DOCSLIB.ORG

Ending the Korematsu Era: an Early View from the War on Terror Cases

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ending the Korematsu Era: an Early View from the War on Terror Cases Copyright 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 105, No. 3 Articles ENDING THE KOREMATSU ERA: AN EARLY VIEW FROM THE WAR ON TERROR CASES Craig Green* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 983 I. THE KOREMATSU ERA ........................................................................................... 991 A. A Revisionist History of Korematsu v. United States .................................. 992 B. Korematsu’s Companions: Identifying the Korematsu Era ....................... 1002 C. The Korematsu Era’s Flaws ...................................................................... 1006 II. THE WAR ON TERROR ........................................................................................ 1012 A. President Bush and the Korematsu Era .................................................... 1012 B. The Court’s Newfound Skepticism ............................................................ 1014 III. ENDING THE KOREMATSU ERA? ........................................................................... 1032 A. “To Preclude Another Episode like the One Described in Korematsu” ... 1033 B. “Tools Belong to the Man Who Can Use Them” ...................................... 1034 IV. EPILOGUE: WHAT THE KOREMATSU ERA MEANS NOW ........................................ 1038 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................... 1040 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................... 1041 INTRODUCTION When President George W. Bush started the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States legal community was as unprepared as the country.1 Bush immediately asserted presidential * Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law; John Edwin Pomfret Fellowship, Princeton University; J.D., Yale Law School. Many thanks for comments on earlier drafts from Jane Baron, Steve Burbank, Mary Clark, Lynda Dodd, Jeff Dunoff, Barry Friedman, Amanda Frost, David Hoffman, Gia Lee, Greg Mandel, Andy Monroe, Louis Pollak, Bob Reinstein, Theodore Ruger, Jed Shugerman, Neil Siegel, Steve Vladeck, participants at American University’s Conference on Judges and Judging, and participants at Temple Law School’s Faculty Workshop. Thanks also for extraordi- nary research assistance by Mick Alford, Melanie Carter, Allison Gaul, Vicky Killion, Yi Qian, and es- pecially Sarah Happy and Diana Lin. 1 NAT’L COMM’N ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE U.S., THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT, at xv– xvi (2004), available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm; see DOUGLAS J. FEITH, WAR AND DECISION: INSIDE THE PENTAGON AT THE DAWN OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM 17 (2008) (“[By September 13,] the President’s advisers agreed that we were at war. Still, we all had a way to go to understand what kind of war we were in and how the United States should fight it.”); JOHN LEWIS GADDIS, SURPRISE, SECURITY, AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE 80 (2004) (“It was not just the Twin Towers that collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001: so too did some of [America’s] most fun- 983 N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W wartime prerogatives and drew analogies to the last great war, World War II.2 Yet as the Bush Administration designed policies of “executive deten- tion” and “military commissions,” most civilian lawyers had never heard those terms, much less analyzed their constitutional limits.3 In this instance, unfamiliarity bred power, as executive lawyers seized political initiative and 4 created unforeseen opportunities for abuse. damental assumptions about international, national, and personal security.”); JANE MAYER, THE DARK SIDE: THE INSIDE STORY OF HOW THE WAR ON TERROR TURNED INTO A WAR ON AMERICAN IDEALS 34 (2008) (“[T]o say we’re in a state of war with Al Qaeda . set us on a course not only for our interna- tional response, but also in our domestic constitutional relations. But there was little or no detailed deliberation about long-term consequences.” (quoting Matthew Waxman, special assistant to Condo- leezza Rice)). 2 E.g., Remarks at a Ceremony Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor in Norfolk, Virginia, 2 PUB. PAPERS 1492, 1492–94 (Dec. 07, 2001); Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the United States Response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2 PUB. PAPERS 1140, 1140–42 (Sept. 20, 2001) (“[F]or the past 136 years, the[re] have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sun- day in 1941. Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. This is the world’s fight. This is civilization’s fight.”); see also Commencement Address at the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1 PUB. PAPERS 974, 975 (June 2, 2004) (“Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless surprise attack on the United States.”). 