National Security Law Commons^™

The Muted Rise Of The Silent Witness Rule In National Security Litigation: The Eastern District Of Virginia's Answer To The Fight Over Classified Information At Trial, Jonathan M. Lamb

Pepperdine Law Review

The state secrets problem is emblematic of a judicial issue which is not confined to the civil cases in which the privilege is asserted - the tension between the government's interest in protecting classified information and society's interest in justice by resolution on the merits. The United States must be allowed to prosecute terrorists, conspirators, and enemies by using classified information as evidence; but how may the government act as a civil defendant without invoking the state secrets privilege to dismiss actions before trial (or pre-discovery)? The answer might be a little known evidentiary doctrine called the silent witness rule. …

Guy Fawkes's Dangerous Remedy: The Unconstitutionality Of Government-Ordered Assassination Against U.S. Citizens And Its Implications For Due Process In America, 45 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1121 (2012), Emily Kendall

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mission Creep In National Security Law, Fletcher N. Baldwin Jr., Daniel R. Koslosky

UF Law Faculty Publications

Many anti-terrorism measures are enacted with broad public support. There is often a general willingness on the part of the public to accept greater civil liberties deprivations in the face of a specific threat, or otherwise in times of general crisis, than would otherwise be the case. Sweeping anti-terrorism legislation is frequently crafted in reaction to the presence, or perceived presence, of immense, imminent danger. The medium and long-term consequences of the legislation may not fully be comprehended when political leaders and policymakers take swift action in the face strong public pressure in light of a recent terrorist attack or …

Judicial Formalism And The State Secrets Privilege, Sudha Setty

Faculty Scholarship

Congress has, in the last few years, toyed with the idea of attempting to rein in the executive’s increasing reliance on the state secrets privilege as a means of escaping the possibility of accountability. The Author examines one high-profile case, that of Binyam Mohamed and other plaintiffs claiming that they had been subject to extraordinary rendition, torture, and prolonged detention. The Mohamed litigation offers evidence of a disturbing trend of U.S. courts retreating to formalistic reasoning to extend unwarranted deference to the executive branch in security-related contexts. In this essay the Author limits her analysis to the recent jurisprudence surrounding …

Judicial Foreign Relations Authority After 9/11, Martin S. Flaherty

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

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, …

Assessing The Impeachment Of President Bill Clinton From A Post 9/11 Perspective, Susan Low Bloch

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The impeachment of President Clinton was more a circus than a serious effort to remove the President of the United States. The reason is simple: Few people--in the Congress or the country--wanted to remove him or believed the impeachment effort would actually result in his removal. Instead, it was a partisan political effort to embarrass Clinton and "send a message" of disapproval. Congress was attaching a "scarlet letter." But this was an indulgence that posed considerable danger that few in Congress considered. In particular, few tried to assess the potential impact this use of the process would have on the …

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 …

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 …

Obama's Failed Attempt To Close Gitmo: Why Executive Orders Can't Bring About Systemic Change, Erin B. Corcoran

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Searching For Effective And Constitutional Responses To Homegrown Terrorists, Barbara L. Mcquade

Articles

Thank you, Brad, and thank you to the Law Review for inviting me here today. Protecting national security while honoring civil liberties is the greatest challenge of our generation. As a prosecutor, I am charged with protecting national security, and I understand the importance of protecting the public from acts of terrorism. But prosecutors are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. In fact, at the U.S. Attorney's Office, we are also charged with prosecuting violations of civil rights. So in every case, we understand how important it is to protect people's constitutional rights, such as First Amendment rights to free …

Advising Terrorism: Material Support, Safe Harbors, And Freedom Of Speech, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A Hypothetical Postulate For The Polemic Of Extraordinary Rendition Vis-A-Vis The Paradigm Of Asymmetric Warfare, John C. Duncan, Jr.

Journal Publications

This article presents a controversial hypothetical approach to a side of the polemic regarding extraordinary rendition. War is not always controlled by rules, fairness, or ethics. The United States would prefer the foregoing if forced to go to war, but the enemy may not follow the same approach. As a result, the United States becomes hampered by unilaterally self-imposed rules and standards. Conceivably, we could fail to achieve our military objective because of the enemy's adherence to a very different approach and beliefs regarding warfare. Were we to have the privilege of fighting under relatively similar rules with the other …

The Extraordinary Mrs. Shipley: How The United States Controlled International Travel Before The Age Of Terrorism, Jeffrey D. Kahn

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Terrorist watchlists used to restrict travel into and out of the United States owe their conceptual origins to Mrs. Ruth B. Shipley, the Chief of the State Department’s Passport Division from 1928 to 1955. Mrs. Shipley was one of the most powerful people in the federal government for almost thirty years, but she is virtually unknown today. She had the unreviewable discretion to determine who could leave the United States, for how long, and under what conditions.

This article examines how Mrs. Shipley exercised her power through a detailed study of original documents obtained from the National Archives. It then …

Judging Myopia In Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, And The Rule Of Law, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

Liability in national security matters hinges on curbing both official myopia and hindsight bias. The Framers knew that officials could be short-sighted, prioritizing expedience over abiding values. Judicial review emerged as an antidote to myopia of this kind. However, the Framers recognized that ubiquitous second-guessing of government decisions would also breed instability. Balancing these conflicting impulses has produced judicial oscillation between intervention and deference. Recent decisions on Bivens claims in the war on terror have defined extremes of deference or intervention. Cases like Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Arar v. Ashcroft display a categorical deference that rewards officials' myopia. On the …

Can Congress Ban People From Threatening To Burn The Quran? Yes: No Rights Are Absolute, Especially Amid Legitimate Safety Issues, Jessica D. Gabel

Faculty Publications By Year

No abstract provided.

