Search for: "In Re: Terrorist Attacks on Se" Results 21 - 40 of 40
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2016, 3:15 pm by Benjamin Wittes
Closing Guantanamo is, if we're being totally honest, something much less than an imperative of any kind. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 8:43 am by Gritsforbreakfast
Terrorist attacks on US soil, happily, are even more rare than false convictions, by far. [read post]
15 May 2015, 4:00 pm by The Book Review Editor
Eisenhower wasn’t worried per se about government relying on the private sector for manufacturing and research. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 10:47 am by Cicely Wilson
The Court looked to the “totality of circumstances,” declining to announce a per se rule. [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 9:46 am by Lawrence Taylor
 Just as the public's growing anger with drunk driving (fanned by MADD) offered government an excuse to chip away at the Constitution, so the fear of terrorist attacks offered the opportunity to accelerate that erosion. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 11:00 am by Abhik Majumdar
Suffice it to say, therefore, that a re-appraisal of what I refer to as the respondents' narrative (i.e.the gamut of arguments ranged against Assange) is urgently called for. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 5:54 am by emp
 While not about personal information per se, measures to mitigate such risks will likely result in the protection of personal information as well. [read post]
27 May 2011, 11:16 am by Deborah Pearlstein
Broadly speaking, the courts have read the current AUMF to authorize the detention of members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces,” as well as those who, to some not entirely clear extent, “support” those groups, provided they’re connected at some level to the attacks of 9/11. [read post]
27 May 2011, 10:20 am by Deborah Pearlstein
Broadly speaking, the courts have read the current AUMF to authorize the detention of members of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces,” as well as those who, to some not entirely clear extent, “support” those groups, provided they’re connected at some level to the attacks of 9/11. [read post]
16 May 2011, 8:08 pm by The Legal Blog
It is also conceivable that witnesses can be compelled to undergo polygraph tests in order to test the credibility of their testimonies or to question their mental capacity or to even attack their character.14. [read post]
5 Mar 2011, 11:57 am by Bill Otis
" It is difficult to imagine language better suited to adjusting Miranda to the world of quick, sequential terrorist attacks that are the new reality. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 1:34 pm by Bill Araiza
  Again, as all the world knows, he wrote the dissent in Citizens United, which was a full-throated attack on the idea of rigid First Amendment standards. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 6:09 am by Kenneth Anderson
  You’re not actually congratulating me, I’m afraid — you’re congratulating yourself, for holding the views you hold. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 3:04 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
That is not to suggest that the current laws, as well as all changes to the immigration laws, which have disparate racial and national origin consequences, are per se racist. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:14 pm
Haviland, No. 07-3380 Grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) petitioner sought to represent himself at trial, and the trial court's failure to rule on his requests to proceed pro se deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation; and 2) state courts' objectiv [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 7:35 am
Chandia, No. 06-4997 "Convictions and sentence based on conviction for providing material support to terrorists or terrorist organizations is vacated as to defendant's sentence as the district court failed to make the factual findings necessary to impose the U.S.S.G. section 3A1.4 terrorism enhancement. [read post]
16 Jan 2007, 8:30 pm
A preventive war is one in which you invade in order to prevent a possible but uncertain future attack. [read post]
27 Nov 2005, 12:06 pm
And the Office of Management and Budget, citing "the Constitution," indicates general concern among the president's "senior advisers" that the amendment in question "would restrict the president's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice. [read post]