3 It is hard to convey the inattention to war powers that prevailed before 2001, but I have collected two sets of materials to corroborate my personal experience (and ignorance) as a governmental lawyer during part of this period. First, I surveyed four leading casebooks’ treatments of executive detention and military commissions from 1990 to 2010. See infra Appendix A. These widely used casebooks were authored by agenda-setting scholars, and they indicate topics that were taught to the mainstream of American law students. In 2001, none of these casebooks contained any major excerpt or discussion concerning military commissions or executive detention except for Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), and even Korematsu appeared in sections concerning equal protection rather than war pow- ers until well after 2001. See infra Appendix A (tabulating results). Second, I compared law review ar- ticles from 1991 to 2001 with those from 2001 to 2010. Combinations of search terms and case names revealed that articles about executive detention and military commissions were approximately ten times more common in the decade after 9/11 than in the decade before. See infra Appendix B. 4 For recent histories of the current conflict, see PHILIPPE SANDS, TORTURE TEAM: RUMSFELD’S MEMO AND THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN VALUES 88–90 (2008); IAN SHAPIRO, CONTAINMENT: REBUILDING A STRATEGY AGAINST GLOBAL TERROR 16–31 (2007); CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH, EIGHT O’CLOCK FERRY TO THE WINDWARD SIDE: SEEKING JUSTICE IN GUANTÁNAMO BAY 36–40 (2007); STEVEN T. WAX, KAFKA COMES TO AMERICA: FIGHTING FOR JUSTICE IN THE WAR ON TERROR 318–23 (2008); John E. Owens, Congressional Acquiescence to Presidentialism in the US “War on Terror”: From Bush to Obama, in THE “WAR ON TERROR” AND THE GROWTH OF EXECUTIVE POWER? A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 33 (John E. Owens & Riccardo Pelizzo eds., 2010); and Julian E. Zelizer, How Conservatives Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Presidential Power, in THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH: A FIRST HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT 15, 36–37 (Julian E. Zelizer ed., 2010). Cf. Mary L. Dudziak, A Sword and a Shield: The Uses of Law in the Bush Administration, in THE PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH: A FIRST HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT, supra, at 39, 39 (“[W]ithin the [Bush] adminis- tration, law was not ignored. Instead, although the president and his advisers feared law as a potential threat to the operation of the executive branch, they turned to law as a means of achieving important goals.”). 984 105:983 (2011) Ending the Korematsu Era A main element of the Bush legal strategy was reliance on cases from what I call the “Korematsu era.”5 Every American lawyer knows Koremat- su v. United States as a discredited precedent.6 Yet conventional wisdom has too often viewed Korematsu narrowly as a singular error in Supreme Court history concerning the racist internment of United States citizens.7 That portrayal allowed President Bush’s legal advisers to sideline Koremat- su’s “negative precedent” as categorically separate from twenty-first- century events even as the Administration cited other World War II deci- 5 See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950); In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946); Korematsu, 323 U.S. 214; Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); infra Part I.B (discussing these cases as elements of the Korematsu era). 6 E.g., The Nomination of Elena Kagan to Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Unit- ed States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 472 (2010), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg67622/pdf/CHRG-111shrg67622.pdf (statement of Elena Kagan, U.S. Solicitor Gen. & Supreme Court Nominee) (singling out Korematsu as a “relatively recent decision . that was poorly reasoned and that is unlikely to come before the Court again”); GEOFFREY R. STONE, PERILOUS TIMES 297–310 (2004) (“Korematsu has become a constitutional pariah.”); Richard H. Fallon, Jr. & Daniel J. Meltzer, Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction, Substantive Rights, and the War on Ter- ror, 120 HARV. L. REV. 2029, 2077 (2007) (describing Korematsu as a reviled precedent); Eugene V. Rostow, The Japanese American Cases—A Disaster, 54 YALE L.J. 489, 531–32 (1945) (criticizing Ko- rematsu in the strongest of terms); see Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 953 (2000) (Scalia, J. dissent- ing) (comparing Korematsu to Dred Scott); Jamal Greene, The Anticanon, 125 HARV. L. REV. 379, 400 (2011) (“[I]t appears that at no time since September 11 has any U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • War and the Constitutional Text John C
    War and the Constitutional Text John C. Yoo∗ In a series of articles, I have criticized the view that the original under- standing of the Constitution requires that Congress provide its authorization before the United States can engage in military hostilities.1 This “pro- Congress” position ignores the constitutional text and structure, errs in in- terpreting the ratification history of the Constitution, and cannot account for the practice of the three branches of government. Instead of the rigid proc- ess advocated by scholars such as Louis Henkin, John Hart Ely, Louis Fisher, Michael Glennon, and Harold Koh,2 I have argued that the Constitu- tion creates a flexible system of war powers. That system provides the president with significant initiative as commander-in-chief, while reserving to Congress ample authority to check executive policy through its power of the purse. In this scheme, the Declare War Clause confers on Congress a ju- ridical power, one that both defines the state of international legal relations ∗ Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) (on leave); Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Justice. I express my deep appreciation for the advice and assistance of James C. Ho in preparing this response. Robert Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, and Sai Prakash provided helpful comments on the draft. 