The State Secrets Privilege In The Post-9/11 Era, 30 Pace L. Rev. 778 (2010), Steven D. Schwinn

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Placing Your Faith In The Constitution, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Legalism And Decisionism In Crisis, Noa Ben-Asher

Faculty Publications

In the years since September 11, 2001, scholars have advocated two main positions on the role of law and the proper balance of powers among the branches of government in emergencies. This Article critiques these two approaches-which could be called Legalism and Decisionism-and offers a third way. Debates between Legalism and Decisionism turn on (1) whether emergencies can be governed by prescribed legal norms; and (2) what the balance of powers among the three branches of government should be in emergencies. Under the Legalist approach, legal norms can and should guide governmental response to emergencies, and the executive branch is …

De-Cloaking Torture: Boumediene And The Military Commissions Act, Alan W. Clarke

San Diego International Law Journal

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) marked the high tide and endgame for hiding torture. It's unraveling did more to uncover the Bush administration's secret interrogation practices than did the political change in Washington. International and domestic backlash against the government's embrace of harsh interrogation techniques, frequently rising to the level of torture, also played a role. However, the Supreme Court's decisions ending in Boumediene v. Bush played the decisive role. Boumediene, and the Supreme Court decisions that led up to it, made inevitable that which politics had left contingent and reversible. It also provided legal and political cover.

Legal Obligations: The Proper Role Of White House Lawyers, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

An opinion issued on Aug. 1, 2002, by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel held that the federal statute that makes it a crime to commit torture outside the United States should not be read to “apply to the President’s detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.” The opinion further concluded that if the statute did criminalize interrogations ordered by the president, it was unconstitutional.

The memorandum, which has become known as the “torture memo,” figures prominently in the ongoing public debate about whether there should be …

The Lexington Principles On The Rights Of Detainees: A Transnational Legal Process Approach To Due Process, David Alan Jordan, Frederic L. Kirgis, R. Brooke Lewis, Thomas Greenwood, Bennett L. Ross, Kathryn M. Zunich

Scholarly Articles

In Boumediene v. Bush, decided June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus to noncitizens detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Courts will now be called upon to assess the propriety of American detainee treatment practices against unclear constitutional standards. The strength and contours of the due process protections the U.S. Constitution will afford these detainees is still an unsettled question. The Lexington Principles are designed to help guide the development of American due process standards as they move outside our borders. These Principles are also intended to serve as a model for those …

The Perilous Dialogue, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The master metaphor in the national security dialogue is, indeed, “security or freedom”. It dominates the counterterrorist discourse both in the United States and abroad. Transcripts from debates in Ireland’s Dáil Éireann, Turkey’s Büyük Millet Meclisi, and Australia’s Parliament are filled with reference to the need to weigh the value of liberty against the threat posed by terrorism. Perhaps nowhere is this more pronounced than in the United Kingdom, where, for decades, counterterrorist debates have turned on this framing. Owing in part, though, to different constitutional structures, what “security or freedom” means in America differs from what it means in …

Run For The Border: Laptop Searches And The Fourth Amendment, Nathan Alexander Sales

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Title Vi Disparate Impact Claims Would Not Harm National Security - A Response To Paul Taylor, 46 Harv. J. On Legis. 503 (2009), Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Margaret B. Kwoka

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

As Paul Taylor recognizes in the previous issue of this volume of the Harvard Journal on Legislation, Congress is considering amendments to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly allow private plaintiffs to use the disparate impact theory to prove discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance. This Article responds to Taylor's assertion that allowing such disparate impact claims could harm national security programs. The authors explore the history of the disparate impact theory under both Title VI and Title VII, explain that use of the theory is consistent with Congress's original intent, and argue that …

Deep Secrecy, David E. Pozen

Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers a new way of thinking and talking about government secrecy. In the vast literature on the topic, little attention has been paid to the structure of government secrets, as distinct from their substance or function. Yet these secrets differ systematically depending on how many people know of their existence, what sorts of people know, how much they know, and how soon they know. When a small group of similarly situated officials conceals from outsiders the fact that it is concealing something, the result is a deep secret. When members of the general public understand they are being …

An Improved Analytical Framework For The Official Acknowledgment Doctrine: A Broader Interpretation Of “Through An Official And Documented Disclosure”, Jessica Fisher

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bah V. Mukasey, Sandrine Dehaeze

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The President, Congress And The Security Council: Counterterrorism And The Use Of Force Through The Internationalist Lens, Margaret E. Mcguiness

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

This symposium is focused on the powers of the U.S. presidency, a topic that typically implies questions of constitutional law. More narrowly, the topic of presidential powers in the area of counterterrorism typically raises questions of how the Constitution addresses the shared war powers of the President and Congress. U.S. legal scholars have generally not framed the question of presidential power to use force against transnational terrorist groups as one of international law or international institutions. Rather, the separation of powers question has focused on historical and functional views of the President's war powers and whether and to what …

Administrative Detention Of Terrorists: Why Detain, And Detain Whom?, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

This article aims to reframe the administrative detention debate, not to resolve it. In doing so, however, it aspires to advance the discussion by highlighting the critical substantive choices embedded in calls for legal procedural reform and by pointing the way toward appropriately tailored legislative options. It argues that the current debate’s focus on procedural and institutional questions of how to detain suspected terrorists has been allowed to overshadow the questions of why administratively detain, and whom to detain. Not only are the answers to these questions at least as important as the procedural rules in safeguarding and balancing liberty …