Miscarriages of Justice and Exceptional Procedures in the ‘War against Terrorism’
The object of this paper is to question the logic of generalised suspicion in indictment and detention procedures in the context of the war on terrorism, in order to understand the legal oscillation between resistance and deference to intelligence data in the judgment of terrorist acts. To illustrate these various forms of judicial resistance/deference, we closely examine three cases of judicial abuse in the fight against terrorism, corresponding to three different chronological and socio-political moments: the ‘Guildford Four’ in Northern Ireland (1974), the judicial condemnation and constitutional ban of Batasuna, the Basque nationalist party in Spain (2002) and the Maher Arar case in Canada (2002). Behind the screen of an elastic conception of public security, the primacy of an intelligence-based rationale over the judicial process results in tensions between the attribution of guilt and the rendering of justice that distort classical judicial procedures and the principle of a fair trial. Moreover, such tensions eventually legitimise proactive and preventive strategies that lead to condemnation through allegations of terrorism rather than proof.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1707.pdf | 121.69 KB | 988 | 32 sec ago |
The object of this paper is to question the logic of generalised suspicion in indictment and detention procedures in the context of the war on terrorism, in order to understand the legal oscillation between resistance and deference to intelligence data in the judgment of terrorist acts. To illustrate these various forms of judicial resistance/deference, we closely examine three cases of judicial abuse in the fight against terrorism, corresponding to three different chronological and socio-political moments: the ‘Guildford Four’ in Northern Ireland (1974), the judicial condemnation and constitutional ban of Batasuna, the Basque nationalist party in Spain (2002) and the Maher Arar case in Canada (2002). Behind the screen of an elastic conception of public security, the primacy of an intelligence-based rationale over the judicial process results in tensions between the attribution of guilt and the rendering of justice that distort classical judicial procedures and the principle of a fair trial. Moreover, such tensions eventually legitimise proactive and preventive strategies that lead to condemnation through allegations of terrorism rather than proof.
978-92-9079-810-1-en-1423
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => 17d680d4e23eab554b00a233d36767f6 [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [path] => book/miscarriages-justice-and-exceptional-procedures-‘war-against-terrorism’ [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 978-92-9079-810-1 [safe] => 978-92-9079-810-1 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Emmanuel-Pierre Guittet [safe] => Emmanuel-Pierre Guittet ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1707 [safe] => 1707 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 8 [view] => 8 ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-09-11T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 11 September 2008 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [safe] => Array ( ) [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [tags] => Array ( ) [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [taxonomy_term_23] => Array ( [title] => Justice and Home Affairs [href] => taxonomy/term/23 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => ) ) [taxonomy_term_88] => Array ( [title] => CEPS Special Reports [href] => catalog/88 [attributes] => Array ( [rel] => tag [title] => Disseminate a wide range of CEPS studies that do not fall into any of the other formal series. ) ) ) [files] => Array ( [1436] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 1436 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1707.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1707.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 124609 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-09 15:54:07 [nid] => 1423 [vid] => 1423 [description] => 1707.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => [last_name] => [company] => CEPS [phone] => +32 2 2293951 [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 ) [usps] => Array ( [vid] => 1423 [nid] => 1423 [container] => ) [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] =>The object of this paper is to question the logic of generalised suspicion in indictment and detention procedures in the context of the war on terrorism, in order to understand the legal oscillation between resistance and deference to intelligence data in the judgment of terrorist acts. To illustrate these various forms of judicial resistance/deference, we closely examine three cases of judicial abuse in the fight against terrorism, corresponding to three different chronological and socio-political moments: the ‘Guildford Four’ in Northern Ireland (1974), the judicial condemnation and constitutional ban of Batasuna, the Basque nationalist party in Spain (2002) and the Maher Arar case in Canada (2002). Behind the screen of an elastic conception of public security, the primacy of an intelligence-based rationale over the judicial process results in tensions between the attribution of guilt and the rendering of justice that distort classical judicial procedures and the principle of a fair trial. Moreover, such tensions eventually legitimise proactive and preventive strategies that lead to condemnation through allegations of terrorism rather than proof.
| Attachment | Size | Hits | Last download |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1707.pdf | 121.69 KB | 988 | 32 sec ago |
The object of this paper is to question the logic of generalised suspicion in indictment and detention procedures in the context of the war on terrorism, in order to understand the legal oscillation between resistance and deference to intelligence data in the judgment of terrorist acts. To illustrate these various forms of judicial resistance/deference, we closely examine three cases of judicial abuse in the fight against terrorism, corresponding to three different chronological and socio-political moments: the ‘Guildford Four’ in Northern Ireland (1974), the judicial condemnation and constitutional ban of Batasuna, the Basque nationalist party in Spain (2002) and the Maher Arar case in Canada (2002). Behind the screen of an elastic conception of public security, the primacy of an intelligence-based rationale over the judicial process results in tensions between the attribution of guilt and the rendering of justice that distort classical judicial procedures and the principle of a fair trial. Moreover, such tensions eventually legitimise proactive and preventive strategies that lead to condemnation through allegations of terrorism rather than proof.