1 See John C. Yoo, Kosovo, War Powers, and the Multilateral Future, 148 U Pa L Rev 1673, 1686–1704 (2000) (discussing the original understanding of war powers in the context of the Kosovo conflict); John C.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID J. CYNAMON THOMAS B. WILNER MATTHEW J. MACLEAN COUNSEL OF RECORD OSMAN HANDOO NEIL H. KOSLOWE PILLSBURY WINTHROP AMANDA E. SHAFER SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI L. SHEPHERD 2300 N Street, N.W. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Washington, DC 20037 801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 202-663-8000 Washington, DC 20004 202-508-8000 GITANJALI GUTIERREZ J. WELLS DIXON GEORGE BRENT MICKUM IV SHAYANA KADIDAL SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH CENTER FOR 1350 “I” Street N.W. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20005 666 Broadway, 7th Floor 202-898-5800 New York, NY 10012 212-614-6438 Counsel for Petitioners Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOSEPH MARGULIES JOHN J. GIBBONS MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY GIBBONS P.C. LAW SCHOOL One Gateway Center 357 East Chicago Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 Chicago, IL 60611 973-596-4500 312-503-0890 MARK S. SULLIVAN BAHER AZMY CHRISTOPHER G. KARAGHEUZOFF SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 833 McCarter Highway 250 Park Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 New York, NY 10177 973-642-8700 212-415-9200 DAVID H. REMES MARC D. FALKOFF COVINGTON & BURLING COLLEGE OF LAW 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. NORTHERN ILLINOIS Washington, DC 20004 UNIVERSITY 202-662-5212 DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-0660 PAMELA CHEPIGA SCOTT SULLIVAN ANDREW MATHESON DEREK JINKS KAREN LEE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SARAH HAVENS SCHOOL OF LAW ALLEN & OVERY LLP RULE OF LAW IN WARTIME 1221 Avenue of the Americas PROGRAM New York, NY 10020 727 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom Or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis
    Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 4 Spring 2005 Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr Recommended Citation Hannibal Travis, Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq, 3 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 1 (2005). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol3/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2005 Northwestern University School of Law Volume 3 (Spring 2005) Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights FREEDOM OR THEOCRACY?: CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ By Hannibal Travis* “Afghans are victims of the games superpowers once played: their war was once our war, and collectively we bear responsibility.”1 “In the approved version of the [Afghan] constitution, Article 3 was amended to read, ‘In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.’ … This very significant clause basically gives the official and nonofficial religious leaders in Afghanistan sway over every action that they might deem contrary to their beliefs, which by extension and within the Afghan cultural context, could be regarded as
    [Show full text]
  • The Age of Absolutism and Constitutionalism in Europe: AP World History
    The Age of Absolutism and Constitutionalism in Europe: AP World History: Overview: ∙ Karl Marx noted that all history is cyclical and a response to a previous period, this dialectical notion teaches us to examine patterns and trends with the purpose of predicting future events. According to Marxist thought history responds logically and materially to the flaws of the previous period. Using our knowledgebase of the previous section…it is clear that the previous age faced great challenges that led to new trends in the following era, trends that included Absolutism and the liberal response; constitutionalism. In dealing with the political, religious, economic, and climatic problems of the day the leaders of state sought more power to deal with problems. The response was a new political philosophy that had been in the works for a millennium; Absolutism. Absolutism gives a monarch absolute or total authority in dealing with the state. This power is absorbed by the Monarch and takes liberties away from elected representatives and citizens. The response (dialectally) is constitutionalism, a system that seeks to enumerate the rights of citizens by limiting the rights and powers of the State. ∙ These political ideas will manifest themselves in several locations; France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. France: The Model of Absolute Monarchy ∙ The French Monarchy had been in a constant state of evolution since the fall of Rome. Great monarchs had appeared, ideas solidified during the Renaissance, and conflict during the age of religious wars. Henry IV revived the monarchy and laid the framework for the reign of the Great Monarch Louis XIV.
