American Government

Resources for Week Four Discussion – Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror

Before this week’s discussion, “Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror,” review these resources:

1. Read this chapter from the text, American Government:

a. Chapter 8 – Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

2. Review this previous assignment in the text, American Government:

a. Chapter 5, Section 5.7 – Wartime President

3. Read the following articles:

a. Guantanamo Detainees’ Rights

Hawke, A. (2007, June 29). Primer: Guantanamo detainees' rights. National Public Radio. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11600605

b. Habeas corpus.

(2011). Habeas corpus. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (6 th ed.), 1. Retrieved from Academic Search

Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(The brief article defines the right of habeas corpus and describes its importance as the "great writ of

liberty" in both the English and American constitutional traditions.)

c. Boumediene v. Bush summary.

Oyez. (2008). Boumediene v. Bush. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved from

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_06_1195

(This brief article summarizes the facts and legal questions related to habeas corpus in the Supreme Court

case of Boumediene v. Bush.)

4. Watch the following videos:

a. Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Films on Demand. (2006). Writ of habeas corpus [Video segment]. In Judicial Opinions: The Supreme

Court Justices. Retrieved from

http://digital.films.com./OnDemandEmbed.aspx?Token=37579&aid=18596&loid=53753&Plt=FOD&w=

640&h=480&ref=

b. Peter Jennings Reporting – Guantanamo

Jones, S. (Producer). (2004). Peter Jennings reporting – Guantanamo [Video]. Retrieved from

http://digital.films.com/OnDemandEmbed.aspx?Token=35071&aid=18596&Plt=FOD&loid=0&w=640&

h=480&ref=

c. Lincoln Suspends Habeas Corous

Ward, G. C. (Writer). (1990). Lincoln suspends habeas corpus [Series episode]. In K. Burns, The Civil

War: Episode 1 – The Cause (1861). Retrieved from

http://digital.films.com./OnDemandEmbed.aspx?Token=40977&aid=18596&loid=67550&Plt=FOD&w=

640&h=480&ref=

5. Read one of the following academic articles from the Ashford University Library:

a. Law and terror.

Anderson, K. (2006, October/November). Law and terror. Policy Review, (139), 3-24. Retrieved from

ProQuest (Search All) database.

(This academic article argues that, in a time of war, the responsibility for balancing security and liberty

lies with Congress acting jointly with the President – not with the President acting unilaterally. The author

notes that the Supreme Court seems willing to lessen its role in protecting civil liberties when the two

political branches agree on how to balance these potentially conflicting interests.)

b. Clear statement rules and executive war powers.

Bradley, C. (2010). Clear statement rules and executive war powers. Harvard Journal of Law and Public

Policy, 33(1), 1439-148. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

(This academic article analyzes the Supreme Court’s emphasis on clear congressional laws which either

delegate to or withhold from the president extraordinary wartime powers, e.g., the power to detain

"enemy combatants" without a court hearing during the war on terror.)

c. Judging the next emergency: Judicial review and individual rights in times of crisis.

Cole, D. (2003, August). Judging the next emergency: Judicial review and individual rights in times of

crisis. Michigan Law Review, 101(8). 2565-2595. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier

(EBSCOhost) database.

(This academic article assesses judicial review of national security measures, explaining why courts are

less activist on matters of national security, especially in times of crisis.)

d. Subordination of powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Dealy, J. D. (2007). Subordination of powers: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006). Harvard

Journal of Law and Public Policy, 30(3), 1071-1084. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

(This academic article critiques the Supreme Court's post-9/11 habeas corpus decisions because they may

subordinate the President to Congress in the exercise of executive authority to protect the nation.)

e. Military tribunals: A sorry history.

Fisher, L. (2003, September). Military tribunals: A sorry history. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(3),

484-508. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

(This academic article relates the Bush administration's use of military tribunals with their use by F.D.R.

during World War II to try saboteurs. The author notes that while the Supreme Court unanimously upheld

Roosevelt's tribunal, the history of such procedures shows them as hostile to civil liberties, due process,

and basic standards of justice.)

f. Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules.

Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules. Journal of Criminal Law &

Criminology, 97(4), 1009-10069. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database.

(This academic article critiques the post-9/11 practice of indefinitely detaining "enemy combatants" to

incapacitate and interrogate them to uncover plans for terrorist attacks. The author critiques that practice

as ineffective and counter-productive.)

g. Terrorism, emergency powers, and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Katyal, N., Bongiovanni, G., & Valentini, C. (2007, December). Terrorism, emergency powers, and the

role of the U.S. Supreme Court: An interview with Neal K. Katyal. Ratio Juris, 20(4), 443-455. Retrieved

from Academic search Premier (EBSCOhost) database.

(In this academic article, a lawyer who successfully argued a post-9/11 case before the Supreme Court

discusses issues about separation of powers, the legitimacy of counter-terrorism laws, and anti-

majoritarian issues posed by the judicial review.)

h. The war against terror as war against the Constitution.

Niday, J. (2008). The war against terror as war against the Constitution. Canadian Review of American

Studies, 38(1), 101-117. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database.

(This academic article analyzes ideological divisions on the Supreme Court in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

decision, which invalidated the Bush administration's detention of "enemy combatants" without habeas

corpus court hearing. In spite of the result in the case, the author questions whether the decision violates

constitutionally protected civil liberties.)

i. The unreviewable executive: Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama administration.

Vladeck, S. (2010). The unreviewable executive: Kiyemba, Maqaleh, and the Obama administration.

Constitutional Commentary, 26(3), 603-623. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost)

database.

(This academic article explains that arguments against judicial power in the detainee habeas corpus cases

are arguments in favor of executive power and that deciding the merits of these cases should be left to the

courts and not the president.)