The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are indelibly etched into our cultural memory. This is the story of how the legal ramifications of that day brought two presidents, Congress, and the Supreme Court into repeated confrontation over the incarceration of hundreds of suspected terrorists and “enemy combatants” at the US naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba. Could these prisoners (including an American citizen) be held indefinitely without due process of law? Did they have the right to seek their release by habeas corpus in US courts? Could they be tried in a makeshift military judicial system? With Guantánamo well into its second decade, these questions have challenged the three branches of government, each contending with the others, and each invoking the Constitution’s separation of powers as well as its checks and balances. In The 9/11 Terror Cases, Allan A. Ryan leads students and general readers through the pertinent cases: Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, both decided by the Supreme Court in 2004; Hamdan v. Bush, decided in 2006; and Boumediene v. Bush, in 2008. An eloquent writer and an expert in military law and constitutional litigation, Ryan is an adept guide through the nuanced complexities of these cases, which rejected the sweeping powers asserted by President Bush and Congress, and upheld the rule of law, even for enemy combatants. In doing so, as we see clearly in Ryan's deft account, the Supreme Court's rulings speak directly to the extent and nature of presidential and congressional prerogative, and to the critical separation and balance of powers in the governing of the United States.

This book critically and comparatively examines the responses of the United Nations and a range of countries to the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. It assesses the convergence between the responses of Western democracies including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada with countries with more experience with terrorism including Egypt, Syria, Israel, Singapore and Indonesia. A number of common themes - the use of criminal law and immigration law, the regulation of speech associated with terrorism, the review of the state's whole of government counter-terrorism activities, and the development of national security policies - are discussed. The book provides a critical take on how the United Nations promoted terrorism financing laws and listing processes and the regulation of speech associated with terrorism but failed to agree on a definition of terrorism or the importance of respecting human rights while combating terrorism.

Introduction -- Three case studies in political control -- Principal agent theory, career prospects, and United States Attorneys -- Describing the data and issue areas -- Political responsiveness and case filings -- Political responsiveness and sentence length -- Political responsiveness and career prospects -- Concluding thoughts and implications.

Synthesising diverse research avenues for politics, discourse, and political discourse, this cutting-edge Handbook examines the formative traditions, current theoretical and methodological landscape, and genres and domains over which political discourse extends.

Rarely does the Supreme Court reverse itself as quickly and profoundly as it did in recent campaign finance cases, with the Citizens United decision of 2010 undoing the constraints of the McCain-Feingold Act upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). And rarely have the stakes seemed so high, as billionaires vie for elected office and dark money floods political campaigns. In timely fashion, this new edition updates Melvin Urofsky’s classic study of campaign finance law, bringing his cogent analysis of the relevant statutes and court cases up to date. Urofsky explains in clear and convincing language what was—and is—at stake in the twists and turns of campaign finance laws taken up by the nation’s highest court in the past decades. Beginning with Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and moving through McConnell, Citizens United, and finally McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014), Urofsky discusses the two principles at issue in these cases: freedom of political speech, and the protection of the political process from undue influence. Conventional wisdom holds that in such cases liberals want greater restrictions and conservatives want corporations to have greater freedom to influence voters. But working from a rich store of primary sources, probing the motivations and ideas of all participants in the campaign finance legal story, Urofsky reveals a far more complex picture, one whose significance transcends simple political ideologies. In a time of controversies over political speech in the blogosphere, social media, and cable news, and claims of electoral fraud, The Campaign Finance Cases offers a much-needed, balanced account of how issues critical to American democracy figure in the adjudication of campaign finance law, and how a changing political and media landscape might alter the process.

The United States and her allies have found themselves plunged into ‘a war over [humanity’s] future social and political organization’ with criminal challengers to the nation-state form. These new wars are currently being fought globally with Al Qaeda, in Iraq with shifting coalitions of criminal gangs, insurgents, and Jihadi groups and throughout the Americas with the Maras (the first group of 3rd GEN Gangs to emerge). More new wars are poised to develop and the on-going ones are far from over, with more attacks upon the homelands of the US and her allies expected. This cutting edge book looks initially at the theoretical and legal side of criminal-state and criminal-soldier emergence and growth, before focusing on criminal-states and criminal-soldiers themselves, with particular attention paid to Al Qaeda, Hizballah, Mara Salvatrucha (MS 13), Caliphate and Mahdi concerns, Islamic Fundamentalist Use of Beheadings, Criminalization of Russian State Security, Nuclear Materials Trafficking, and Outlaw Private Security Firms. With the contributions from international experts, this book makes for critical reading for political scientists and criminal justice students and researchers, policy makers, and military and law enforcement practitioners. This book was previously published as a special issue of Global Crime.

Law's Trials analyzes the performance of US courts in upholding the rule of law during the 'war on terror'.

The present volume comes out of a conference held by the IFPS in collaboration with CPWAS at Calcutta University in March 2012. The volume comprises of eight essays highlighting on various approaches to the question of instability in India’s western neighbourhood, and what it could mean for India. The issues covered include the domestic dynamics of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the extent to which these have a bearing on the foreign policy of the Government of India, and the economic and social cost extracted by the aura of instability that has come to characterise the neighbourhood.

According to the US Constitution, if a bill is not returned to Congress by the president within ten days of receiving it and Congress has adjourned, the bill is effectively vetoed. The so-called pocket veto dates at least as far back as the presidency of James Madison (1808–1816), but the constitutionality of its use had not been considered by the Supreme Court until Okanogan Tribe et al. v. United States was decided in 1929, during the last year of Chief Justice Taft’s tenure. Despite responding to a situation in American Indian law, the Pocket Veto Case is notable for the fact that its final decision had nothing whatsoever to do with Indian law. The Okanogan Tribe is barely mentioned at all in the Court’s unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Edward Sanford, which ultimately concluded that the pocket veto is a constitutional exercise of presidential authority. The Unusual Story of the Pocket Veto Case explores the underlying tension between congressional authority and the executive prerogative. Especially today, with such tension very much in evidence, it becomes all the more important to understand how and why the Constitution actually appears to encourage it. Studying Okanogan Tribe et al. v. United States and use of the pocket veto provides an excellent example of the tension between Congress and the president.

Despite its mystique as the greatest Anglo-American legal protection, habeas corpus' history features power plays, political hypocrisy, ad hoc jurisprudence, and failures in securing individual liberty. This book tells the story of the writ from medieval England to modern America, crediting the rocky history to the writ's very nature as a government power. The book weighs in on habeas' historical controversies - addressing its origins, the relationship between king and parliament, the US Constitution's Suspension Clause, the writ's role in the power struggle between the federal government and the states, and the proper scope of federal habeas for state prisoners and wartime detainees from the Civil War and World War II to the War on Terror. It stresses the importance of liberty and detention policy in making the writ more than a tool of power. The book presents a more nuanced and critical view of the writ's history, showing the dark side of this most revered judicial power.