Indefinite Detention and Antiterrorism Laws: Balancing Security and Human Rights

This article does more than describe British and American anti-terrorism laws; it shows how those laws go through conflicted government branches and the bargains struck to create the anti-terrorism laws that exist today. Instead of taking these laws as given, this Article explains why they exist. More specifically, this article focuses on the path anti-terrorism legislation followed in the United States and the United Kingdom, with particular focus on each country’s ability (or lack thereof) to indefinitely detain suspected non-citizen terrorists. Both countries’ executives sought to have that power and both were limited by the legislatures and courts but in different ways. These differences show the human rights concerns both countries grappled with when enacting anti-terrorism legislation and how the two governments approached balancing those concerns. These anti-terrorism laws also show which government branches possessed the most power when creating the legislation, which branches dictated the terms of these laws, and which branches were forced to compromise. The different paths taken by the anti-terrorism legislation in both countries also show the different styles of the two governments. The branches of the United States government are more likely to openly defy each other, knowing that checks and balances will ensure that no branch dominates. In the United Kingdom, there is no strong tradition of checks and balances so informal bargaining and consulting among the branches is more common before legislation is proposed or amended. The United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act has, however, begun to change the culture and has caused more open opposition among the three branches

Thermobarometric studies on the Levack Gneisses: Footwall rocks to the Sudbury Igneous Complex

Granulite and amphibolite facies gneisses and migmatites of the Levack Gneiss Complex occupy a zone up to 8 km wide around the northern part of the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC). Orthopyroxene- and garnet-bearing tonalitic and semipelitic assemblages of granulite facies grade occur within 3 km of the SIC together with lenses of mafic and pyroxenitic rock compositions normally represented by an amphibole +/- cpx-rich assemblage; amphibolite facies assemblages dominate elsewhere in this terrain. These 2.711-Ga gneisses were introduced by (1) the Cartier Granite Batholith during late Archaean to early Proterozoic time and (2) the SIC, at 1.85 Ga, which produced a contact aureole 1-1.5 km wide in which pyroxene hornfelses are common within 200-300 m of the contact. A suite of 12 samples including both the opx-gt and amphibole-rich rock compositions have been studied. Garnets in the semipelitic gneisses are variably replaced by a plg-bio assemblage. Thermobarometric calculations using a variety of barometers and thermometers reported in the literature suggest that the granulite facies assemblages formed at depths in the 21-28 km range (6-8 kbar). Textures and mineral chemistry in the garnet-bearing semipelitic rocks indicate that this terrain underwent a second metamorphic event during uplift to depth in the 5-11 km range (2-3 kbar) and at temperatures as low as 500-550 C. This latter event is distinct from thermal recrystallization caused by the emplacement of the SIC; it probably represents metamorphism attributable to intrusion of the Cartier Granite Batholith. These data allow two interpretations for the crustal uplift of the Levack Gneisses: (1) The gneisses were tectonically uplifted prior to the Sudbury Event (due to intrusion of the Cartier Batholith); or (2) the gneisses were raised to epizonal levels as a result of meteorite impact at 1.85 Ga

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

USA Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of La

Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by United States of America

USA Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of La

Response by United Sates to statements of issues

US Response to Statements of Issue

Response by the United States to findings and conclusions and order proposed by the State of Washington

Response by the US to Wash. Proposed Findings and Conclusion

Statement of issues by the United States of America

Statement of Issues by US

Supplemental exhibit list United States of America

US Supplemental Exhibit Lis

Findings of fact and conclusions of law

USA Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of La

Submission of letter response by U.S.G.S.

Submission of Letter Response by USG