978-92-9079-810-1-en-1423
[list_price] => 0.00000 [cost] => 0.00000 [sell_price] => 12.00000 [weight] => 300 [weight_units] => g [length] => 0 [width] => 0 [height] => 0 [length_units] => cm [pkg_qty] => 0 [default_qty] => 1 [unique_hash] => 17d680d4e23eab554b00a233d36767f6 [ordering] => 0 [shippable] => 1 [path] => book/miscarriages-justice-and-exceptional-procedures-‘war-against-terrorism’ [field_book_isbn] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 978-92-9079-810-1 [safe] => 978-92-9079-810-1 ) ) [field_book_number] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_short_title] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [field_book_author_external] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => Emmanuel-Pierre Guittet [safe] => Emmanuel-Pierre Guittet ) ) [field_book_old_path] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 1707 [safe] => 1707 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 8 [view] => 8 ) ) [field_book_publication_date] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-09-11T00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => date [view] => 11 September 2008 ) ) [field_book_author] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [nid] => [safe] => Array ( ) [view] => ) ) [field_image_cache] => Array ( [0] => ) [field_type] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => BOOK [format] => [safe] =>BOOK
[view] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) [2] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [view] => ) ) [print_display] => 1 [print_display_comment] => 0 [print_display_urllist] => 1 [signup] => 0 [tags] => Array ( ) [uc_order_product_id] => [0] => [taxonomy] => Array ( [23] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 23 [vid] => 3 [name] => Justice and Home Affairs [description] => [weight] => 7 ) [88] => stdClass Object ( [tid] => 88 [vid] => 4 [name] => CEPS Special Reports [description] => Disseminate a wide range of CEPS studies that do not fall into any of the other formal series. [weight] => 0 ) ) [files] => Array ( [1436] => stdClass Object ( [fid] => 1436 [uid] => 1 [filename] => 1707.pdf [filepath] => files/book/1707.pdf [filemime] => application/pdf [filesize] => 124609 [status] => 1 [timestamp] => 2009-09-09 15:54:07 [nid] => 1423 [vid] => 1423 [description] => 1707.pdf [list] => 1 [weight] => 0 ) ) [flatrate] => Array ( ) [shipping_type] => small_package [shipping_address] => stdClass Object ( [first_name] => [last_name] => [company] => CEPS [phone] => +32 2 2293951 [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 ) [usps] => Array ( [vid] => 1423 [nid] => 1423 [container] => ) [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [print_links] => Array ( [#weight] => -101 [#suffix] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#title] => [#description] => [#printed] => 1 ) [display_price] => Array ( [#weight] => -10 [#access] => 1 [#value] =>BOOK
[#delta] => 0 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => [#children] => Printed book ) [1] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 1 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [2] => Array ( [#formatter] => default [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type_name] => book [#field_name] => field_type [#weight] => 2 [#theme] => text_formatter_default [#item] => Array ( [value] => [format] => [safe] => [#delta] => 2 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#theme_used] => 1 [#printed] => 1 [#type] => [#value] => [#prefix] => [#suffix] => ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#single] => 1 [#attributes] => Array ( ) [#required] => [#parents] => Array ( ) [#tree] => [#context] => full [#page] => 1 [#field_name] => field_type [#title] => type [#access] => 1 [#label_display] => inline [#teaser] => [#node] => stdClass Object *RECURSION* [#type] => content_field [#children] => Printed book [#printed] => 1 ) [#title] => [#description] => [#children] =>| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1707.pdf | 121.69 KB |
The object of this paper is to question the logic of generalised suspicion in indictment and detention procedures in the context of the war on terrorism, in order to understand the legal oscillation between resistance and deference to intelligence data in the judgment of terrorist acts. To illustrate these various forms of judicial resistance/deference, we closely examine three cases of judicial abuse in the fight against terrorism, corresponding to three different chronological and socio-political moments: the ‘Guildford Four’ in Northern Ireland (1974), the judicial condemnation and constitutional ban of Batasuna, the Basque nationalist party in Spain (2002) and the Maher Arar case in Canada (2002). Behind the screen of an elastic conception of public security, the primacy of an intelligence-based rationale over the judicial process results in tensions between the attribution of guilt and the rendering of justice that distort classical judicial procedures and the principle of a fair trial. Moreover, such tensions eventually legitimise proactive and preventive strategies that lead to condemnation through allegations of terrorism rather than proof.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 1707.pdf | 121.69 KB |
The object of this paper is to question the logic of generalised suspicion in indictment and detention procedures in the context of the war on terrorism, in order to understand the legal oscillation between resistance and deference to intelligence data in the judgment of terrorist acts. To illustrate these various forms of judicial resistance/deference, we closely examine three cases of judicial abuse in the fight against terrorism, corresponding to three different chronological and socio-political moments: the ‘Guildford Four’ in Northern Ireland (1974), the judicial condemnation and constitutional ban of Batasuna, the Basque nationalist party in Spain (2002) and the Maher Arar case in Canada (2002). Behind the screen of an elastic conception of public security, the primacy of an intelligence-based rationale over the judicial process results in tensions between the attribution of guilt and the rendering of justice that distort classical judicial procedures and the principle of a fair trial. Moreover, such tensions eventually legitimise proactive and preventive strategies that lead to condemnation through allegations of terrorism rather than proof.
Related Publications
- Quantum Surveillance and ‘Shared Secrets’
- Fundamental Rights and EU Citizenship after the Treaty of Lisbon
- Towards a Common European Border Service?
- Profiling in the European Union: A high-risk practice
- The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme
- Huber, Marper and Others: Throwing new light on the shadows of suspicion
- Whose Citizenship to Empower in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? The Act of Mobility and Litigation in the Enactment of European Citizenship
- Global Data Transfers: The Human Rights Implications
- EU Counter-Terrorism Action: A fault line between law and politics?
- The promotion of human security in EU security policies
Editor's choice
-
Financial Markets
-
Politics and Institutions
-
Justice and Home Affairs
-
Economic Policy
-
EU Neighbourhood Policy
-
Economic Policy
Related Entries
- Justice and Home Affairs
- The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Priorities and Challenges
- Tiptoeing towards a Common Criminal Law? Reflections on the EU Constitution
- Management of border controls in Europe: Towards a Common European-Border guard?
- Asylum and Resettlement in the EU, does the Canadian Resettlement Program provide a model?