Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
Prosecuting The Material Support Of Terrorism: Federal Courts, Military Commissions, Or Both?, P. Scott Rufener
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This note argues that given the recent changes in the 2009 MCA the overall scheme for prosecuting material support of terrorism offenses is satisfactory (i.e., material support crimes should remain under the jurisdiction of both forums), but that the jurisdiction of military commissions over material support offenses should be limited to those providing material support to further specific acts of terrorism (as opposed to generalized support) and to those giving aid to terrorists or foreign terrorist organizations (hereinafter ―FTOs) in active theaters of war.
The Efficacy Of Indefinite Detention: Assessment Of Immigration Case Law In Kiyemba V. Obama, Hansdeep Singh
The Efficacy Of Indefinite Detention: Assessment Of Immigration Case Law In Kiyemba V. Obama, Hansdeep Singh
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This note discusses the potential indefinite detention, also called preventative detention, of the Uighur detainees. Until early 2010, the U.S. Government had been unable to resettle seventeen Uighurs for over 5 years. In 2009, the Supreme Court, granted certiorari on the issue of whether federal courts have the authority to ―order the release of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay 'where the Executive detention is indefinite and without authorization in law, and release into the continental United States is the only possible effective remedy.‘ However, on March 1, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the United States …
American Punitive Damages Vs. Compensatory Damages In Promoting Enforcement In Democratic Nations Of Civil Judgements To Deter State-Sponsors Of Terrorism, Jeffrey F. Addicott
American Punitive Damages Vs. Compensatory Damages In Promoting Enforcement In Democratic Nations Of Civil Judgements To Deter State-Sponsors Of Terrorism, Jeffrey F. Addicott
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Unfortunately, while the United States has established several legal avenues for civil litigation by private citizens of terror attacks against States that sponsor terrorism, a major stumbling block in terms of effectiveness rests in the reality that fellow democratic nations in the international community refuse to honor or domesticate the monetary judgments of American courts. Acknowledging that there are a plethora of political and legal obstacles associated with establishing a workable mechanism for fellow democracies to enforce the “terror” judgments of American courts, one reason that is often raised by critics is the strong objection to the matter of American …
"The Long And Winding Road": Reflections On America's War(S) On Terrorism And Counterterrorism Efforts Post 9/11, Francis J. Larkin
"The Long And Winding Road": Reflections On America's War(S) On Terrorism And Counterterrorism Efforts Post 9/11, Francis J. Larkin
University of Massachusetts Law Review
September 11, 2001 was surely evil incarnate. But out of the shadows and embers of such devilish devastation, going forward, for society to “endure”‖, let alone “prevail”, a “lasting good” must emerge; an enduring immutable and sustainable commitment to peace and non-violence. And, of course, any “lasting good”‖, however utopian or pragmatic would surely require destruction and eradication of terrorism in all of its diverse incarnations; the eradication and destruction of the machinery of terrorism wherever it is found. Long range, it must be the goal, aspiration and belief that out of the seeds and memory of 9/11 there might …
Searching For Remedial Paradigms: Human Rights In The Age Of Terrorism, Frances Howell Rudko
Searching For Remedial Paradigms: Human Rights In The Age Of Terrorism, Frances Howell Rudko
Faculty Publications
Nine years after the unprecedented terrorist attacks on September 11, judicial response to various governmental and individual methods of combating terrorism remains deferential and restrained. The courts have heard at least three types of cases brought by advocates for three distinct groups: the alleged perpetrators of terrorism; the victims of terrorist attacks; and third party humanitarian groups. Implicit in the practical question of how to deal effectively with terrorism is the broader consideration which Congress, the President and others must also address: how to respond to the terrorists' extreme human rights violations without violating international humanitarian law.