    [Show full text]
  • American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
    American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Nese F. DeBruyne Senior Research Librarian Updated September 14, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32492 American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Summary This report provides U.S. war casualty statistics. It includes data tables containing the number of casualties among American military personnel who served in principal wars and combat operations from 1775 to the present. It also includes data on those wounded in action and information such as race and ethnicity, gender, branch of service, and cause of death. The tables are compiled from various Department of Defense (DOD) sources. Wars covered include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War. Military operations covered include the Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission; Lebanon Peacekeeping; Urgent Fury in Grenada; Just Cause in Panama; Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Restore Hope in Somalia; Uphold Democracy in Haiti; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation New Dawn (OND); Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR); and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). Starting with the Korean War and the more recent conflicts, this report includes additional detailed information on types of casualties and, when available, demographics. It also cites a number of resources for further information, including sources of historical statistics on active duty military deaths, published lists of military personnel killed in combat actions, data on demographic indicators among U.S. military personnel, related websites, and relevant Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    NOTES Introduction 1. Robert Kagan to George Packer. Cited in Packer’s The Assassin’s Gate: America In Iraq (Faber and Faber, London, 2006): 38. 2. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004): 9. 3. Critiques of the war on terror and its origins include Gary Dorrien, Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana (Routledge, New York and London, 2004); Francis Fukuyama, After the Neocons: America At the Crossroads (Profile Books, London, 2006); Ira Chernus, Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin (Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO and London, 2006); and Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, New York, 2008). 4. A report of the PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September 2000: 76. URL: http:// www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (15 January 2009). 5. On the first generation on Cold War neoconservatives, which has been covered far more extensively than the second, see Gary Dorrien, The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture and the War of Ideology (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1993); Peter Steinfels, The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005); Murray Friedman ed. Commentary in American Life (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2005); Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars (Madison Books, Lanham MD; New York; Oxford, 1997); and Maria Ryan, “Neoconservative Intellectuals and the Limitations of Governing: The Reagan Administration and the Demise of the Cold War,” Comparative American Studies, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism
    California Law Review VOL. 99 OCTOBER 2011 No. 5 Copyright @2011 by California Law Review, Inc., a California Nonprofit Corporation The Evolution and Ideology of Global Constitutionalism David S. Law* & Mila Versteeg** It has become almost universal practice for countries to adopt formal constitutions. Little is known empirically, however, about the evolution of this practice on a global scale. Are constitutions unique and defining statements of national aspiration and identity? Or are they standardized documents that vary only at the margins, in predictable and patterned ways? Are constitutions becoming increasinglysimilar or dissimilarover time, or is there no discernible overall pattern to their development? Until very recently, scholars have lacked even basic empirical data on the content of the world's Copyright C 2011, David S. Law & Mila Versteeg. * Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis; Visiting Scholar, New York University School of Law; Visiting Professor and Fulbright Scholar, National Taiwan University College of Law. B.A., M.A., Ph.D., Stanford University; J.D., Harvard Law School; B.C.L. in European and Comparative Law, University of Oxford. ** Associate Professor, University of Virginia School of Law. B.A., LL.M., Tilburg University; LL.M., Harvard Law School; D.Phil., University of Oxford. Earlier versions of this Article were presented at the 2010 annual meetings of the Law and Society Association in Chicago and the American Political Science Association in Washington, D.C., the Fifth Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies held at Yale Law School, and faculty colloquia at Brooklyn Law School and Washington University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and Democracy Promotion in Iraq and Lebanon in the Aftermath of the Events of 9/11 and the 2003 Iraq War
