Law Commons^™

Echoes Of 9/11: Rhetorical Analysis Of Presidential Statements In The "War On Terror", Bruce Ching

Journal Articles

This article examines persuasive statements by Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump involving appeals to national identity as a rhetorical foundation for anti-terrorism policy since 9/11. Their specific rhetorical methods have included the use of memorable catchphrases, alliteration, metaphorical framing, and contrast between values of the United States and those of the terrorists. President Bush focused on rallying the nation’s response against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, identifying the U.S. with “freedom itself” and invoking the phrase “War on Terror.” President Obama emphasized the importance of the nation’s values while denouncing the Bush administration’s torture of …

Donald Trump, Twitter, And Islamophobia: The End Of Dignity In Presidential Rhetoric About Terrorism, Gabriel Rubin

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

Donald Trump’s rhetoric is markedly different than that of just about every other American president. Trump’s speeches on terrorism and his related Islamophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric are examined in this chapter. Trump’s use of Twitter and view of the presidency as a “permanent campaign” keep his followers in a state of near-permanent mobilization. Trump uses the rhetoric of fear to push his followers against Muslims and immigrants by linking terrorism to both groups. As Jeffrey Tulis opines, Trump is America’s first demagogue. This chapter highlights how Trump’s demagoguery and novel method for communicating with his followers has framed the terror …

How Can Presidents Properly Calibrate The Terror Threat?, Gabriel Rubin

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

Presidential rhetoric has minimally changed from the narrative set by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks. Bush’s policies and agenda have also largely remained. This chapter provides proposals for change given the empirical and theoretical findings made in the book. The counterterrorist policy agenda needs to be narrowed and made more precise. The public needs to educate itself about the terror threat to understand that it is not a significant risk when weighed against others. Presidents need to be more careful with what words they use when describing America’s terrorist adversaries and with who they call terrorists. Recalibrating the …

How Safe Is Too Safe? Exemption 7(F) And The Withholding Of Critical Documents, Grant Snyder

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is one of the main tools used by the American public to investigate the actions of its government. Congress created FOIA in an attempt to make most government documents available to the public. Today, the FOIA process favors government withholding. This bias comes from institutional issues in courts’ review of FOIA challenges.

In the environmental and administrative law context, federal agencies use many exemptions to withhold government records from citizen and non-profit groups. Agencies that are tasked with permitting and regulating energy pipelines and other environmentally-sensitive infrastructure now regularly cite Exemption 7(F). These agencies …

The Virtues Of Abstention: Separation Of Powers In Al-Nashiri Ii, Nicholas A. Dimarco

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Part I examines various scholarly approaches to judicial deference, then considers deference in the context of military commissions. In Part II, the history of military commissions in the United States is examined, paying particular attention to the extended dialogue among the coordinate federal branches that created the system currently in operation. The decision in Al-Nashiri II not to adjudicate a collateral attack on one of these commissions is the focus of Part III. That Part embraces the underlying jurisdictional challenge at stake in Al-Nashiri II, the development of abstention doctrine generally and as applied to the current commissions, …

Excavating The Forgotten Suspension Clause, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Congressional Authorization Of The Campaign Against Isil, Tyler Salway

Indiana Law Journal

I. THE BIRTH OF ISIL

II. CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION

A. EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION

1. METHODS OF INCLUSION

2. ISIL’S INCLUSION UNDER THE 9/11 AUMF

B. IMPLICIT AUTHORIZATION

III. ISIL AND THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY

CONCLUSION

Lincoln, The Constitution Of Necessity, And The Necessity Of Constitutions: A Reply To Professor Paulsen, Michael Kent Curtis

Maine Law Review

The George W. Bush administration responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11th with far-reaching assertions of a vast commander-in-chief power that it has often insisted is substantially free of effective judicial or legislative checks. As Scott Shane wrote in the December 17, 2005 edition of the New York Times, "[f]rom the Government's detention of [American citizens with no or severely limited access to courts, and none to attorneys, families, or friends] as [alleged] 'enemy combatants' to the just disclosed eavesdropping in the United States without court warrants, the administration has relied on an unusually expansive interpretation of the president's …

