Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Deference Or Abdication: A Comparison Of The Supreme Courts Of Israel And The United States In Cases Involving Real Or Perceived Threats To National Security, Eileen Kaufman
Eileen Kaufman
The Supreme Courts of Israel and the United States treat cases involving national security radically differently, or so it appears on the surface. The fact that the two courts make very different use of justiciability doctrines dramatically affects their willingness to decide “war on terrorism” cases that challenge aspects of national security programs as violative of individual rights. On the surface, the approaches of the two courts thus appear to be radically different, and indeed they are, at least with respect to their willingness to hear and decide cases in “real time” and in terms of their willingness to embrace …
The United States Supreme Court Rulings Of Detention On "Enemy Combatants" - Partial Vindication Of The Rule Of Law, Douglass Cassel
The United States Supreme Court Rulings Of Detention On "Enemy Combatants" - Partial Vindication Of The Rule Of Law, Douglass Cassel
Douglass Cassel
No abstract provided.
Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw
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?"