary, 113th Cong., December 11, 2013 (Statement By Professor Carrie F. Cordero, Geo. U. L. Center), Carrie F. Cordero

Testimony Before Congress

My views are informed by this up-front perspective regarding how the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and later the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, vastly improved the Intelligence Community’s ability to protect the nation from another attack on the scale of September 11th. More recently, I have had the added benefit of having spent the past three years outside of government to reflect, and to engage with the academic community, and to some extent the public, regarding some of the issues this Committee is considering today.

The First Circuit And The First Amendment, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

On Clandestine Warfare, Robert E. Rodes

Robert Rodes

Common moral judgments on many types of clandestine warfare, referred to by some as terrorism, seem to be more nuanced and less severe than our current legal judgments. This paper begins by offering a detailed typology of clandestine operations and measures to combat them, a few general reflections on the laws of war, and a critique of those laws as they now stand. It then proposes a substantial revision of the laws which govern clandestine warfare based on four basic principles of the laws and the morality of just war: the independence of jus in bello from the jus ad …

To Kill Or Capture Suspects In The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Mary Ellen O'Connell

Presents a speech by law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, delivered at the Case Western Reserve School of Law's War Crimes Research Symposium, February 28, 2003. Legal implications of pursuing terror suspects using military action by the U.S. government; Components of armed conflict; Analysis of the United States' involvement in the internal armed conflict in the Philippines.

The Choice Of Law Against Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Mary Ellen O'Connell

The Obama administration has continued to apply the wartime paradigm first developed by the Bush administration after 9/11 to respond to terrorism. In cases of trials before military commissions, indefinite detention, and targeted killing, the U.S. has continued to claim wartime privileges even with respect to persons and situations far from any battlefield. This article argues that both administrations have made a basic error in the choice of law. Wartime privileges may be claimed when armed conflict conditions prevail as defined by international law. These privileges are not triggered by declarations or policy preferences.

The Legal Case Against The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Mary Ellen O'Connell

No abstract provided.

Lawful Self-Defense To Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Mary Ellen O'Connell

No abstract provided.

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

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 …

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

Douglass Cassel

No abstract provided.

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, …

Al-Libi And Detention At Sea, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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, …

On Monday's Argument In Al-Bahlul, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Terrorism, Ticking Time-­‐Bombs, And Torture: A Philosophical Analysis, By Fritz Allhoff, Krysta Ku

University of Miami National Security & Armed Conflict Law Review

No abstract provided.

U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack

Wayne McCormack

One of the principal victims in the U.S. so-called "war on terror" has been the independence of the U.S. Judiciary. Time and again, challenges to assertedly illegal conduct on the part of government officials have been turned aside without addressing the merits, either because of overt deference to the Government or because of special doctrines such as state secrets and standing requirements. This paper catalogs the principal cases first by the nature of the government action challenged and then by the special doctrines invoked. The U.S. judiciary has virtually relinquished its valuable role of judicial review. In the face of …

Final Word On The Bahlul Brief, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Sur-Reply To Heller On Al Bahlul, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Response To Steve Vladeck And Kevin Jon Heller, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Kiobel, Extraterritoriality, And The "Global War On Terrorism", Craig Martin

Craig Martin

For the purpose of exploring the issues of extraterritoriality raised in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., this project sought to examine how the federal courts have considered extraterritoriality in cases arising in the so-called “global war on terror” (GWOT). The inquiry leads to some new and arguably important observations about extraterritoriality in the GWOT policies and related jurisprudence. The plaintiffs in Kiobel claimed, under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), that the defendant corporations were liable for complicity in Nigeria’s conduct of indefinite detention, torture, and extrajudicial killing. The U.S. Supreme Court departed from the issue of corporate liability under …

The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: An Assessment, Gawdat Bahgat

The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters

No abstract provided.

Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw

Gary M. Shaw

The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"

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

Touro Law Review

Analogous to the Dreyfus affair, America's reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, subverted the rule of law to impose penalties on those it viewed as a threat. There are lessons to be learned from both the Dreyfus affair and America's reaction to September 11, 2001.

The Role Of The Olc In Providing Legal Advice To The Commander-In-Chief After September 11th: The Choices Made By The Bush Administration Office Of Legal Counsel, Arthur H. Garrison

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

The first two roles of the U.S. Attorney General from its inception were to represent the interests of the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court and to advise the President on matters of the law. Despite the Attorney General delegating both roles, the former to the Solicitor General and the latter to the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are by statute and tradition looked upon to be the protectors of the rule of law within the Executive Branch. It is to the Attorney General, and by delegation to the OLC, to …

Terrorism And Associations, Ashutosh A. Bhagwat

Ashutosh Bhagwat

The domestic manifestation of the War on Terror has produced the most difficult and sustained set of controversies regarding the limits on First Amendment protections for political speech and association since the anti-Communist crusades of the Red Scare and McCarthy eras. An examination of the types of domestic terrorism prosecutions that have become common since the September 11 attacks reveals continuing and unresolved conflicts between national security needs and traditional protections for speech and (especially) associational freedoms. Yet the courts have barely begun to acknowledge, much less address, these serious issues. In the Supreme Court’s only sustained engagement with these …

'Lesser Evils' In The War On Terrorism, Mark A. Drumbl

Mark A. Drumbl

No abstract provided.

Guantanamo, Rasul, And The Twilight Of Law, Mark A. Drumbl

Mark A. Drumbl

In Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court held that U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. In this paper, I explore what has happened since the Rasul decision: most notably, the introduction of combatant status review tribunals as a response to Rasul and the challenges that have been filed thereto and adjudicated in the federal courts (Khalid, In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases); the charges brought against certain detainees by military commissions and challenges to these commissions filed in the …

The Challenges Of Delivering International Humanitarian Aid In A Post-9/11 Global Framework, Catherine Gonzalez

Maryland Journal of International Law

No abstract provided.

Analyzing The Legitimacy Of The Liberation Tigers Of Tamil Eelam’S Rebellion Against The Sri Lankan State, Paul R. Rickert

Paul R Rickert

No abstract provided.