Contemporary Practice Of The United States Relating To International Law, Kristina Daugirdas, Julian Davis Mortenson

Articles

In this section: Congress Enacts Sanctions Legislation Targeting Russia • United States and Qatar Sign Memorandum of Understanding over Terrorism Financing • Trump Reverses Certain Steps Toward Normalizing Relations with Cuba • United States Announces Plans to Withdraw from Paris Agreement on Climate Change • President Trump Issues Trade-Related Executive Orders and Memoranda • United States, Russia, and Jordan Sign Limited Ceasefire for Syria • Trump Administration Recertifies Iranian Compliance with JCPOA Notwithstanding Increasing Concern with Iranian Behavior

A Comparative Approach To Counter-Terrorism Legislation And Legal Policy, Paul David Hill Jr

Senior Honors Theses

Since the 9/11 attacks, American legislation and legal policy in regards to classifying and processing captured terrorists has fallen short of being fully effective and lawful. Trial and error by the Bush and Obama administrations has uncovered two key lessons: (1) captured terrorists are not typical prisoners of war and thus their detainment must involve more legal scrutiny than the latter; and (2) captured terrorists are not ordinary criminals and thus the civilian criminal court system, due to constitutional constraints, is not capable of adequately trying every count of terrorism. Other nations, including France and Israel, approach this problem with …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jared A. Goldstein's Blog: Trump's Order Violates Bedrock Principles Of Roger Williams And Ri 01-30-2017, Jared A. Goldstein

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Order Violates Roger Williams' Principles 01-30-2017, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Lawyers' War: Counterterrorism From Bush To Obama To Trump, Dawn E. Johnsen

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Without Unnecessary Delay: Using Army Regulation 190–8 To Curtail Extended Detention At Sea, Meghan Claire Hammond

Northwestern University Law Review

This Note analyzes instances of U.S. detention of suspected terrorists while at sea as an alternative to Guantánamo, and how this at-sea detention fits in the interplay of U.S. statutory law, procedural law, and applicable international law. Of particular interest is the dual use of military and civilian legal regimes to create a procedural-protection-free zone on board U.S. warships during a detainee’s transfer from their place of capture to the U.S. court system. The Note concludes that U.S. Army Regulation 190–8 contains language of which the purpose and intent may be analogized to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requirements …

Obama's National Security Exceptionalism, Sudha Setty

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The label of national security exceptionalism fits the Obama administration in two ways: first, although the administration has actively sought to address and improve the protection of human rights and civil rights of racial minorities suffering disparate negative treatment in a variety of contexts, those moves toward rights protection generally do not extend to the realm of counterterrorism abuses, although almost all of those who have suffered from violations of human and civil rights in the post-9/11 counterterrorism context are racial and/or religious minorities. One of the justifications for this exceptionalism is based on the widespread view that national security …

Democracy And Torture, Patrick A. Maurer

Patrick A Maurer

September 11th spawned an era of political changes to fundamental rights. The focus of this discussion is to highlight Guantanamo Bay torture incidents. This analysis will explore the usages of torture from a legal standpoint in the United States.

The Boundless War: Challenging The Notion Of A Global Armed Conflict Against Al-Qaeda And Its Affiliates, Andrew Beshai

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The U.S. military response to the 9/11 attacks has expanded into a “global war” without a definite geographic scope. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have executed attacks in several countries including Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen under the “global war” paradigm. This Article challenges the concept of a global armed conflict, instead favoring the “epicenter-of-hostilities” framework for determining the legality of military action against Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups. This approach, rooted in established international law, measures the existence of specific criteria in each nation where hostile forces are present to determine if an armed conflict in …

Repatriate . . . Then Compensate: Why The United States Owes Reparation Payments To Former Guantánamo Detainees, Cameron Bell

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In late 2001, U.S. government officials chose Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as the site to house the “war on terror” detainees. Since then, 779 individuals have been detained at Guantánamo. Many of the detainees have endured years of detention, cruel and degrading treatment, and for some, torture—conduct that violates well-established prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment under both general international law and the law of war. Under these bodies of law, the United States is required to make reparation—through restitution, compensation, and satisfaction—for acts that violate its international obligations. But the United States has not offered financial compensation to any Guantánamo …

