TITLE

DETENTION, THE WAR ON TERROR, AND THE FEDERAL COURTS

AUTHOR(S)
Resnik, Judith
PUB. DATE
March 2010
SOURCE
Columbia Law Review;Mar2010, Vol. 110 Issue 2, p579
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Between 2004 and 2009, the United States Supreme Court relied numerous times on habeas corpus to protect the rights of citizens and of aliens detained after 9/11. Various claims could be marshaled to bracket the 9/11 decisions-as "war" cases; "Guantánamo" cases; "torture" cases; aberrational responses to documented procedural unfairness; unusual instances of federal pretrial detention; and either as extraordinary judicial rejections of challenges to the Court's authority or as disappointingly narrow procedural remedies licensing forms of preventive detention. Further, one could argue that the specter of terrorism raises normative questions distinct from those related to confinement for other reasons. But neither the problems nor the law produced through 9/11 detention are exotic. Rather, they are continuous with judicial responses to decisions by governments trying to maintain peace and security and, hence, incapacitating some individuals feared likely to inflict grave harm. Officials deal with uncertainty about which persons are threatening in the contexts of 9/11, of ordinary criminality, and of border regulation. In response, more than two million persons are detained in the United States, and some 25,000 segregated in solitary confinement in "supermax" facilities. Courts in turn have, over the last several decades, addressed or demurred on claims about the illegality of both the length and conditions of confinement, and Congress has repeatedly sought to structure or limit routes that various kinds of detainees may take to court. Therefore, the 9/11 decisions are exemplary of what Henry Monaghan termed the "timeless" questions within the federal courts canon about the role of courts in this constitutional order. One sees, repeatedly, the many effects of "foreign" law on U.S. precepts, as well as the distinctive contributions made by courts, obliged to function independently, to treat all persons as equally entitled to dignity, and to work in public. But the limited role for courts is also vivid; even as adjudication can frame some parameters of confinement, the protection of human dignity depends on a diverse set of officials interacting at all levels and in all sectors of government.
ACCESSION #
49389761

 

Related Articles

  • THE SUPREME COURT, HABEAS CORPUS, AND THE WAR ON TERROR: AN ESSAY ON LAW AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. Fallon Jr., Richard H. // Columbia Law Review;Mar2010, Vol. 110 Issue 2, p352 

    This Essay seeks to illuminate the Supreme Court's habeas corpus cases arising from the War on Terror up through the 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush by supplementing traditional legal analysis with three propositions derived from recent political science literature. First, the space for...

  • NO END IN SIGHT: THE EFFECT OF THE BOUMEDIENE DECISION ON DETAINEES HELD BY THE UNITED STATES AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA. Kaplan, Connie // ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law;Fall2008, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p183 

    The article examines the potential impact of the decision of the U.S. Supreme in the case of Lakhdar Boumediene, a Bosnian-Algerian national who was arrested by local Bosnian police on suspicion of plotting an attack on the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo in late 2001, on about 265 current detainees at...

  • Overplaying Its Hand. Taylor Jr., Stuart // Newsweek;6/23/2008, Vol. 151 Issue 25, p38 

    The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that granted detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp full access to federal courts, a ruling upheld by the principle of habeas corpus. It is noted that the Supreme Court decision creates many legal questions as to the full scope...

  • New rights for terror detainees as deeply split Supreme Court rules. Gallagher, Bill // Niagara Falls Reporter;6/17/2008, Vol. 9 Issue 23, p4 

    The article reports on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to allow suspected terrorists to challenge their detention at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The judgment, which took a split decision of 5-4, reaffirms the right to habeas corpus enshrined in the country. Furthermore,...

  • Overplaying Its Hand. Taylor Jr., Stuart // Newsweek (Atlantic Edition);6/23/2008 (Atlantic Edition), Vol. 151 Issue 25, p52 

    The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that granted detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp full access to federal courts, a ruling upheld by the principle of habeas corpus. It is noted that the Supreme Court decision creates many legal questions as to the full scope...

  • Overplaying Its Hand. Taylor Jr., Stuart // Newsweek (Pacific Edition);6/23/2008 (Pacific Edition), Vol. 151 Issue 25, p42 

    The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that granted detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp full access to federal courts, a ruling upheld by the principle of habeas corpus. It is noted that the Supreme Court decision creates many legal questions as to the full scope...

  • RAMY PRAWNE REÅ»IMU DETENCJI WOJSKOWEJ W PRAWIE AMERYKAŃSKIM W ÅšWIETlE AKTUALNEGO ORZECZNICTWA. STOLICKI, Dariusz // Politeja;2014, Vol. 27, p21 

    The practice of military detention of persons captured during the “global war on terror” has raised controversy both in the United States and abroad. This article, being the first in a series of articles analyzing the post‑2001 case law on military detention, focuses on the...

  • Rule of Law.  // America;7/21/2008, Vol. 199 Issue 2, p5 

    The author reflects on the implementation of the terrorist detention program and decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court which granted detainees the right to habeas corpus. He suggests that the government should develop measures to prevent terrorism from happening but should not prevent the...

  • Against Doctrinal Convergence in Constitutional Remedies. Fu, Thomas K. S. // Stanford Journal of Civil Rights & Civil Liberties;Jun2014, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p293 

    The Supreme Court has increasingly moved towards a single, uniform legal standard in the area of constitutional remedies. The boundaries between the legal tests used to determine the availability of relief in the post-conviction habeas, constitutional tort, and exclusionary rule contexts have...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics