Due Process and Counterterrorism

Counterterrorism--like terrorism--is a reality. Nations have the absolute obligation and right to protect innocent civilians against those seeking to harm them. However, implementation of counterterrorism obligations must be tempered by due process. The essence of democracy is granting--and protecting--the civil and political rights of attacker and attacked alike. Failure to provide due process to individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism leads a society down a slippery slope from which there is no return

Legislative and Policy Responses to Terrorism, A Global Perspective

While Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, would strike most Americans as the starting date for terrorism- at least as understood by a recently attacked America- the truth is very different both from the American and international perspective. The scope and intensity of the attack that Tuesday morning dramatically changed the American response to terrorism in the short-term and long-term. The change in America\u27s response has impacted the American political debate, its way of life, and its legal and policy perspectives regarding terrorism and counter-terrorism alike. September 11 also had a global impact from an operational, intelligence-gathering, policy and legal perspective. The world has known terrorism for years, or at least parts of it have, and different nations have responded in varying ways to attack. How nations respond is often a reflection of their existing infrastructure, operational abilities, political system, and culture. However, as this article discusses, the different responses clearly exhibit a common theme, that of responding while attempting to strike a balance between legitimate national security interests and the rights of the individual. That balance, from the perspective of both law and policy, will be analyzed in the context of terrorist threats and actual attacks alike. The analysis of the legal and policy responses is the core of this article

The Legal and Ethical Limits of Technological Warfare: Introduction

Deciding a year in advance the theme of a law review symposium is, at best, a tricky proposition. The considerations are varied: what topic will be relevant to academics and policymakers, who shoul dbe invited as panelists, how will invited individuals mix and collaborate with each other, what issue will be of interest to the larger community, and what kind of contribution will the symposium and subsequent publications make to the issue chosen? In conjunction with the Utah Law Review Board and faculty collegues, we decided that addressing the legal and ethical aspects of technological warfare met the criteria we outlined for ourselves: it is an issue of enormous public interest, significant scholars would facilitate extrodinary discussion, and we would be able to impact the public debate. The remaining question was whether the issue would be hot at conference time

The Gate Keepers: Geopolitics and the Limits of Power

The Gate Keepers: Geopolitics and the Limits of Powe

Interrogation of Detainees: Extending a Hand or a Boot?

The current war on terror provides the Bush administration with a unique opportunity to both establish clear guidelines for the interrogation of detainees and to make a forceful statement about American values. How the government chooses to act can promote either an ethical commitment to the norms of civil society, or an attitude analogous to Toby Keith\u27s American Way, where Keith sings that you\u27ll be sorry that you messed with the USofA, \u27Cuz we\u27ll put a boot in your ass, It\u27s the American Way

Human Rights and Counterterrorism: A Contradiction or Necessary Bedfellows?

Ten years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, questionsremain regarding the relationship between human rightsand counterterrorism. The historical track record of theExecutive Branch, Supreme Court, and Congress in thisvein is troubling. While the contradiction suggested inthis Essay\u27s title need not be the case, it is, nevertheless,the persistent reality in American history.This Essay assesses the current relationship betweenhuman rights and counterterrorism. In doing so, itreflects on wartime measures implemented by presidentsthroughout U.S. history and recommends a way forwardthat facilitates more effective protection of human rights without impinging on legitimate national securityconsiderations. Many counterterrorism measures adoptedin the aftermath of 9/11, including torture, rendition,indefinite detention, and denial of habeas corpus, reflect afundamental denial of human rights. Furthermore,evidence that the circumstances do not justify suchextraordinary measures illustrate that the tension betweenhuman rights and counterterrorism requires constantvigilance. This was recently highlighted when AttorneyGeneral Eric Holder suggested that individuals suspectedof involvement in terrorism be denied Miranda rights. Inrecommending ways forward, this Essay analyzes howoperational counterterrorism measures can meet. therecommended two-part test of respect for human rightsand enhancing national security without undulyminimizing one at the expense of the other. It concludesthat crisis points involving national security concerns areprecisely when the Judiciary must engage in activejudicial review in safeguarding basic rights