DOCSLIB.ORG

9/11 Commission, 2, 109, 112–113 9/11 Commission Report, The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
9/11 Commission, 2, 109, 112–113 9/11 Commission Report, The Index 9/11 Commission, 2, 109, Anti-terrorism, Crime, and 112–113 Security Act of 2001 9/11 Commission Report, The, 1, 2, (ATCSA), 128–131, 140, 144 3, 85, 113 Part IV, 129–130 Application Registration Cards (ARCs), 141 Arar, Maher, 153n.24 A Argentina, 62, 64 A and Others v. the Home Arrigo, Jean, 166n.79 Secretary, 131 Article 16 See United Nations Abu Ghraib, 3, 32, 124, 149n.2, Convention Against Torture 150n.3, 152, 162–163, 168 assassination ban (United Abu Hamza, Sheikh, 147 States), 7, 59, 60, 61, 64; see Abu Jihad, 62 also targeted killing, Advisory Committee on the Ashcroft, John, 98 Internment of Rebels, 125 attorney general (United States), Afghanistan, 10, 31–32, 54, 62, 11–12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 34–35, 63, 149, 152, 154–155 36, 51, 52, 57, 58, 70, 71, 72, Algeria, 167, 168, 171, 172 73, 74, 173; see also Attorney al-Harethi, Qaed Salim sinan, 64 General’s Guidelines for crimi- al-Qaida, 54, 55, 60, 62, 106, 130, nal or national security inves- 152, 155, 163 tigations; Attorney General’s al-Sadeq, Abdallah, 134 Guidelines on crimes, racket- al-Shahwani, Mohammed eering, and terrorism enter- Abdullah, 135 prise Amnesty International, 120, 121, Asylum, Immigration, and 129 Nationality Act of 2002, 147 Attorney General’s Guidelines for criminal or national 184 | PROTECTING LIBERTY IN AN AGE OF TERROR security investigations, 83, Campaign for Nuclear 90 Disarmament (CND), 144 Attorney General’s Guidelines Central Intelligence Agency on crimes, racketeering, and (CIA), 37, 60, 107, 150 terrorism enterprise, 95–96, Charter 88, 139, 140, 141 97, 98, 99 Chavez v. Martinez, 161–162, 163, Auld, Jim, 120 176 Aussaresses, Paul, 167 Chile, 62 Authorization for Use of Churchill, Sir Winston, 140 Military Force (AUMF), 41 Clarke, Charles, 129 Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 15, 19, 44, 46, 53, 55–56 B coercive interrogations, 11–13, Bach, Lord, 124 31–35, 119–125; see also high- Bagram air base, 152 ly coercive interrogations; tor- Ballykinler, 126 ture, coercive interrogations Barder, Sir Brian, 131 and Beck, Adrian, 141 admissibility in U.S. trials, 13 bin Laden, Osama, 60, 64 Congressional power and biometric identification (bId), oversight, 32, 33 85, 86–91 emergency exception, 13, 33 impermissible demands for, executive powers, 32, 33 89–91 individual remedies, 13 passports and, 88–89 probable cause and, 12 permissible demands for, U.S. treaty and statutory com- 87–89 mitments, 11, 33–34 Blair, Tony, 137 Collins, Michael, 125 Blunkett, David, 129, 139–140 Colombia, 61 Bowden, Mark, 61 Colville of Culross, Viscount, British Intelligence Centre, 120 128 British Irish Rights Watch, 135 Combatant Status Review Bush, George W., 54 Tribunal, 41 Compton, Sir Edmund, 121 Compton Report, 121 Congress, 9–10, 12, 13, 32, 33, C 36, 42, 49, 51, 52, 61, 65, 76, Cahill, Joe, 126–127 81–82, 94, 95, 109, 111–114, Cambone, Stephen, 153n.25 115–116, 150n.6, 151, 154, 158–160 INDEX | 185 Coughlin, Con, 135 deprivation of light, 150 courts-martial, 19, 54, 55, 56, 57, deprivation of medical treat- 58 ment, 150, 152, 154, 161, 162, Crawford v. Washington, 57 163, 176 Criminal Justice and Public deprivation of sleep, 120, 124, Order Act of 1994, 145 154, 157, 161, 162, 164, 168, “cruel, inhuman, or degrading 172, 174, 176 treatment,” 11, 33, 34, 154, Diplock Commission, 127 156–157, 159–160, 163–164, Diplock, Lord, 127 171, 175n.108, 176; see also Dirty War, 134 torture, coercive interrogation distinctions based on group and; highly coercive interroga- membership See profiling tion (HCI) Dublin Easter Uprising (1916), 125, 126 Dubs, Lord, 