Home >
Law >
Criminal Law >
Terror Detentions and the Rule of Law

Terror Detentions and the Rule of Law US and UK Perspectives

Author: Dr. Robert H. Wagstaff
Publisher: Oxford University Press USA
ISBN: 9780199301553
Published In: January 2014
Format: Hardback , 400 pages
Jurisdiction: U.K., U.S. ? Disclaimer:
Countri(es) stated herein are used as reference only

List Price: HKD 1,592.50

HKD 1,544.73 Save HKD 47.77 (3%)

Download Order Form

Add to Wishlist
| Add to Compare

Description
Contents
Author

Details

Historical review of over-reactions of the US and UK administrations to threats of terrorism and war
Overview of the jurisprudential discussion surrounding the Rule of Law
Analysis of US and UK court decisions regarding indefinite detentions
Explanation of a "war paradigm" method versus the tried and true criminal law approach
Examination of the basis and justification for detentions

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.

Readership: Lawyers, law students, and professors of law. Especially those interested in the terrorism and the law.

Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Preface
Introduction
1 The Precipitating Events
2 A Short History of Panic Responses
3 Detention and The Legal Status & Rights Of Aliens
4 Role of the Courts & the Popular Jurisprudence of Counter-Terrorism
5 Rule of Law
6 An Applicable International Rule of Law
7 Guantanamo & 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

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.