Government accountability in the nineteenth century -- Bivens and government accountability in the twentieth century -- Human rights and War on Terror litigation -- Evaluating the effectiveness of Bivens litigation -- Evaluating justifications for judicial silence -- Congressional ratification of the bivens action -- Applying Bivens to conduct outside of the United States -- Overcoming qualified immunity -- Common-law solutions to judge-made problems.

In thinking about the War on Terror's impact on U.S. law, what most likely comes to mind are its corrosive effects on public law, including criminal law, immigration, and constitutional law. What is less appreciated is whether and how the fight against terrorism has also impacted private law. As this Article demonstrates, the War on Terror has had a negative influence on private law, specifically on torts, where it has upended long- standing norms, much as it has done in the public law context. Case law construing the private right of action under the Antiterrorism Act of 1992, 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a) (“Section 2333”), shines the brightest light on this trend. Using Section 2333, private individuals can bring civil suits against third-parties for injuries purportedly resulting from violence committed by terrorist groups. In deciding these cases, which sound in intentional torts, many courts have treated Section 2333 as a critical component of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. This marriage of tort law and national security has transformed Section 2333 into anything but the traditional tort Congress intended it to be. In the process, a line of jurisprudence has developed under the statute, which carries negative implications for the discipline of torts writ large, reinforces the War on Terror's ideologically-infused narratives about terrorism itself, and ensnares defendants with little to no meaningful connection with terrorism or terrorist groups. These consequences, which have largely gone unnoticed by both tort scholars and critics of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, are important ones. They highlight the ways America's never-ending war has not only undermined public, but also private, law, and underscore how torts, in particular, have helped perpetuate the political ideology at the root of that battle. This Article seeks to uncover and explain these trends, for the first time, and offer some preliminary solutions.

The conjunction of Islamic fundamentalism, WMD, and terrorism has set the stage for a new form of 'warfare' and ushered in a period of national reflection and debate about the proper balance between national security and the rights of the individual. This book contributes to the ongoing national debate by providing easy access to relevant documents from major post-9/11 cases that highlight central constitutional issues raised by the war on terrorism.

Also includes information on aftermath of terrorist attack, Al Qaeda, George W. Bush, civil liberties, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, courts, detainees, detention, due process, emergency constitution, emergency powers, emergency regime, existential crisis, extraordinary powers, Founding Fathers, framework statutes, freedom, habeas corpus writ, Iraq war, Abraham Lincoln, Jose Padilla, panic reaction, precedents of presidential powers, presidency, president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, rule of law, second strike, Second World War, secrecy, seizure, September 11, 2001, state of emergency, supermajoritarian escalator, terrorist attack, torture, United Kingdom, etc.

Terrorism, the Laws of War, and the Constitution examines three enemy combatant cases that represent the leading edge of U.S. efforts to devise legal rules, consistent with American constitutional principles, for waging the global war on terror. The distinguished contributors analyze the crucial questions these cases raise about the balance between national security and civil liberties in wartime and call for a reexamination of the complex connections between the Constitution and international law.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are indelibly etched into our cultural memory. This is the story of how the legal ramifications of that day brought two presidents, Congress, and the Supreme Court into repeated confrontation over the incarceration of hundreds of suspected terrorists and “enemy combatants” at the US naval base in Guantánamo, Cuba. Could these prisoners (including an American citizen) be held indefinitely without due process of law? Did they have the right to seek their release by habeas corpus in US courts? Could they be tried in a makeshift military judicial system? With Guantánamo well into its second decade, these questions have challenged the three branches of government, each contending with the others, and each invoking the Constitution’s separation of powers as well as its checks and balances. In The 9/11 Terror Cases, Allan A. Ryan leads students and general readers through the pertinent cases: Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, both decided by the Supreme Court in 2004; Hamdan v. Bush, decided in 2006; and Boumediene v. Bush, in 2008. An eloquent writer and an expert in military law and constitutional litigation, Ryan is an adept guide through the nuanced complexities of these cases, which rejected the sweeping powers asserted by President Bush and Congress, and upheld the rule of law, even for enemy combatants. In doing so, as we see clearly in Ryan's deft account, the Supreme Court's rulings speak directly to the extent and nature of presidential and congressional prerogative, and to the critical separation and balance of powers in the governing of the United States.