128 due process, 11, 17, 33, 36, D 41–42, 50, 160–162, 175 Data Protection Act of 1998, 136 Death on the Rock, 133 Defence of the Realm Act, 125 Defense Advanced Research E Projects Agency (DARPA), Egypt, 150, 153 76, 77 Eighth Amendment (U.S. Department of Defense, 12, 17, Constitution), 13, 33, 34, 38, 31, 32, 36, 37, 41, 49, 50, 54, 160–161, 174–175 57, 77, 150, 151, 152 Ellsberg, Daniel, 83 Department of Homeland Emergency Powers Act (1973), Security, 85, 88, 116 126, 127–128 Department of Homeland Escobar, Pablo, 61 Security Inspector General, European Commission on 116 Human Rights, 122–123 Department of Justice, 12, 30, European Convention on 32, 36, 93, 96, 103, 105–106, Human Rights, 121, 122, 114, 115, 116, 151; see also 129, 133, 135, 138, 146 Federal Bureau of European Court of Human Investigation (FBI) Rights (ECHR), 119, Department of Justice Inspector 123–124, 133, 157–158, 160, General, 114, 115, 116 163, 165 deprivation of food and water, Executive Order 12333, 60 120, 124, 150, 154, 157, 176 186 | PROTECTING LIBERTY IN AN AGE OF TERROR executive power, counterterror- Fourteenth Amendment (U.S. ism and, 1–3, 5–10, 32, 33, Constitution), 13, 33, 34, 38, 35, 38, 42, 45, 60–61, 65, 74, 160, 161, 162, 174–175 111, 114–117, 154, 176, Fourth Amendment (U.S. extraordinary measures, Constitution), 69, 80, 83 109–117 France, 97, 167, 168, 171 defined, 109 Frongoch internment camp, 125, effectiveness of, 109, 111 126 oversight and review, 109–116 Congressional, 109, 111–114, 115–116 executive, 111, 114–117 G judicial, 109–110 Gardiner, Lord, 122 nonpartisan congressional General Accountability Office commission, 111–114, 115 (GAO), 2, 113, 115–116 transparency, 109–110 General Security Service (GSS), Israel, 158, 165, 177 Geneva Conventions, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 31, 33, 42, 43, 49, 50, F 56, 62, 124, 151n.11, 153, Farrakhan, Louis, 147 154–155, 172, 173–174, 175 Faulkner, Brian, 119n.3, 126 Gibraltar, 133 Federal Bureau of Investigation Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 162 (FBI), 27, 37, 83, 94–96, 98, Giorgio, Jerry, 166–167 106, 115, 116 Girdwood Park, 126 Ferrers, Earl, 142 Guantanamo Bay, 41, 53, 54, Fifth Amendment (U.S. 151; see also coercive interro- Constitution), 13, 17, 33, 34, gation 38, 39, 50, 160, 161n.56, Guatemala, 64 174–175 Guidance Regarding the Use of First Amendment (U.S. Race by Federal Law Constitution), 93, 97, 98, 104 Enforcement Agencies, 103, Foreign Intelligence 105–106 Surveillance Act (FISA), 22, 69, 71, 72, 73, 104 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Courts, H 18, 24, 51–52, 77, 82 habeas corpus, 6, 17, 41, 48, 49–50, 131 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 41, 42 INDEX | 187 Headquarters Mobile Support Hussein, Saddam, 135, 174 Unit (HMSU), 132 Heath, Edward, 122, 124, 126n.41 Heseltine, Sir Michael, 133 I highly coercive interrogation identification of individuals, (HCI), 12, 13, 35–39, 171–177 85–91 admissibility in U.S. trials, 39 access to sensitive resources defined, 175–176 and locations, 87–89 due process and, 173–174, 175 biometric identification (bId), emergency exception, 38–39 85, 86–91 executive powers, 35, 38, 176 impermissible demands for, guidelines, 12, 36–37, 171–177 89–91 individual remedies, 39 passports and, 88–89 judicial determinations and, permissible demands for, 37 87–89 non-U.S. persons, 38–39 false identification, 85 probable cause, 35–36 nonfederal agencies and, 87, treaty obligations, 172, 173, 88, 89, 90 176 Immigration Act of 1971, Hogg, Douglas, 134 129n.57, 147 home secretary, 129–130, 131, Immigration and Asylum Act of 143, 144, 147 1999, 147 hooding, 120, 124–125, 150, 154, Immigration and Nationality 157, 158, 161, 162, 168, 172, Act of 2002, 147 174, 175 Immigration Law Practitioners Hoon, Geoff, 