Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

The Use And Abuse Of Domestic National Security Detention, Nicole Hallett

Seattle University Law Review

Are people convicted of terrorism-related offenses so dangerous that we must bend the Constitution to keep the public safe? Or should we treat them like people who commit other crimes—by prosecuting, convicting, sentencing, and then releasing them after they have served their criminal sentences? Can we trust the government to use the power to detain people without criminal charge without abusing it? The case of Adham Amin Hassoun raises these questions. Prosecuted after 9/11 for providing support to Muslims abroad in the 1990s, and sentenced under the United States’ expansive material support laws, Hassoun avoided a life sentence only to …

The United States Is Enabling An Outer Space Arms Race: An Overview Of The Current Framework And Recommendations For Abating An Outer Space Arms Race, Valerie Shmigol

Seattle University Law Review

This Note explores the possibility of future armed outer space conflict as global powers create and test counterspace weapons. Part I of this Note overviews current space security threats, focusing on China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea’s capabilities. Part II provides a primer on international agreements governing outer space. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty serves as the legal framework for outer space activities; however, it is woefully inadequate in addressing escalating tensions. Finally, Part III provides recommendations and advocates for the United States to revise its position, which seeks voluntary “transparency and confidence building measures.”

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Does The Woman Suffrage Amendment Protect The Voting Rights Of Men?, Steve Kolbert

Seattle University Law Review

This Article—part of the Seattle University Law Review’s symposium on the centennial of the ratification of the Woman Suffrage Amendment—examines that open possibility. Concluding that the Nineteenth Amendment does protect men’s voting rights, this Article explores why and how that protection empowers Congress to address felon disenfranchisement and military voting. This Article also examines the advantages of using Nineteenth Amendment enforcement legislation compared to legislation enacted under other constitutional provisions.

Part I discusses the unique barriers to voting faced by voters with criminal convictions (Section I.A) and voters in the armed forces (Section I.B). This Part also explains how existing …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodies? The Current State Of Sexual Assault Reform Within The U.S. Military And The Need For The Use Of A Formal Decisionmaking Process In Further Reform, Danielle Rogowski

Seattle University Law Review

Who protects those who protect the nation? In the United States, these responsibilities are levied upon the U.S. Congress, which has Constitutional authority to “make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” As such, the U.S. military currently has a robust and well-developed judicial system governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Yet critics have attacked this system during the past two decades by alleging that it fails to adequately prevent and prosecute sexual assault within the ranks. Following scandals at the 1991 Tailhook Convention, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and the United States Air …

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 …

Physical-Strength Rationales For De Jure Exclusion Of Women From Military Combat Positions, Maia Goodell

Seattle University Law Review

Women have been serving in the military in steadily increasing numbers for decades. Nevertheless, the military remains one of the few areas in which the U.S. government decides what roles are open to women based on de jure exclusions. This Article examines the law governing de jure classification, noting that a mere normative belief about women’s proper place in society is an insufficient basis to justify a sex-based exclusion. It then probes the most common rationale advanced in support of the continued de jure exclusion of women: physical strength. The Article examines four problems with the physical strength rationale: (1) …

The Military's Involvement In Law Enforcement: The Threat Is Not What You Think, Michael T. Cunningham

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will first briefly discuss the Posse Comitatus Act and its applicability in different situations, the exceptions to the PCA, and the use of DOD military services in counter-drug operations. Next, extraterritorial applications of the PCA will be briefly examined. Finally, the effects law enforcement activities may have on military readiness will be discussed.

The Implications Of National Security Safeguards On The Commercialization Of Remote Sensing Imagery, Youssef Sneifer

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment offers a critique of the national security restrictions contained in the United States policy and regulations and the uncertainty they inject into the commercialization of remote sensing imagery. After providing a brief technical description of remote sensing technology and the market realities associated with remote sensing imagery, this Comment analyzes the legislation and regulations affecting the private sector's commercialization and dissemination of remote sensing imagery with a special emphasis on national security concerns. Specifically, it reviews the Clinton Administration's policy with regard to the commercialization of remote sensing imagery, tracing its origins to the international obligations of the …

Foundations For Military Intervention In The United States, David E. Engdahl

Seattle University Law Review

Notwithstanding the statements from the judiciary, within little more than a decade the executive branch of the United States government consolidated the old, and added several new, foundations for military intervention in the United States. It would be idle for a legal scholar to speculate whether any edifice of oppression is likely to be built upon these foundations, whether soon or later in time. A sufficient task for the legal scholar is to disclose that the foundations, although faulty, indeed are there; to explain how those foundations came to be laid; and, to show that they have no footing on …

The Broadening Of The Pentagon Papers Standard: An Impermissible Misapplication Of The National Security Exception To The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Sherrie L. Bennett

Seattle University Law Review

This comment examines the history of the national security exception to the prior restraint rule and discusses the elements of the Pentagon Papers standard in the context of the Marchetti and Progressive opinions. Application of those elements to the reasoning of the cases demonstrates the failure of these lower courts to follow the Supreme Court's strict view of when restraint is justified. Examining the theoretical basis underlying the first amendment, the comment concludes that strict application of the Pentagon Papers standard is essential to continuing protection of the American people's right to be informed of government activities.