National Security Law Commons^™

Prostitution Policy: Legalization, Decriminalization And The Nordic Model, Ane Mathieson, Easton Branam, Anya Noble

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Don’T Risk It; Wait Until She’S Sober, Patrick John White

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Let’S Talk About Sex: A Call For Guardianship Reform In Washington State, Sage Graves

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Living Under The Boot: Militarization And Peaceful Protest, Charlotte Guerra

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Let’S Invest In People, Not Prisons: How Washington State Should Address Its Ex-Offender Unemployment Rate, Sara Taboada

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

His Feminist Facade: The Neoliberal Co-Option Of The Feminist Movement, Anjilee Dodge, Myani Gilbert

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

In Her Words: Recognizing And Preventing Abusive Litigation Against Domestic Violence Survivors, David Ward

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Persistence And Resistance: Women’S Leadership And Ending Gender-Based Violence In Guatemala, Serena Cosgrove, Kristi Lee

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Strange Bedfellows: How Expanding The Public Safety Exception To Miranda Benefits Counterterrorism Suspects, Geoffrey Corn, Chris Jenks

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction, Michael Farbiarz

Michigan Law Review

Over and over again during the past few decades, the federal government has launched ambitious international prosecutions in the service of U.S. national security goals. These extraterritorial prosecutions of terrorists, arms traffickers, and drug lords have forced courts to grapple with a question that has long been latent in the law: What outer boundaries does the Constitution place on criminal jurisdiction? Answering this question, the federal courts have crafted a new due process jurisprudence. This Article argues that this jurisprudence is fundamentally wrong. By implicitly constitutionalizing concerns for international comity, the new due process jurisprudence usurps the popular branches’ traditional …

The Icc And The Security Council: How Much Support Is There For Ending Impunity?, 26 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 33 (2016), Stuart Ford

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Terrorists On Appeal: An Exploratory Analysis Of Terrorism Appeals Since 1988, Wesley Mccann

Criminal Law Practitioner

No abstract provided.

Electronic Devices At The Border: The Next Frontier Of Canadian Search And Seizure Law?, Robert Currie

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Over the last several years the Supreme Court of Canada has developed its jurisprudence regarding the search and seizure of electronic devices, applying section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in such a way as to assert and protect a significant amount of privacy in the devices and their data. Recent cases regarding the search of devices at Canada’s borders, however, do not reflect this case law. This is a situation made all the more complex by the generally attenuated expectation of privacy in the border context, and is worthy of inquiry. Using a pending border case …

"During War, The Law Is Silent," Or Is It?: Examining The Legal Status Of Guantanamo Bay, Kate Frisch

Law Student Publications

The use of Guantanamo Bay as an extraterritorial detention center intended to house what the United States deems as "unlawful enemy combatants" has been problematic for several reasons. First, the United States government has argued that Guantanamo exists outside of its immediate territorial sovereignty, and therefore the detainees do not have to be afforded any significant procedural and substantive legal protections under the Constitution. Second, it is unclear how and to what extent United States activities in Guantanamo Bay conform to international human rights standards. Significantly, it has been questioned whether or to what extent public international and human rights …

The Defend Trade Secrets Act Of 2015, S. 1890, H.R. 3326, 114th Congress (2015), Joseph K.C. Doukmetzian

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Cybersecurity And Law Enforcement: The Cutting Edge : Symposium, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Future Of Cybersecurity, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Trending @ Rwulaw: Professor Peter Margulies's Post: Cybersecurity: A 'Must-Know' For Lawyers And Citizens, Peter Margulies

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Margulies On Terror Suspect Arrest, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Mirandizing Terrorism Suspects? The Public Safety Exception, The Rescue Doctrine, And Implicit Analogies To Self-Defense, Defense Of Others, And Battered Woman Syndrome, Bruce Ching

Catholic University Law Review

In its 1984 decision New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court announced the public safety exception, under which statements made by un-Mirandized suspects can be admissible when made in response to questions reasonably asked to protect the safety of the arresting officers or the general public. During the investigation of terrorism cases, law enforcement agencies have begun to extend the time of un-Mirandized questioning of suspects, with the hope that courts will find that the public safety exception makes the suspects’ statements admissible in the ensuing prosecutions.