124–125 Association, 131 House Armed Services indefinite detention, 14–18, Committee, 12 41–52, 125–131, 154 House Intelligence Committee, access to attorney, 14, 16, 44, 12, 23, 29, 36, 61, 73, 111, 114 46, 47, 48 House Judiciary Committee, 12, administrative detention with- 27, 95 out trial, 44–45 House of Commons, 129, 141 compensation and, 15, 44 House of Lords, 129, 131 Congressional powers and, 42, Hughes, Simon, 142 49, 51, 52 Human Rights Act (1998), 131, detention hearings, 14–15, 16, 138, 146 44, 47 Human Rights Derogation due process and, 17, 41, 50 Order, 129 enemy combatant status, 41 188 | PROTECTING LIBERTY IN AN AGE OF TERROR executive power and, 42 transactions and, 76 international law and, 48 Inland Revenue, 139 judicial jurisdiction and, 48 Inspector General Act of 1978 judicial warrants and, 18, 46, (IG Act), 115 51 inspectors general (IGs), non-U.S. persons, 15–16, 18, 114–117 41, 43, 47–48 intercepted communications, outside United States, 15–16, 69–74 18, 43; see also indefinite Fourth Amendment (U.S. detention, zones of active com- Constitution), 69 bat and non-content information, probable cause, 14, 45, 47, 48 73–74 special advocate and, 16, 44, non-U.S. persons, 69, 71–73 46, 47, 130 probable cause, 70, 71, 72 speedy trial and, 15, 44, 45, 46, unintended acquisitions, 73 48 U.S. persons and, 69–74 trial jurisdiction, 16 within the United States, 69, treaty obligations and, 17 70–73 U.S. national security law and, Intelligence Company, 132 43 Intelligence and Security U.S. persons, 14, 41, 42–47 Committee (ISC), 143 within the United States, 14, International Covenant on Civil 18, 42–47 and Political Rights zones of active combat and, (ICCPR), 61, 156 16–18, 42, 49–51 Iran, 63 zone of active combat, Iraq, 3, 10, 31, 32, 63, 64, defined, 50 124–125, 135, 151, 154–155; information collection, 3, 75–84, see also Abu Ghraib 136–139 Iraqi National Accord (INA), Congress and, 76, 81–82 135 individualized data and, Iraqi Special Security 82–83 Organization, 136 judicial authorization and Ireland v. United Kingdom, 123, warrants, 77, 81–82 157–158, 165 Nixon administration, 83 Ireland, Republic of, 122 pattern recognition and, 75, Irish National Liberation Army 76, 77, 78–80 (INLA), 132 oversight, 81–82 Irish Republican Army (IRA), 5, required security concerning 119, 122, 123, 126, 127, delivery, 84 157–158 INDEX | 189 Irish Republican Brotherhood, Massu, Jacques, 167 125 Mathews v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Breaking out of Britain's Neo-Liberal State
    cDIREoCTIONmFOR THE pass DEMOCRATIC LEFT Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State January 2009 Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett 3 4 r Tr hink e b m m u N PIECES 3 4 Tr hink e b m u N PIECES Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett “In the big-dipper of UK politics, the financial crisis suddenly re-reversed these terms. Gordon Brown excavated a belief in Keynesian solutions from his social democratic past and a solidity of purpose that was lacking from Blair’s lightness of being” Compass publications are intended to create real debate and discussion around the key issues facing the democratic left - however the views expressed in this publication are not a statement of Compass policy. Breaking out of Britain’s Neo-Liberal State www.compassonline.org.uk PAGE 1 Breaking out of Britain’s reduced for so many, is under threat with The British Empire State Building Neo-Liberal State no state provisions in place for them. The political and even military consequences England’s “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 Gerry Hassan and Anthony Barnett could well be dire. created a framework of compromise between monarchy and Parliament. It was Nonetheless we should celebrate the followed by the union of England with possible defeat of one aspect of neo- Scotland of 1707, which joined two he world we have lived in, liberal domination. It cheered the different countries while preserving their created from the twin oil-price destruction of a communist world that distinct legal traditions. Since then the T shockwaves of 1973 and 1979 was oppressive and unfree.
