Terror Detentions and the Rule of Law - Us and Uk Perspectives

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States and the United Kingdom detained suspected terrorists in a manner incompatible with the due process, fair trial, and equality requirements of the Rule of Law. The legality of the detentions was challenged and found wanting by the highest courts in the US and UK. The US courts approached these questions as matters within the law of war, whereas the UK courts examined them within a human rights criminal law context.

In Terror Detentions and the Rule of Law: US and UK Perspectives, Dr. Robert H. Wagstaff documents President George W. Bush's and Prime Minister Tony Blair's responses to 9/11, alleging that they failed to protect the human rights of individuals suspected of terrorist activity. The analytical focus is on the four US Supreme Court decisions involving detentions in Guantanamo Bay and four House of Lords decisions involving detentions that began in the Belmarsh Prison. These decisions are analyzed within the contexts of history, criminal law, constitutional law, human rights and international law, and various jurisprudential perspectives. In this book Dr. Wagstaff argues that time-tested criminal law is the normatively correct and most effective means for dealing with suspected terrorists. He also suggests that preventive, indefinite detention of terrorist suspects upon suspicion of wrongdoing contravenes the domestic and international Rule of Law, treaties and customary international law. As such, new legal paradigms for addressing terrorism are shown to be normatively invalid, illegal, unconstitutional, counter-productive, and in conflict with the Rule of Law.

List of contents

• Acknowledgments


• Abbreviations


• Preface


• Introduction


• 1 The Precipitating Events


• 2 A Short History of Panic Responses


• 3 Detention and The Legal Status and Rights Of Aliens


• 4 Role of the Courts and the Popular Jurisprudence of Counter-Terrorism


• 5 Rule of Law


• 6 An Applicable International Rule of Law


• 7 Guantanamo and Belmarsh


• 8 The War Paradigm Versus the Criminal Law in the US and UK


• 9 R v A: Marbury Judicial Review by Interpretation in the UK


• 10 Judicial Deference


• Conclusion


• Appendix A: 'Honor Bound to Defend Freedom'


• Bibliography


• Table of Cases


• Table of Statutes and International Instruments


• Index

About the author

Robert H. Wagstaff practices litigation and constitutional law from his law office in Anchorage, Alaska. He successfully argued two cases before the US Supreme Court, presented over 70 appeals, and tried numerous civil and criminal cases. He recently spent ten years at Oxford University earning three post-graduate law degrees including a Doctorate. He was formerly Alaska Bar Association President, Alaska Judicial Council member, and a member of the National Board of Directors of the ACLU, New York.

Summary

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States and the United Kingdom detained suspected terrorists in a manner incompatible with the due process, fair trial, and equality requirements of the Rule of Law. The legality of the detentions was challenged and found wanting by the highest courts in the US and UK. The US courts approached these questions as matters within the law of war, whereas the UK courts examined them within a human rights criminal law context.

In Terror Detentions and the Rule of Law: US and UK Perspectives, Dr. Robert H. Wagstaff documents President George W. Bush's and Prime Minister Tony Blair's responses to 9/11, alleging that they failed to protect the human rights of individuals suspected of terrorist activity. The analytical focus is on the four US Supreme Court decisions involving detentions in Guantanamo Bay and four House of Lords decisions involving detentions that began in the Belmarsh Prison. These decisions are analyzed within the contexts of history, criminal law, constitutional law, human rights and international law, and various jurisprudential perspectives. In this book Dr. Wagstaff argues that time-tested criminal law is the normatively correct and most effective means for dealing with suspected terrorists. He also suggests that preventive, indefinite detention of terrorist suspects upon suspicion of wrongdoing contravenes the domestic and international Rule of Law, treaties and customary international law. As such, new legal paradigms for addressing terrorism are shown to be normatively invalid, illegal, unconstitutional, counter-productive, and in conflict with the Rule of Law.

Product details

• Authors: Robert H. Wagstaff
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Languages: English
• Product format: Hardback
• Released: 27.11.2013
• EAN: 9780199301553
• ISBN: 978-0-19-930155-3
• No. of pages: 480
• Series: Terrorism and Global Justice Series; Terrorism and Global Justice
• Subjects: Social sciences, law, business > Law > International law, foreign law; LAW / Criminal Law / General, POLITICAL SCIENCE / Terrorism, Criminal law: terrorism law, Terrorism law