Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
20
result(s) for
"Dycus, Stephen"
Sort by:
Requiem for Korematsu?
\"23 It found that the war power of Congress and the Executive enabled the exclusion of all Japanese Americans from the West Coast. [...]said the Court, we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, declared that the case required heightened scrutiny, then relied instead on a conclusory affidavit from a State Department official to show that any form of assistance would lend legitimacy to terrorist groups, strain U.S. relations with its allies, and free up other resources that could be put to violent ends.44 While \"concerns of national security and foreign relations do not warrant abdication of the judicial role,\" he wrote, \"when it comes to collecting evidence and drawing factual inferences in this area, 'the lack of competence on the part of the courts is marked,' and respect for the Government's conclusions is appropriate. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, for example, a habeas action brought by a suspected Taliban fighter in military custody, the Supreme Court refused to accept the declaration of a Department of Defense official, based entirely on hearsay, as proof of facts that would justify the detainee's indefinite detention without charges or trial.47 A \"state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens,\" Justice O'Connor wrote for a Court plurality.48 \"[I]t does not infringe on the core role of the military for the courts to exercise their own time-honored and constitutionally mandated roles of reviewing and resolving [civil liberties] claims like those presented here,\" citing Justice Murphy's dissent in Korematsu.49 Yet the Court went on to approve a relaxed standard of review, utilizing hearsay and a presumption in favor of government evidence. [...]according to Yamamoto, the Court's decision poses a far greater danger: \"In national security cases after June 2018, judges possess a citation to bolster an exceedingly deferential judicial posture without having to draw, at least implicitly, on Korematsu.
Journal Article
Nuclear Threats in the Ukraine War
Re \"Nuclear Talk Revives Tone of Cold War\" (front page, Oct. 2):
Newspaper Article
U.S. Needs a Firm Homeland Plan
It's not funny. On Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge rolled out a new ad campaign to help Americans prepare for a terrorist attack. Yet, jokes continue to circulate about \"duct and cover\" and \"Code Magenta.\" The Department of Homeland Security may already have a carefully developed plan in place just waiting to be implemented if al-Qaida strikes again. If such a plan exists, we need to know about it. Not details that could be helpful to a terrorist, but at least the bare outlines. A 1995 presidential directive indicated a need to \"deter terrorism through a clear public position that our policies will not be affected by terrorist acts.\" In other words, a potential terrorist has to be convinced that destructive acts will not precipitate a collapse of basic government structures, and that the American people will not lose faith in their government, even in the worst of times.
Newspaper Article
Commentary; Be Careful About Calling In the Cavalry in the Struggle for Homeland Security
Last week, President Bush called for reexamination of the 1878 law that limits the role of the military in law enforcement activities. This call was echoed over the weekend by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, head of a new military command that would direct the Pentagon's response to another terrorist attack at home. The commission worried that Americans would not \"draw the technical distinction between the Department of Defense--the civilian entity--and the U.S. armed forces--the military entity.\" The Pentagon's own regulations call for it to play a strictly supporting role in a terrorist emergency. Statutes on the books give the Defense Department ample authority to protect the American homeland while performing in that subordinate role.
Newspaper Article