    [Show full text]
  • Election 2001 Campaign Spending We Are an Independent Body That Was Set up by Parliament
    Election 2001 Campaign spending We are an independent body that was set up by Parliament. We aim to gain public confidence and encourage people to take part in the democratic process within the United Kingdom by modernising the electoral process, promoting public awareness of electoral matters, and regulating political parties. On 1 April 2002, The Boundary Committee for England (formerly the Local Government Commission for England) became a statutory committee of The Electoral Commission. Its duties include reviewing local election boundaries. © The Electoral Commission 2002 ISBN: 1-904363-08-3 1 Contents List of tables, appendices and returns 2 Conclusions 45 Preface 5 Political parties 45 Executive summary 7 Third parties 46 Spending by political parties 7 Candidates’ expenses 46 Spending by third parties 7 Future work programme 47 Spending by candidates 7 Introduction 9 Appendices The role of The Electoral Commission 10 Appendix 1 49 Campaign expenditure by political parties 11 Appendix 2 50 The spending limit 12 Appendix 3 87 Interpretation of legislation 12 Appendix 4 89 Public and media interest in the campaign 13 Appendix 5 90 Commission guidance 13 Appendix 6 97 Completing and reviewing the expenditure returns 13 Candidates’ election expenses at the Analysis of returns 14 2001 general election 99 Northern Ireland analysis 15 Great Britain analysis 17 Problems in categorising expenditure 18 Breakdown of total expenditure: the main three British parties 18 Other parties and trends 19 Apportionment and spending in England, Scotland
    [Show full text]
  • Centre for Political & Constitutional Studies King's College London
    CODIFYING – OR NOT CODIFYING – THE UNITED KINGDOM CONSTITUTION: THE EXISTING CONSTITUTION Centre for Political & Constitutional Studies King’s College London Series paper 2 2 May 2012 1 Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies The Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies is a politically non-aligned body at King’s College London, engaged in and promoting interdisciplinary studies and research into contemporary political and constitutional issues. The Centre’s staff is led by Professor Robert Blackburn, Director and Professor of Constitutional Law, and Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Research Professor, supported by a team of funded research fellows and academic staff at King’s College London specialising in constitutional law, contemporary history, political science, comparative government, public policy, and political philosophy. www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/groups/ich/cpcs/index. Authorship This report of the Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies was written by Dr Andrew Blick, Senior Research Fellow, in consultation with Professor Robert Blackburn, Director, and others at the Centre, as part of its impartial programme of research for the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee into Mapping the Path towards Codifying – or Not Codifying – the United Kingdom Constitution, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Nuffield Foundation. Previous publications in this series Codifying – or Not Codifying – the United Kingdom Constitution: A Literature Review, Series Paper 1, February 2011 ©
    [Show full text]
  • Why Have a Bill of Rights?
    Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 26 Number 1 Symposium: The Bill of Rights Yesterday and Today: A Bicentennial pp.1-19 Celebration Symposium: The Bill of Rights Yesterday and Today: A Bicentennial Celebration Why Have a Bill of Rights? William J. Brennan Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William J. Brennan Jr., Why Have a Bill of Rights?, 26 Val. U. L. Rev. 1 (1991). Available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/vulr/vol26/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Valparaiso University Law School at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Valparaiso University Law Review by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Brennan: Why Have a Bill of Rights? Valparaiso University Law Review Volume 26 Fall 1991 Number 1 ARTICLES WHY HAVE A BILL OF RIGHTS? WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR.- It is a joy as well as an honor to speak to you today about a subject that has been at the heart of my service on the Supreme Court. The American Bill of Rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press, along with other important protections against arbitrary or oppressive government action, provides a noble expression and shield of human dignity. Together with the Civil War Amendments, outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude and ensuring all citizens equal protection of the laws and due process of law, the Bill of Rights stands as a constant guardian of individual liberty.
    [Show full text]
  • Autonomy, Community, and Traditions of Liberty: the Contrast of British and American Privacy Law
    AUTONOMY, COMMUNITY, AND TRADITIONS OF LIBERTY: THE CONTRAST OF BRITISH AND AMERICAN PRIVACY LAW INTRODUCTION I give the fight up: let there be an end, A privacy, an obscure nook for me. I want to be forgotten even by God. -Robert Browning1 Although most people do not wish to be forgotten "even by God," individuals do expect their community to refrain from intrusive regula- tion of the intimate aspects of their lives. Thus, the community must strike a balance between legitimate community concerns and the individ- ual's interest in personal autonomy. In free societies, the community os- tensibly speaks through a popularly constituted government. Thus, government protection of privacy rights is a measure of a society's com- mitment to liberty and, in a broader sense, autonomy. Privacy law re- flects the tolerance of a nation. Although privacy is only one example of 2 autonomy, privacy rights are a substantial subset of personal autonomy. Thus, examining privacy rights is one way to evaluate the general mea- sure of liberty a society confers on its members. But, even if one recognizes the need for privacy, the right of privacy cannot be absolute. The existence of political community requires the relinquishment of certain rights, prerogatives, and freedoms.3 As John Locke described, individuals must cede some rights and prerogatives that 1. Paracelsus,in 1 THE POEMS 118, 127 (J. Pettigrew ed. 1981). 2. The autonomy/privacy relation is a difficult matter. Privacy relates to personal autonomy, but they are not coextensive. For example, autonomy would reach public acts such as one's public dress or a speech given at a public gathering, acts that are not encompassed in any notion of privacy.
