Taking Liberties: The War on Terror, Civil Liberties, and the American Courts
With , president of American Civil Liberties Unions (ACLU), and Centennial Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School.
Abstract
During the decade since 9/11, American antiterrorism efforts have led to gross abuses of human rights including use of torture and extraordinary rendition, and to enhancement of government power over individuals through aggressive use of surveillance, watchlists, etc.聽 Although this new legal regimen compromises the rights of ordinary Americans more than most people realize, the brunt of the burden has been borne by Muslim and Arab men, including American citizens.
As victims of antiterrorism efforts have sought judicial review of these actions, however, the American courts have developed myriad procedural excuses for avoiding hearing challenges on their merits:聽 the state secrets privilege, the standing doctrine, immunity doctrines, special pleading rules, etc.
Judges engaged in this form of ab(ju)dication frequently argue that it is properly the job of the political branches to decide how antiterrorism efforts should be conducted. Comparing treatment of the claims of Canadian citizen Maher Arar in Canada and the United States raises serious questions about the role of courts in checking human rights violations, and the need for political accountability.
About this annual conference
The Wallenberg Conferences honour Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat whose actions saved the lives of thousands of Jews in Hungary during the Second World War.