    The United States and democracy promotion in Iraq and Lebanon in the aftermath of the events of 9/11 and the 2003 Iraq War A Thesis Submitted to the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of PhD. in Political Science. By Abess Taqi Ph.D. candidate, University of London Internal Supervisors Dr. James Chiriyankandath (Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London) Professor Philip Murphy (Director, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London) External Co-Supervisor Dr. Maria Holt (Reader in Politics, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster) © Copyright Abess Taqi April 2015. All rights reserved. 1 | P a g e DECLARATION I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and effort and that it has not been submitted anywhere for any award. Where other sources of information have been used, they have been duly acknowledged. Signature: ………………………………………. Date: ……………………………………………. 2 | P a g e Abstract This thesis features two case studies exploring the George W. Bush Administration’s (2001 – 2009) efforts to promote democracy in the Arab world, following military occupation in Iraq, and through ‘democracy support’ or ‘democracy assistance’ in Lebanon. While reviewing well rehearsed arguments that emphasise the inappropriateness of the methods employed to promote Western liberal democracy in Middle East countries and the difficulties in the way of democracy being fostered by foreign powers, it focuses on two factors that also contributed to derailing the U.S.’s plans to introduce ‘Western style’ liberal democracy to Iraq and Lebanon.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction: Global Constitutionalism from an Interdisciplinary Perspective
    Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies Volume 16 Issue 2 Article 1 Summer 2009 Introduction: Global Constitutionalism from an Interdisciplinary Perspective Anne Peters University of Basel Klaus Armingeon University of Berne Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Peters, Anne and Armingeon, Klaus (2009) "Introduction: Global Constitutionalism from an Interdisciplinary Perspective," Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies: Vol. 16 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol16/iss2/1 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Introduction-Global Constitutionalism from an Interdisciplinary Perspective ANNE PETERS* & KLAUS ARMINGEON** This issue discusses the process and substance of global constitutionalism from an interdisciplinary perspective.' The contributions look at international law and governance through constitutionalist spectacles. These spectacles have normative and empirical-analytical lenses. Seen through the normative lens of lawyers, a con- stitutionalist reading of current international law is, to some extent, an academic artifact. It has a creative moment, even if it only emphasizes certain characteristics of international law. From a legal perspective, such an intellectual construct is nothing unusual. If we accept the hermeneutic premise that a naked meaning of a text, inde- pendent of the reader, does not exist, then the reconstruction of some portions of international law as international constitutional law is just an ordinary hermeneutic exercise.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapman Law Review