    [Show full text]
  • William Cobbett, His Children and Chartism
    This is a repository copy of William Cobbett, his children and Chartism. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/82896/ Version: Accepted Version Book Section: Chase, MS (2015) William Cobbett, his children and Chartism. In: Grande, J and Stevenson, J, (eds.) William Cobbett, Romanticism and the Enlightenment: Contexts and Legacy. The Enlightenment World, 31 . Pickering & Chatto . ISBN 9781848935426 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 1 COBBETT, HIS CHILDREN AND CHARTISM Malcolm Chase William Cobbett was part of the ‘mental furniture’ of the Chartists, contrary to one biographer’s claim that they had ‘little in common’ with him.1 James Watson, one of London’s leading radical publishers remembered his mother ‘being in the habit of reading Cobbett’s Register’.2 Growing up in a Chartist home, W.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard University's
    A joint project of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School Long-Term Legal Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism Philip B. Heymann, Harvard Law School Juliette N. Kayyem, Kennedy School of Government Sponsored by The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT) The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government administered the Long-Term Legal Strategy Project from April 2003 - November 2004. The Belfer Center provides leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, environmental policy, and international affairs intersect. To learn more about the Belfer Center, visit www.bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu. Long-Term Legal Strategy Project Attn: Meredith Tunney John F. Kennedy School of Government 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-5275 www.ksg.harvard.edu/bcsia/longtermlegalstrategy www.mipt.org/Long-Term-Legal-Strategy.asp Harvard University’s Long-Term Legal Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism Board of Advisors All members of the Board of Advisors agreed with the necessity to evaluate the legal terrain governing the “war on terrorism.” This final Report is presented as a distillation of views and opinions based on a series of closed-door meetings of the Board. The advisors have from time to time been offered the opportunity to express views or make suggestions relating to the matters included in this Report, but have been under no obligation to do so, and the contents of the Report do not represent the specific beliefs of any given member of the Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Tradition in Explanations of British Politics
    Notes Introduction 1. See for example the comment in the Daily Express (19 December 1997): ‘This country’s distinctive contribution to civilisation has been the development of stable institutions of representative government.’ 2. This approach is linked to the governance thesis, which is itself becoming a new orthodoxy (Kerr and Kettell 2006). 1 ‘Variations on a Theme’: Political Tradition in Explanations of British Politics 1. We should recognise, as Chadwick (2000: 288-9) does, that ‘the distinction between real politics and ideas is artificial – politics is a linguistic practice and our understanding of any political practice is incomplete if it does not refer to the discourses that surround and construct it’. 2. Hall (1986: 19) defines ‘institutions’ as: ‘the formal rules, compliance proce- dures, and the standard operating practices that structure the relationship between individual in various units of the polity and the economy’. 3. Similarly in a widely read textbook, Dearlove and Saunders (1991: 70) describe the Westminster Model as ‘a cabinet system of government where close two party electoral competition produces a party duopoly in the Commons and an alternating monopoly of the executive that is mandated and able to imple- ment the programme it put before the electorate so that representative and reasonable government is secured’. 4. Lijphart juxtaposes the Westminster Model of Democracy with a Consensus Model of Democracy. The latter will be raised in Chapter 6. 5. The Asymmetrical Power Model (Marsh, Richards and Smith 2001: 2003; Marsh 2008a) offers a more accurate description of how the British political system functions. 6. For example in a later co-authored work, he suggested that ‘the men who drafted the Treaty of Union carefully left every institution in England and every institution in Scotland untouched by the Act, provided that the exist- ence of such an institution was consistent with the main objects of the Act ..
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom
    Michael Foley. The Politics of the British Constitution. Manchester, England and New York: Manchester University Press, 1999. viii + 296 pp. $69.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-7190-4552-3. Reviewed by Michael Les Benedict Published on H-Law (October, 2000) Constitutional Revolution in the United King‐ ability to respond quickly to economic and social dom challenges, its direct lines of administrative au‐ The American and British constitutional tra‐ thority, and its freedom from hamstringing over- ditions diverged radically in the era of the Ameri‐ legalization. By the second half of the twentieth can Revolution. Americans and their numerous century the British and American constitutional but politically marginalized British allies adhered systems were about as different as different can to the traditional English notion that government be. Although the U.K. and the U.S. shared a com‐ was constrained by fxed constitutional rules and mon-law heritage, the American system had far principles; they denounced the influence that the more in common with those of civil-law democra‐ Crown exercised over the legislative branches of cies. the government. After the Revolution, the former But the United Kingdom is now in the midst colonists proceeded towards popular sovereignty; of the most fundamental and far-reaching consti‐ a fxed, written constitution that limited govern‐ tutional change since the Reform Act of 1832, and mental powers; federalism; separation of powers possibly since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. All with checks and balances; and judicial review. but a selected handful of the hereditary peers The United Kingdom continued along its new con‐ have been ousted from the House of Lords, giving stitutional path towards parliamentary sovereign‐ a majority to its appointed members.