Law Commons^™

Civil Liberties In Uncivil Times: The Perilous Quest To Preserve American Freedoms, Kenneth Lasson

ExpressO

The perilous quest to preserve civil liberties in uncivil times is not an easy one, but the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin should remain a beacon: “Societies that trade liberty for security end often with neither.” Part I of this article is a brief history of civil liberties in America during past conflicts. Part II describes various actions taken by the government to conduct the war on terrorism – including invasions of privacy, immigration policies, deportations, profiling, pre-trial detentions, and secret military tribunals. Part III analyzes the serious Constitutional questions raised by the government’s actions in fighting terrorism. The thesis throughout …

The Legality Of Governmental Responses To Terrorism And The Dichotomous Characterization Of Terrorists As Criminals Or Enemy Combatants, Gregory E. Maggs

ExpressO

This article argues that the United States and other nations ought to create specialized laws to regulate governmental responses to terrorism, rather than debating whether the current laws of war or the current rules of law enforcement should apply. These specialized laws would see terrorism as a problem that sometimes lies between traditional crime and traditional warfare, and would establish rules designed to address governmental responses to it.

Torture: Considering A Framework For Limiting Use, Scott J. Goldberg

ExpressO

Abu Graib, Guantanamo, the War on Terror—the debate over the use of torture is still very much alive in the world today. The debate can be divided into two questions: (1) whether there should be an actual absolute ban where torture is never allowed either ethically or legally, and (2) if torture should be allowed under certain circumstances what form of regulation is best able to ensure that it is used only in those most limited circumstances. Currently, there is an absolute ban in place, yet world leaders, applying a case-by-case utilitarian approach, in fact permit the use of torture …

Enemies Foreign And Domestic: A Historical Look At The Use Of Military Commissions By The United States And The Case For Using Them Against American Citizens, James T. Barnett

ExpressO

An historical look at the use of Military Commissions by the United States of America. This article examines the constitutional powers to use Military Commissions as well as the limitations on such commissions.

It also examines the use of these commissions against American citizens and argues that they are proper in certain circumstances. The limitations set out by the Supreme Court are eroded to the point of being void.

The article goes on to examine the cases of John Walker Lindh and Yasser Hamdi to show that Military Commissions are the proper forum for such cases.

Canadian Fundamental Justice And American Due Process: Two Models For A Guarantee Of Basic Adjudicative Fairness, David M. Siegel

ExpressO

This paper traces how the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States have each used the basic guarantee of adjudicative fairness in their respective constitutions to effect revolutions in their countries’ criminal justice systems, through two different jurisprudential models for this development. It identifies a relationship between two core constitutional structures, the basic guarantee and enumerated rights, and shows how this relationship can affect the degree to which entrenched constitutional rights actually protect individuals. It explains that the different models for the relationship between the basic guarantee and enumerated rights adopted in Canada and the United States, an “expansive …

The Military -Judicial Nexus In Response To Terrorism: Kkk And Alqaeda, Wayne Mccormack

ExpressO

In considering the validity of "enemy combatant" status and military detention for alleged terrorists, several additional propositions emerge. Indefinite military detention of a US citizen arrested on US soil for a domestic crime is far beyond the pale of basic constitutional underpinnings. With respect to noncitizens and citizens captured overseas, military power is arguable but far from solid. In that event, why not take the route that does the least disruption to our system? Second, because the law abhors incoherence, we should be able to make coherent distinctions among alleged terrorists for the purpose of deciding who is tried in …