    Chapman Law Review Volume 21 Board of Editors 2017–2018 Executive Board Editor-in-Chief LAUREN K. FITZPATRICK Managing Editor RYAN W. COOPER Senior Articles Editors Production Editor SUNEETA H. ISRANI MARISSA N. HAMILTON TAYLOR A. KENDZIERSKI CLARE M. WERNET Senior Notes & Comments Editor TAYLOR B. BROWN Senior Symposium Editor CINDY PARK Senior Submissions & Online Editor ALBERTO WILCHES –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Articles Editors ASHLEY C. ANDERSON KRISTEN N. KOVACICH ARLENE GALARZA STEVEN L. RIMMER NATALIE M. GAONA AMANDA M. SHAUGHNESSY-FORD ANAM A. JAVED DAMION M. YOUNG __________________________________________________________________ Staff Editors RAYMOND AUBELE AMY N. HUDACK JAMIE L. RICE CARLOS BACIO MEGAN A. LEE JAMIE L. TRAXLER HOPE C. BLAIN DANTE P. LOGIE BRANDON R. SALVATIERRA GEORGE E. BRIETIGAM DRAKE A. MIRSCH HANNAH B. STETSON KATHERINE A. BURGESS MARLENA MLYNARSKA SYDNEY L. WEST KYLEY S. CHELWICK NICHOLE N. MOVASSAGHI Faculty Advisor CELESTINE MCCONVILLE, Professor of Law CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY HAZEM H. CHEHABI ADMINISTRATION JEROME W. CWIERTNIA DALE E. FOWLER ’58 DANIELE C. STRUPPA BARRY GOLDFARB President STAN HARRELSON GAVIN S. HERBERT,JR. GLENN M. PFEIFFER WILLIAM K. HOOD Provost and Executive Vice ANDY HOROWITZ President for Academic Affairs MARK CHAPIN JOHNSON ’05 JENNIFER L. KELLER HAROLD W. HEWITT,JR. THOMAS E. MALLOY Executive Vice President and Chief SEBASTIAN PAUL MUSCO Operating Officer RICHARD MUTH (MBA ’05) JAMES J. PETERSON SHERYL A. BOURGEOIS HARRY S. RINKER Executive Vice President for JAMES B. ROSZAK University Advancement THE HONORABLE LORETTA SANCHEZ ’82 HELEN NORRIS MOHINDAR S. SANDHU Vice President and Chief RONALD M. SIMON Information Officer RONALD E. SODERLING KAREN R. WILKINSON ’69 THOMAS C. PIECHOTA DAVID W.
    [Show full text]
  • British Public Perception Towards Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
    Global Regional Review (GRR) URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/grr.2018(III-I).37 British Public Perception towards Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq Vol. III, No. I (2018) | Page: 503 ‒ 517 | DOI: 10.31703/grr.2018(III-I).37 p- ISSN: 2616-955X | e-ISSN: 2663-7030 | ISSN-L: 2616-955X This article seeks to explore the Aasima Safdar * Abstract perception of the British informants regarding the Afghanistan war 2001 and Iraq war Samia Manzoor † 2003. Heavy users of British media were interviewed. The present article adopts the qualitative approach Ayesha Qamar ‡ and ten in-depth interviews were conducted by the British informants. It was found that the British informants considered the 9/11 attacks as a tragic incident and Al Qaeda was held responsible for this. They supported their government’s policies to curb terrorism but they highly condemned human Key Words: causalities during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Particularly, they condemned their government’s Public perception, policy about Iraq war 2003. Regarding, the British British media, Iraq media coverage of these wars, there was mixed opinion. Some of them considered that British media war, Afghanistan gave biased coverage to the wars however; few war thought that media adopted a balanced approach. Overall, they stressed that the government should take responsible action against terrorism and human causalities should be avoided. Introduction September 11 attacks were immensely covered by the world media. The electronic channels reported the images of tragedy, popular personalities and the physical destructions (Monahan, 2010). Within a few hours of the tragedy, the TV screens were loaded with images of terrorist attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full PDF
    Safety, Liberty, and Islamist Terrorism American and European Approaches to Domestic Counterterrorism Gary J. Schmitt, Editor The AEI Press Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schmitt, Gary James, 1952– Safety, liberty, and Islamist terrorism : American and European approaches to domestic counterterrorism / Gary J. Schmitt. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4333-2 (cloth) ISBN-10: 0-8447-4333-X (cloth) ISBN-13: 978-0-8447-4349-3 (pbk.) ISBN-10: 0-8447-4349-6 (pbk.) [etc.] 1. United States—Foreign relations—Europe. 2. Europe—Foreign relations— United States. 3. National security—International cooperation. 4. Security, International. I. Title. JZ1480.A54S38 2010 363.325'16094—dc22 2010018324 13 12 11 10 09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cover photographs: Double Decker Bus © Stockbyte/Getty Images; Freight Yard © Chris Jongkind/ Getty Images; Manhattan Skyline © Alessandro Busà/ Flickr/Getty Images; and New York, NY, September 13, 2001—The sun streams through the dust cloud over the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Photo © Andrea Booher/ FEMA Photo News © 2010 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Wash- ington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be used or repro- duced in any manner whatsoever without permission in writing from the American Enterprise Institute except in the case of brief quotations embodied in news articles, critical articles, or reviews.
    [Show full text]