[1] The gov‐ ty unconstrained by a fxed constitution or judi‐ ernment seems to be committed to making the cial review, centralization, and the conflation of second chamber elective as well as appointive, al‐ executive and legislative power.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Harold Pinter's Political Drama
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the pennission of the Author. FROM MENACE TO TORTURE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF HAROLD PINTER'S POLITICAL DRAMA A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English at Massey University Betty s. Livingston 1993 ii ABSTRACT There is a degree of continuity between Pinter's "comedies of menace" and his overtly political plays. The chief difference between the two types of plays is one of focus: in the "comedies of menace" Pinter emphasises social pressures exerted on the nonconforming indi victual, whereas in the overtly political plays he focusses explicitly on State oppression of the dissident. Pinter's passionate concern with politics has adversely affected his art, though there are signs of a return to form in his latest play, Party Time. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am extremely grateful to Professor Dick Corballis for his generous and invaluable guidance and assistance. CONTENTS Page Acknowledgement iii CHAPTER ONE: Introduction 1 CHAPTER TWO: Society versus the nonconforming 5 individual: the "comedies of menace" CHAPTER THREE: The State versus the dissident 48 individual: the overtly political plays CHAPTER FOUR: The effect of Pinter's political 82 commitment on his art NOTES 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 97 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Pinter's seemingly abrupt switch to explicitly political drama in One for the Road took many of his critics by surprise.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Codifying Ethics
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE 1 provided by University of Essex Research Repository 2 5 Codifying ethics 3 4 New Labour and the government of 5 6 civil servants 7 8 Edward Barratt 9 10 11 12 13 Introduction 14 In the early months of his Prime Ministership in 2007, Gordon Brown spoke of a 15 new era of government, of restoring trust in government that would lead to 16 democratic renewal, the nurturing of citizenship and effective government 17 (Brown, 2010). Against a background of declining levels of political participa- 18 19 tion and the need to respond to an array of challenges now confronting the 20 nation, from the threat of terrorism to the global economy, the rights and 21 responsibilities of British citizens were now in need of redefinition. Amongst the 22 issues at stake for Brown were the powers of an overpowerful executive, includ- 23 ing those executive powers that compromised the independence, neutrality and 24 impartiality of the Civil Service. Brown spoke of reviving the aims of the Civil 25 Service reformers of the mid-nineteenth century, seemingly intimating new pri- 26 orities beyond the dominant themes of the Blair era: “business like,” “joined up,” 27 “decentralised,” “consumer responsive” and “network and partnership” based 28 administration. There was a need for an Act of Parliament, Brown argued, that 29 would formalize the legal status of the Civil Service and the Civil Service Com- 30 mission and promote the proper conduct of government and the good conscience 31 of public officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Populism Or Pluralism? New Labour and the Constitution
    Populism or Pluralism? New Labour and the Constitution Mishcon Lecture by David Marquand May 1999 Populism or Pluralism? New Labour and the Constitution by David Marquand The accursed power that stands on Privilege, (And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge) Broke - and Democracy resumed her reign: (Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne). Two years after the second greatest centre-left electoral victory in twentieth century British history it seems appropriate to recall Hilaire Belloc's mordant comment on its greater predecessor, the Liberal triumph of 1906. Belloc's lines remind us that it is ' foolish to take politicians' protestations at face value, no matter who the politicians may be; that the arrogance of power afflicts the righteous as well as the unrighteous; that there is more to democracy than the pieties of democratic rhetoric. They make an ideal epigraph for the argument I shall offer this evening. My theme is the tension between two approaches to democratic governance in modern societies - approaches which I shall call pluralist and populist respectively. My subject is the paradox-laden constitutional revolution on which the present Government has nervously embarked. It is very British, this revolution. It is a revolution without a theory. It is the muddled, messy work of practical men and women, unintellectual when not positively anti-intellectual, apparently oblivious of the long tradition of political and constitutional reflection of which they are the heirs, responding piecemeal and ad hoc to conflicting pressures - a revolution of sleepwalkers who don't know quite where they are going or quite why.
    [Show full text]