Detention In The War On Terror

In this book, Fiona de Londras presents an overview of counter-terrorist detention in the US and the UK and the attempts by both states to achieve a downward recalibration of international human rights standards as they apply in an emergency. Arguing that the design and implementation of this policy has been greatly influenced by both popular and manufactured panic, Detention in the 'War on Terror' addresses counter-terrorist detention through an original analytic framework. In contrast to domestic law in the US and UK, de Londras argues that international human rights law has generally resisted the challenge to the right to be free from arbitrary detention, largely because of its relative insulation from counter-terrorist panic. She argues that this resilience gradually emboldened superior courts in the US and UK to resist repressive detention laws and policies and insist upon greater rights-protection for suspected terrorists.

"This book explores the underlying rationales for preventive detention as a tool in this war on terror; analyzes the legal obstacles to creating a preventive detention regime; discusses how Israel and Britain have dealt with incapacitation and interrogation of terrorists; and compares several alternative ideas to the administration's enemy combatant policy under a methodology that looks at questions of lawfulness, the balance between liberty and security, and institutional efficiency. In the end, this book recommends using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor a narrow regime of preventive detention only to be used under certain prescribed circumstances where interrogation and/or incapacitation are the justifications. This book is an essential reference for collections in American studies, political science, and national security studies."--BOOK JACKET.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Canadian agencies willingly collaborated in the War on Terror launched by the United States to destroy Al Qaeda. This partnership went seriously astray, however, amid a series of fundamental errors by Canadian agencies and their misplaced trust in American willingness to abide by both international and US laws against torture. As a result, numerous Canadian citizens and residents were illicitly detained abroad and subjected to suffering and mistreatment. In Detained Daniel Livermore analyzes the emergence of Islamic fundamentalist extremism and its Canadian implications, including the erroneous investigations that targeted Canadians and led to their detentions in Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Tunisia, and Sudan. Scrutinizing the most prominent cases, he details the role of Canadian agencies in the imprisonments and relates how subsequent court cases brought the situations to light, resulting in settlements and apologies to Ahmad Abou-El-Maati, Abdullah Almalki, and Maher Arar, among others. Drawing on his experience in Canada's foreign ministry, Livermore explains how an essentially misguided War on Terror emerged and how Canadian-American cooperation went wrong. A gripping blend of memoir and meticulous research, Detained urges a more mature and rational discussion of security and intelligence issues in Canada and greater understanding of the failures of security cooperation in the decade after 9/11.

In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges on behalf of persons detained at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war against terrorism. The Court overturned a ruling that no U.S. court has jurisdiction to hear petitions for habeas corpus on behalf of the detainees because they are aliens detained abroad. This report provides an overview of the law of war and the historical treatment of wartime detainees, in particular the U.S. practice; describes how the detainees¿ status might affect their rights and treatment; and summarizes activity of the 108th and 109th Congresses related to detention in connection with the war against terrorism.

This book, based on a two-year study of former prisoners of the U.S. government’s detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, reveals in graphic detail the cumulative effect of the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Scrupulously researched and devoid of rhetoric, the book deepens the story of post-9/11 America and the nation’s descent into the netherworld of prisoner abuse. Researchers interviewed more than sixty former Guantánamo detainees in nine countries, as well as key government officials, military experts, former guards, interrogators, lawyers for detainees, and other camp personnel. We hear directly from former detainees as they describe the events surrounding their capture, their years of incarceration, and the myriad difficulties preventing many from resuming a normal life upon returning home. Prepared jointly by researchers with the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, and the International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, in partnership with the Center for Constitutional Rights, The Guantánamo Effect contributes significantly to the debate surrounding the U.S.’s commitment to international law during war time.

This book, based on a two-year study of former prisoners of the U.S. government’s detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, reveals in graphic detail the cumulative effect of the Bush administration’s "war on terror." Scrupulously researched and devoid of rhetoric, the book deepens the story of post-9/11 America and the nation’s descent into the netherworld of prisoner abuse. Researchers interviewed more than sixty former Guantánamo detainees in nine countries, as well as key government officials, military experts, former guards, interrogators, lawyers for detainees, and other camp personnel. We hear directly from former detainees as they describe the events surrounding their capture, their years of incarceration, and the myriad difficulties preventing many from resuming a normal life upon returning home. Prepared jointly by researchers with the Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley, and the International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley School of Law, in partnership with the Center for Constitutional Rights, The Guantánamo Effect contributes significantly to the debate surrounding the U.S.’s commitment to international law during war time.

Controversial erosions of individual liberties in the name of anti-terrorism are ongoing in liberal democracies. The focus of this book is on the manner in which strategic discourse has been used to create accepted political narratives. It specifically links aspects of that discourse to problematic and evolving terrorism detention practices that happen outside of traditional criminal and wartime paradigms, with examples including the detentions at Guantanamo Bay and security certificates in Canada. This book suggests that biased political discourse has, in some respects, continued to fuel public misconceptions about terrorism, which have then led to problematic legal enactments, supported by those misconceptions. It introduces this idea by presenting current examples, such as some of the language used by US President Donald Trump regarding terrorism, and it argues that such language has supported questionable legal responses to terrorism. It then critiques political arguments that began after 9/11, many of which are still foundational as terrorism detention practices evolve. The focus is on language emanating from the US, and the book links this language to specific examples of changed detention practices from the US, Canada, and the UK. Terrorism is undoubtedly a real threat, but that does not mean that all perceptions of how to respond to terrorism are valid. As international terrorism continues to grow and to change, this book offers valuable insights into problems that have arisen from specific responses, with the objective of avoiding those problems going forward.

Soon after the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States captured hundreds of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and around the world. By the following January the first of these prisoners arrived at the U.S. military's prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they were subject to President George W. Bush's executive order authorizing their trial by military commissions. Jess Bravin, the "Wall Street Journal"'s Supreme Court correspondent, was there within days of the prison's opening, and has continued ever since to cover the U.S. effort to create a parallel justice system for enemy aliens. A maze of legal, political, and moral issues has stood in the way of justice--issues often raised by military prosecutors who found themselves torn between duty to the chain of command and their commitment to fundamental American values.While much has been written about Guantanamo and brutal detention practices following 9/11, Bravin is the first to go inside the Pentagon's prosecution team to expose the real-world legal consequences of those policies. Bravin describes cases undermined by inadmissible evidence obtained through torture, clashes between military lawyers and administration appointees, and political interference in criminal prosecutions that would be shocking within the traditional civilian and military justice systems. With the Obama administration planning to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators at Guantanamo--and vindicate the legal experiment the Bush administration could barely get off the ground--"The Terror Courts" could not be more timely.