Download file to see previous pages...
The petition included Secretary Rumsfeld as respondent. The issue decided by the Court was a jurisdictional question: did Padilla name the proper respondent(s) in his Writ, and if so, did the Southern District Court where the Writ was filed have jurisdiction over the proper respondent(s)? Citing the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C Sec. 2242 and 2243, the Supreme Court found that “the default rule is [that] the proper respondent is the warden of the facility [Commander Marr] where the prisoner is being held” (qtd. in Darmer et al., 2004). Furthermore, statutory law, as well as subsequent case law, required that District courts grant habeas relief only within their respective jurisdictions. And since Commander Marr was outside the jurisdiction of the Southern District Court, the Supreme Court ruled that Padilla had not properly filed his Writ and ordered dismissal.
Petitioners “Quirin, Burger, Haupt, Dasch, Kerling, Heinck, Thiel and Neubauer” (“Operation Pastorius.” Wikipedia.org) were German-trained spies smuggled into the US shortly after the beginning of hostilities between the US and Germany on or about June 17, 1942. They were arrested shortly thereafter and pursuant to a Presidential Proclamation were charged before a military tribunal.
Petitioners’ Writ sought the release of petitioners from military custody and trial by jury in a civilian court. The Supreme Court considered two main issues: (1) did the acts charged against the petitioners rightly constitute offences “against the laws of war cognizable before a military tribunal” (qtd. in Darmer et al., 2004) and (2) if so, did their trial before a military board violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court relied on universally agreed distinctions in the laws of war between lawful combatants (uniformed soldiers), who upon capture are required by law to be held as prisoners of war, and unlawful combatants (spies with the intent and
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Section 1 of the Prevention of terrorism Act of 2005 defines terrorism as the threat of action, whereby the actions involves the use of violence against other people, serious property damage or creates a serious risk of healthy and safety of the public. The UK terrorism intelligence gathering uses sophisticated methods that are geared at breaking down the terrorist network before they commit the attacks.
If the citizen was a member of a foreign terrorist group, in a foreign country, or working for a foreign government, they could be considered an unlawful enemy combatant. An example is Jose Padilla, a US citizen charged in Chicago with aiding terrorists in the construction of a 'dirty bomb'.
The justicability of the UK courts however has always been compromised to some extent by judicial deference to parliamentary sovereignty. This deference has never been more significant than it has in recent years with respect to
Are you going to send agents to attend Mosques? Are you going to develop informants among those already living in that population? Are you bounded by any ethical considerations other than the need to prevent needless deaths through terrorism?
Based on the
The author states that California is also the economic hub of America and also houses the biggest number of important buildings, international corporations and film industry. After 9/11, US Patriotic Act was amended and renamed ‘USA Patriot and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act’. There were introduced surveillance and detention of people.
n as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on the 18th of September 2001, the President had the authority to attack any persons, organizations or nations that assisted the terrorists in executing their dastardly act as this would prevent any future occurrence of
The Congress brought out the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to make sure of proper rights for war prisoners. The military was brought out of its coercive interrogations methods by the
A special, top secret court, termed as the FISA was crafted to hear appeals for such justifications. Safeguards were placed in a position to make certain that investigators following criminal issues did not
In reference with today’s terrorism, there is a great difference as many of these nations battle to attain political power. However, there is a great difference in the tactics used by militants during those early days. This is following the growth and advancement in
1 Pages(250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Counter-Terrorism: Constitutional and Legislative Issues for FREE!