Stephen Dycus reviews Professor Eric K. Yamamoto’s timely book In the Shadow of Korematsu: Democratic Liberties and National Security, published just weeks before the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Hawaii. Dycus draws out the book’s core themes, highlighting Yamamoto’s analysis of the Korematsu decision and its continued relevance in American jurisprudence. The review concludes with a discussion of Yamamoto’s proposed process for judicial review in cases that involve both national security and civil liberties.
Legal analysis of the now much maligned “war on terror” has been a growth industry since the events of September 11, 2001. Despite this, how best to respond to and regulate terrorism remains a contested debate intellectually and practically. This article dives into that empirical gap by providing unique data on the operation of detention, arrest, and trial regimes created to counter and manage terrorism in the United Kingdom.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, democratic states have increasingly been forced to confront the threat of terrorism on multiple fronts: at home, at the borders, and abroad. One tool that states have employed to protect the population is preventive detention. While highly effective in countering national security threats, significant steps need to be taken to avoid the risk of unjustified detention.
In this article, Saar and Wahlhaus aim to contribute to the ongoing deliberation on this issue by presenting the Israeli experience regarding preventive detention against the backdrop of international law, experience acquired while contending with a wide range of national security threats over several decades.
The authors explore the three different Israeli legal frameworks that regulate preventive detention in Israel, by describing and analyzing the different legislation and conducting a comprehensive survey of the case law (including previously unpublished cases). A comparative analysis of the three frameworks concludes the article.
Lessons from the diverse Israeli experience may serve to inform other states that are attempting to strike the proper balance between national security and avoiding the risk of unjustified detention, as well as inform contemporary international initiatives concerning detention.
At JNSLP’s Feb. 11, 2015 symposium on “Trials and Terrorism: The Implications of Trying National Security Cases in Article III Courts,” an expert panel was convened to discuss trends in sentencing considerations in Article III terrorism prosecutions, and what the implications for these cases portend for american foreign policy. The panel consisted of a judge, a government official and former prosecutor, academics, and sentencing experts.
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan draws on his voluminous experience on the federal bench to illuminate some of the special concerns that attend terrorism and national security cases. Kaplan reviews several judicial challenges unique to terrorism cases, including classified information issues and the use of defendants’ statements in the course of prosecution. He concludes that Article III courts not only are capable of trying such cases, but they are the forum most consistent with our American values of fairness and transparency.