Download Free Implications Of The Supreme Courts Boumediene Decision For Detainees At Guantanamo Bay Cuba Non Governmental Perspective Hasc No 110 166 July 30 2008110 2 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Implications Of The Supreme Courts Boumediene Decision For Detainees At Guantanamo Bay Cuba Non Governmental Perspective Hasc No 110 166 July 30 2008110 2 and write the review.

Explosively personal account by a British lawyer who defends Death Row prisoners and Guantanamo Bay detainees.
In March 2011,Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon and Ranking Minority Member Adam Smith directed the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to undertake an in-depth, comprehensive bipartisan investigation of procedures to dispatch detainees from the Guatanamo Bay detention facility)GTMO) over the past decade. This necessarily included an examination of mechanisms intended to prevent former detainees from reengaging in terror-related activities. In conducting this study, committee staff travelled to eleven countries, interviewed nearly every senior official directly involved in these matters in both the Bush and Obama administrations, received briefings from the Department of Defense and Department of State, consulted with eighteen subject matter experts, met with two former detainees, and reviewed thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents. Despite earnest and well-meaning efforts by officials in both administrations, properly evaluating detainees and ensuring that their cases were handled appropriately by receiving countries was, and remains a challenge. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) estimated in September 2011 that 27& of the 600 former detainees who have left GTMO were confirmed or suspected to be presently or previously reengaged in terrorist or insurgent activities. In this report, you will find the four recommendations set out by this committee along with a timeline of events, Guatanamo population trends, snapshots of reengagement, country evaluations of the transferred detainees and more.
Terrorist violence is no novelty in human history and, while government reactions to it have varied over time, some lessons can be learnt from the past. Indeed, the debate on when and how a state should use emergency powers that limit individual freedoms is nearly as old as the history of political thought. After reviewing some history of state responses to terrorist violence and their efficacy, this book sets out to assess the effects of contemporary counterterrorism law and policies on democratic states. In particular, it considers the interaction between national and international law in shaping and implementing anti-terror measures, and the difficult role of the judiciary in striking a balance between security concerns and fundamental rights. It also examines the strains this has caused on some democracies, especially a blurring in the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, giving reason to enquire afresh whether new paradigms are needed. Finally, the issue of whether the doctrine of constitutionalism can provide an appropriate frame of analysis to encapsulate current developments in international law in response to terrorism is broached. By drawing on the expertise of historians, political scientists and lawyers, this book promotes transdisciplinary dialogue, recognising that counterterrorism is an issue at the intersection of law and politics that has profound implications for democratic institutions and practices.
The origins of presidential claims to extraconstitutional powers during national crises are contentious points of debate among constitutional and legal scholars. The Constitution is silent on the matter, yet from Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War to George W. Bush's creation of the "enemy combatants" label, a number of presidents have invoked emergency executive power in defense of actions not specifically endorsed in the Constitution or granted by Congress. Taking up the debate, Clement Fatovic digs into the intellectual history of the nation's founding to argue that the originators of liberal constitutional theory explicitly endorsed the use of extraordinary, extralegal measures to deal with genuine national emergencies. He traces the evolution of thought on the matter through the writings of John Locke, David Hume, William Blackstone, and the founding fathers, finding in them stated support for what Locke termed "prerogative," tempered by a carefully construed concept of public-oriented virtues. Fatovic maintains that the founders believed that moral character and republican decency would restrain the president from abusing this grant of enhanced authority and ensure that it remained temporary. This engaging, carefully considered survey of the conceptions of executive power in constitutional thought explains how liberalism's founders attempted to reconcile the principles of constitutional government with the fact that some circumstances would demand that an executive take normally proscribed actions. Scholars of liberalism, the American founding, and the American presidency will find Fatovic's reasoned arguments against the conventional wisdom enlightening. -- Ernest B. Abbott
Examines the legal and moral complexities democracies face when dealing with terrorism. This book is useful to students and teachers of law, political science, and philosophy, as well as to citizens and activists concerned with the impact of terrorism on civil liberties.
Implications of the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba : non-governmental perspective /
Implications of the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: non-governmental perspective /
Every time human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith lands in Cuba, he takes the eight o'clock ferry to the windward side; his journey ends at Guantánamo Bay. One of the few people in the world who has ongoing independent access to the prison, Smith reveals the grotesque injustices that are perpetrated there in the name of national security—including the justifications created to legitimate the use of torture and the bureaucratic structures that have been put in place to shield prison authorities from legal accountability. By bearing witness to the stories of the forty prisoners that he represents, Smith asks us to consider what is done to American democracy when the rule of law is jettisoned in the name of combating terrorism.