This Article argues that in announcing the public safety exception, …

Autonomous Weapons And Accountability: Seeking Solutions In The Law Of War, Kelly Cass

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Autonomous weapons are increasingly used by militaries around the world. Unlike conventional unmanned weapons such as drones, autonomous weapons involve a machine deciding whether to deploy lethal force. Yet, because a machine cannot have the requisite mental state to commit a war crime, the legal scrutiny falls onto the decision to deploy an autonomous weapon. This Article focuses on the dual questions arising from that decision: how to regulate autonomous weapon use and who should be held criminally liable for an autonomous weapon’s actions. Regarding the first issue, this Article concludes that regulations expressly limiting autonomous weapon use to non-human …

Combatting International Terrorism: The Role Of Congress, Dante B. Fascell

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Terrorism Trials In Article Iii Courts, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Some individuals reject Article III courts as a forum for bringing terrorist suspects to justice on the grounds that the ordinary judicial system cannot handle such cases. As an empirical matter, this claim is simply false. Since 2001, myriad terrorism trials have progressed through the criminal system. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that between 2001 and 2010, there were 998 defendants indicted in terrorism prosecutions. Eighty-seven percent of the defendants were convicted on at least one charge. According to the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys, from FY 2004 to FY 2009, there were 3,010 terrorism prosecutions. It …

Human Rights Thinking And The Laws Of War, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In a significant early case, the ICTY commented: “The essence of the whole corpus of international humanitarian law as well as human rights law lies in the protection of the human dignity of every person…. The general principle of respect for human dignity is . . . the very raison d'être of international humanitarian law and human rights law.”

Is it true that international humanitarian law and international human rights law share the same “essence,” and that essence is the general principle of respect for human dignity? Is it true that, in the words of Charles Beitz, humanitarian law is …

Global Cyber Intermediary Liability: A Legal & Cultural Strategy, Jason H. Peterson, Lydia Segal, Anthony Eonas

Pace Law Review

This Article fills the gap in the debate on fighting cybercrime. It considers the role of intermediaries and the legal and cultural strategies that countries may adopt. Part II.A of this Article examines the critical role of intermediaries in cybercrime. It shows that the intermediaries’ active participation by facilitating the transmission of cybercrime traffic removes a significant barrier for individual perpetrators. Part II.B offers a brief overview of legal efforts to combat cybercrime, and examines the legal liability of intermediaries in both the civil and criminal context and in varying legal regimes with an emphasis on ISPs. Aside from some …

Rethinking The Role And Regulation Of Private Military Companies: What The United States And United Kingdom Can Learn From Shared Experiences In The War On Terror, A. Grayson Irvin

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Lost In Translation: The Accidental Origins Of Bond V. United States, Kevin L. Cope

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

One of the unusual features of cases about the constitutionality of federal statutes is that they are nearly always foreseeable. Even before the bill’s introduction in Congress, lawmakers are often aware that they are inviting a federal lawsuit. Anticipating a legal challenge, legislators and their staffs attempt to predict the courts’ views of the statute and adapt the bill accordingly. Generally speaking, the bigger the bill’s potential constitutional impact, the more foreseeable the resulting case. By this logic, jurists should have seen the constitutional issues in Bond v. United States from a mile away. In reality, they were foreseen by …

The Difference Prevention Makes: Regulating Preventive Justice, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States and many other countries have adopted a ‘‘paradigm of prevention,’’ employing a range of measures in an attempt to prevent future terrorist attacks. This includes the use of pre textual charges for preventive detention, the expansion of criminal liability to prohibit conduct that precedes terrorism, and expansion of surveillance at home and abroad. Politicians and government officials often speak of prevention as if it is an unqualified good. Everyone wants to prevent the next terrorist attack, after all. And many preventive initiatives, especially where they are not coercive and …

Special Administrative Measures: An Example Of Counterterror Excesses And Their Roots In U.S. Criminal Justice, Francesca Laguardia

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

This article examines the creation and implementation of pretrial Special Administrative Measures [SAMs], a version of pretrial solitary confinement now used most often to confine terror suspects in the federal criminal justice system. Through an in-depth archival study, this article brings attention to the importance of 20th-century criminal justice trends to the 21st-century response to the threat of terrorism, including an increasingly preventive focus and decreasing judicial checks on executive action. The findings suggest that practices believed to be excessive responses to the threat of terrorism are in fact a natural outgrowth of late modern criminal justice.

Pre-Crime Restraints: The Explosion Of Targeted, Non-Custodial Prevention, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This Article exposes the ways in which noncustodial pre-crime restraints have proliferated over the past decade, focusing in particular on three notable examples — terrorism-related financial sanctions, the No Fly List, and the array of residential, employment, and related restrictions imposed on sex offenders. Because such restraints do not involve physical incapacitation, they are rarely deemed to infringe core liberty interests. Because they are preventive, not punitive, criminal law procedural protections do not apply. They have exploded largely unchecked — subject to little more than bare rationality review and negligible procedural protections — and without any coherent theory as to …