Law Commons^™

Judge Pauley’S Opinion In Clapper: Reset Button For Bulk Collection Debate?, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

This article was originally found in Lawfare, available here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/judge-pauleys-opinion-clapper-reset-button-bulk-collection-debate

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 Legality Of Deliberate Miranda Violations: How Two-Step National Security Interrogations Undermine Miranda And Destabilize Fifth Amendment Protections, Lee Ross Crain

Michigan Law Review

As part of the global “War on Terror,” federal agents intentionally delay issuing Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects during custodial interrogations. They delay the warnings presuming that unwarned suspects will more freely offer vital national security intelligence. After a suspect offers the information he has, agents administer Miranda warnings and attempt to elicit confessions that prosecutors can use at the suspect’s trial. No court has ruled on the constitutionality of this two-step national security interrogation process to determine whether admitting the second, warned confession is allowed under Miranda v. Arizona and its progeny. A fragmented Supreme Court examined two-step interrogations …

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.

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, …

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, …

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.

Mission Creep In National Security Law, Fletcher N. Baldwin Jr., Daniel R. Koslosky

Fletcher N. Baldwin

Many anti-terrorism measures are enacted with broad public support. There is often a general willingness on the part of the public to accept greater civil liberties deprivations in the face of a specific threat, or otherwise in times of general crisis, than would otherwise be the case. Sweeping anti-terrorism legislation is frequently crafted in reaction to the presence, or perceived presence, of immense, imminent danger. The medium and long-term consequences of the legislation may not fully be comprehended when political leaders and policymakers take swift action in the face strong public pressure in light of a recent terrorist attack or …

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.

Don’T Expand The War On Terror, Jennifer Daskal, Stephen Vladeck

Jennifer Daskal

Congress should reject open-ended war and embrace a return to peace. Instead of expanding the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Congress should consider repealing it once the withdrawal of our combat troops from Afghanistan has been completed. Law enforcement, intelligence gathering and other nonmilitary counterterrorism tools ought to be at the forefront of our fight against terrorism.

Breaking Terror's Bank Without Breaking The Law: A Comment On The Usa Patriot Act And The United States Financial War On Terrorism , Carrie L. Folendorf

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This comment will discuss the effect of abandoning our Constitution in times of crisis by discussing how Executive Order 13,224 and the USA PATRIOT Act infringe upon our fundamental First Amendment freedoms of association, and how they violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by withholding notice and the opportunity to be heard. Part II will outline legislation which demonstrates how the United States has historically dealt with freezing the assets of designated terrorists, and will include a discussion of the provisions in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and the USA PATRIOT Act …

Islamic History & Al-Qaeda: A Primer To Understanding The Rise Of Islamist Movements In The Modern World, Andrew M. Bennett

Pace International Law Review Online Companion

A decade following the 9/11 attacks, the objectives and motivations of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda remain largely unknown to the American public. Since the mission of Al-Qaeda is embedded in its interpretation of the history and traditions of Islam, increased analysis on the intellectual framework of Al-Qaeda provides valuable insight into this dangerous ideology that will remain a strategic threat to the United States for the foreseeable future. While more recent successes against the Al-Qaeda organization have encouraged talk of “the end of Al-Qaeda,” the broader ideology remains alive and well. The rise in support for the Islamist groups …

Victimhood In Our Neighborhood: Terrorist Crime, Taliban Guilt, And The Asymmetries Of The International Legal Order, Mark A. Drumbl

Mark A. Drumbl

This Article posits that the September 11 attacks constitute nonisolated warlike attacks undertaken against a sovereign state by individuals from other states operating through a non-state actor with some command and political structure. This means that the attacks contain elements common to both armed attacks and criminal attacks. The international community largely has characterized the attacks as armed attacks. This characterization evokes a legal basis for the use of force initiated by the United States and United Kingdom against Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. Notwithstanding the successes of the military campaign and the need for containment of terrorist activity, this …

Are You A Terrorist Or An American?:An Analysis Of Immigration Lawpost 9/11: Introduction, 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 …

Toward Comprehensive Reform Of America's Emergency Law Regime, Patrick A. Thronson

