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 | 912 | 11 hours 25 min 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 [tags] => Array ( ) [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_price] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 12 ) ) [field_book_series] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 88 [safe] => 88 ) ) [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_downloads] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 816 [safe] => 816 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 8 [view] => 8 ) ) [field_book_price_pdf] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 0.00 ) ) [field_book_published] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-09-11 00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => datetime ) ) [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] => [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 [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] => Radoslav [last_name] => Minkov [company] => CEPS [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 [phone] => ) [usps] => [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 | 912 | 11 hours 25 min 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 [tags] => Array ( ) [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_price] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 12 ) ) [field_book_series] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 88 [safe] => 88 ) ) [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_downloads] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 816 [safe] => 816 ) ) [field_book_pages] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 8 [view] => 8 ) ) [field_book_price_pdf] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 0.00 ) ) [field_book_published] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [value] => 2008-09-11 00:00:00 [timezone] => Europe/Brussels [timezone_db] => Europe/Brussels [date_type] => datetime ) ) [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] => [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 [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] => Radoslav [last_name] => Minkov [company] => CEPS [street1] => place du Congres 1 [street2] => [city] => Brussels [zone] => 94 [postal_code] => 1000 [country] => 56 [phone] => ) [usps] => [weightquote] => Array ( ) [build_mode] => 0 [readmore] => 1 [content] => Array ( [print_links] => Array ( [#weight] => -101 [#value] => [#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
- The promotion of human security in EU security policies
- Security as a commodity: The ethical dilemmas of private security services
- Towards common standards on rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings in the EU?
- The EU and the European Security Industry: Questioning the ‘Public-Private Dialogue’
- The Union for the Mediterranean: What has it changed and what can be changed in the domain of security?
- Undocumented Immigrants and Rights in the EU: Addressing the Gap between Social Sciences Research and Policy-making
- EU Security Policies towards the Mediterranean: The Ethical Dimension – what do we know and what else should we know?
- Security Ethics: A Thin Blue-Green-Grey Line
- Made in the USA? The Influence of the US on the EU’s Data Protection Regime
- Border Security, Technology and the Stockholm Programme
Related Articles
- Tiptoeing towards a Common Criminal Law? Reflections on the EU Constitution
- Management of border controls in Europe: Towards a Common European-Border guard?
- Justice and Home Affairs
- The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Priorities and Challenges
- Asylum and Resettlement in the EU, does the Canadian Resettlement Program provide a model?