Vladimir Putin And The Rule Of Law In Russia, Jeffrey Kahn

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

After The Aumf, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Over a dozen years later, the AUMF — which has never been amended — remains the principal source of the U.S. government’s domestic legal authority to use military force against al Qaeda and its associates, both on the battlefields of Afghanistan and far beyond. But even as the statutory framework has remained unchanged, the facts on the ground have evolved dramatically, leading some to call for a new AUMF. In short, calls for a new framework statute to replace the AUMF are unnecessary, provocative, and counterproductive; they perpetuate war at a time when we should be seeking to end it. …

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.

The Role Of The Olc In Providing Legal Advice To The Commander-In-Chief After September 11th: The Choices Made By The Bush Administration Office Of Legal Counsel, Arthur H. Garrison

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

The first two roles of the U.S. Attorney General from its inception were to represent the interests of the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court and to advise the President on matters of the law. Despite the Attorney General delegating both roles, the former to the Solicitor General and the latter to the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are by statute and tradition looked upon to be the protectors of the rule of law within the Executive Branch. It is to the Attorney General, and by delegation to the OLC, to …

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 …

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 …

Of Civil Wrongs And Rights: Kiyemba V. Obama And The Meaning Of Freedom, Separation Of Powers, And The Rule Of Law Ten Years After 9/11, Katherine L. Vaughns, Heather L. Williams

Faculty Scholarship

This article is about the rise and fall of continued adherence to the rule of law, proper application of the separation of powers doctrine, and the meaning of freedom for a group of seventeen Uighurs—a Turkic Muslim ethnic minority whose members reside in the Xinjiang province of China—who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base since 2002. Most scholars regard the trilogy of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush as demonstrating the Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold the rule of law during the war on terror. The recent experience of the Uighurs …

Negotiating With ‘Bulimic Man’: The (F)Utility Of Engaging Iran, Amit Chhabra

Amit Chhabra

In the aftermath of the World Trade Center bombings of September 11, 2001 (“9/11”), the American psyche has been inordinately consumed with the notion of terror and global jihad against Western culture. Even before these dramatic events, though, our unique sense of humor has traditionally emboldened us to enjoy a good scare. When terror strikes in the real world, then, we are readily at attention. Increasingly since the advent of the television, this aspect of our collective psychology has been commoditized by Hollywood and politicized at election time. The fact that Halloween traditionally falls less than a week before Election …

Of Civil Wrongs And Rights: Kiyemba V. Obama And The Meaning Of Freedom, Separation Of Powers, And The Rule Of Law Ten Years After 9/11, Katherine L. Vaughns, Heather L. Williams

Katherine L. Vaughns

This article is about the rise and fall of continued adherence to the rule of law, proper application of the separation of powers doctrine, and the meaning of freedom for a group of seventeen Uighurs—a Turkic Muslim ethnic minority whose members reside in the Xinjiang province of China—who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base since 2002. Most scholars regard the trilogy of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush as demonstrating the Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold the rule of law during the war on terror. The recent experience of the Uighurs suggest that …

On The Contemporary Meaning Of Korematsu: 'Liberty Lies In The Hearts Of Men And Women', David A. Harris

Articles

In just a few years, seven decades will have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Korematsu v. U.S., one of the most reviled of all of the Court’s cases. Despised or not, however, similarities between the World War II era and our own have people looking at Korematsu in a new light. When the Court decided Korematsu in 1944, we were at war with the Japanese empire, and with this came considerable suspicion of anyone who shared the ethnicity of our foreign enemies. Since 2001, we have faced another external threat – from the al Queda terrorists – …

Attorney General Robert Jackson's Brief Encounter With The Notion Of Preclusive Presidential Power, William R. Casto

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keeping Boumediene Off The Battlefield: Examining Potential Implications Of The Boumediene V. Bush Decision To The Conduct Of United States Military Operations, Fred K. Ford

Pace Law Review

No abstract provided.