Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Confronting The Wizard Of Oz: National Security, Expertise, And Secrecy, David Cole
Confronting The Wizard Of Oz: National Security, Expertise, And Secrecy, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Aziz Rana’s account of the takeover of American national security by experts, and of the public’s acceptance of that state of affairs, offers an important and novel perspective on what ails us in national security today. In this Comment, I suggest that while Rana is correct to identify our deference to experts as a central aspect of the problem, the problem is more complicated. First, the phenomenon of elite control over foreign and security policy questions is not new, but likely dates back to the founding—when elites ruled not based on expertise but on the basis of status, class, and …
The Taint Of Torture: The Roles Of Law And Policy In Our Descent To The Dark Side, David Cole
The Taint Of Torture: The Roles Of Law And Policy In Our Descent To The Dark Side, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Was the Bush administration’s decision to employ “enhanced interrogation techniques” a mistake of policy, a violation of law, or both? This essay responds to Philip Zelikow’s insider account of how the decision to use these techniques was reached. The author suggests that while Zelikow makes a strong case that the decision to authorize the CIA to use coercive interrogation tactics was a mistaken policy judgment, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it was also illegal. The latter conclusion demands a different response than the former. In particular, it underscores the necessity for accountability. The author …
The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole
The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …
Technological Leap, Statutory Gap, And Constitutional Abyss: Remote Biometric Identification Comes Of Age, Laura K. Donohue
Technological Leap, Statutory Gap, And Constitutional Abyss: Remote Biometric Identification Comes Of Age, Laura K. Donohue
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Federal interest in using facial recognition technology (“FRT”) to collect, analyze, and use biometric information is rapidly growing. Despite the swift movement of agencies and contractors into this realm, however, Congress has been virtually silent on the current and potential uses of FRT. No laws directly address facial recognition—much less the pairing of facial recognition with video surveillance—in criminal law. Limits placed on the collection of personally identifiable information, moreover, do not apply. The absence of a statutory framework is a cause for concern. FRT represents the first of a series of next generation biometrics, such as hand geometry, iris, …
Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society And Individual Rights After 9/11, David Cole
Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society And Individual Rights After 9/11, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Had someone told you, on September 11, 2001, that the United States would not be able to do whatever it wanted in response to the terrorist attacks of that day, you might well have questioned their sanity. The United States was the most powerful country in the world, and had the world’s sympathy in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Who would stop it? Al Qaeda had few friends beyond the Taliban. As a historical matter, Congress and the courts had virtually always deferred to the executive in such times of crisis. And the American polity was unlikely to object …