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Unbenownst to most Americans, the United States is presently under thirty presidentially declared states of emergency. They confer vast powers on the Executive Branch, including the ability to financially incapacitate any person or organization in the United States, seize control of the nation's communications infrastructure, mobilize military forces, expand the permissible size of the military without congressional authorization, and extend tours of duty without consent from service personnel. Declared states of emergency may also activate Presidential Emergency Action Documents and other continuity-of-government procedures, which confer powers on the President-such as the unilateral suspension of habeas corpus-that appear fundamentally opposed to …

Trying Terrorism: Joint Criminal Enterprise, Material Support, And The Paradox Of International Criminal Law, Alexandra Link

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Note will examine theoretical problems in ICL and public international law by evaluating the practical implications of applying ICL sources to find criminal liability outside the narrow confines of the international tribunals. It will examine the problems posed by the conflicting standards of the Rome Statute and ICTY jurisprudence as a matter of customary international law, the failure of U.S. courts to effectively confront the contextual and doctrinal analysis necessary to determine the limitations of these sources, and the proper application of these sources to the issues raised in Hamdan II and Al Bahlul. Viewing ICL through the lens …

Is Torture Justified In Terrorism Cases?: Comparing U.S. And European Views, Stephen P. Hoffman

Stephen P. Hoffman

This essay discusses issues of torture and some of the philosophical underpinnings. First, I define torture as it is used in international and human rights law. Then, I discuss three primary theories of torture: deontology, consequentialism, and threshold deontology. After setting this groundwork, I introduce particular issues in terrorism cases such as the “ticking bomb” scenario, which is often used to argue that torture may be appropriate and possibly required when done to save many lives. This invariably must include a discussion of the necessity doctrine, the legal doctrine allowing an individual to take extraordinary — even illegal — measures …

Defending Weak States Against The "Unwilling Or Unable" Doctrine Of Self-Defense, Dawood I. Ahmed

Dawood Ahmed

Victim states occasionally use force to target non-state actors that have allegedly attacked the victim state, on the pretext that the host state is “unwilling or unable” (“ineffective”) to act. The international law permissibility of such force is unclear: state responsibility principles do not hold ineffective states liable, the universe of state practice is small and the International Court of Justice and some scholars deny the legality of such force while others disagree. This article is the first dedicated to a critical analysis of the “unwilling or unable” doctrine from both, a law and policy perspective. It argues that, although …

Assimilation Anxiety: Islamic Migration As A Perceived Threat To Western Cultures, David Barnhizer

David Barnhizer

In this cynical age it is common to smirk at claims about what is sometimes called American Exceptionalism, a term standing for the conclusion that America is an historically distinct (and better) system. To some degree it does represent cultural arrogance founded on assumption rather than fact. It also ignores “exceptionally” dark chapters in American history, including slavery, seizing of lands from Native Americans and imprisoning of US citizens of Japanese descent. Nonetheless it seems that given the diversity of the population and the sheer enormity of the nation that, as stated by an Asian Indian friend who is a …

Shari'ah Law As National Security Threat?, Cyra Akila Choudhury

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the recently proposed anti-shari’ah laws of Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arizona. It begins by examining the laws and their justifications and analyzes the 10th Circuit decision in Awad v. Ziriax upholding the injunction against Oklahoma’s Save Our State amendment. It then carefully analyzes the cases that have been cited as examples of shari’ah-creep and reveals that they are actually routine examples of comity and conflicts of law rules applied properly by a properly functioning judiciary. If these laws are not national security measures, what is their true purpose? The Article posits that the new laws are the latest …

Reconceptualizing States Of Emergency Under International Human Rights Law: Theory, Legal Doctrine, And Politics, Scott P. Sheeran

Michigan Journal of International Law

States of emergency are today one of the most serious challenges to the implementation of international human rights law (IHRL). They have become common practice and are associated with severe human rights violations as evidenced by the Arab Spring. The international jurisprudence on states of emergency is inconsistent and divergent, and what now constitutes a public emergency is ubiquitous. This trend is underpinned by excessive judicial deference and abdication of the legal review of states' often dubious claims of a state of emergency. The legal regime, as positively expressed in international human rights treaties, does not adequately reflect the underlying …