Detention, the War on Terror, and the Federal Courts

Resnik, Judith

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1582631

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this sense, Guantánamo is pulled into the “normal” carceral circuit while also remaining an exception from other forms of confinement. Often, habeas cases revolve around the exact distance separating Guantánamo’s law from the law of other forms of detention, such as immigration detention, civil commitment, and incarceration in a penitentiary (Brenner-Beck, 2020; Resnik, 2010). Furthermore, Guantánamo hosts special military tribunals, the so-called Military Commissions, which have tried a selected number of detainees for their alleged war crimes.…”

Section: Guantánamo and Its Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassessing the camp/prison dichotomy: New directions in geographic research on confinement

Asoni

2022

Progress in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What separates camps and prisons as distinct institutions of confinement? This question has important implications for geographic research, and particularly for current and potential intersections between “camp studies” and other contiguous fields in geography. Here, I conceptualize camps and prisons as historical formations, whose distinction varies at specific junctures. I compare confinement sites in reference to their temporal equilibriums and changes over time, so as to highlight possible convergences among them. To demonstrate my argument, I take legal developments concerning the Guantánamo Bay detention camp as an empirical reference point, and I examine the camp’s progressive normalization within the US carceral circuit.

show abstract

Section: Guantánamo and Its Othersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reassessing the camp/prison dichotomy: New directions in geographic research on confinement

Asoni

2022

Progress in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous studies have investigated how administrative discretion in prisons plays a significant role in the rise of harsh prison conditions and policies generally (Dolovich, 2009; McLennan, 2008; Rubin, 2018; Rudes, 2012), and solitary confinement specifically (Lobel, 2008; Reiter, 2015; Resnik, 2010; Schlanger, 2013). Taken together, these scholars point to the broad administrative discretion in the enactment of prison policies and practices.…”

Section: Solitary Confinement and Us Prison Expansion: Capacity DImentioning

confidence: 99%

Solitary Confinement and the U.S. Prison Boom

Simes

Sakoda

2019

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solitary confinement is a harsh form of custody involving isolation from the general prison population and highly restricted access to visitation and programs. Using detailed prison records covering three decades of confinement practices in Kansas, we find solitary confinement is a normal event during imprisonment. Long stays in solitary confinement were rare in the late 1980s with no detectable racial disparities, but a sharp increase in capacity after a new prison opening began an era of long-term isolation most heavily affecting Black young adults. A decomposition analysis indicates that increases in the length of stay in solitary confinement almost entirely explain growth in the proportion of people held in solitary confinement. Our results provide new evidence of increasingly harsh prison conditions and disparities that unfolded during the prison boom.

show abstract

“…The paradigmatic aspirations of the president's order to deprive detainees of any rights, including habeas corpus, and to apply military law to prosecute nonmilitary offenses triggered legal challenges by some American attorneys (Greenberg and Dratel 2008;Resnick 2010). 7 Three key cases, which ultimately were decided by the Supreme Court, repudiated some core elements of the president's order.…”

Section: Legal Challenges To the New Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US “War on Terror”

Hajjar¹

2019

Law Soc. Inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2001, we have witnessed the development of a counterterrorism war paradigm built to advance claims about the post-9/11 scope and discretion of US executive power and to articulate specific interpretations of national security interests and strategic objectives in the “war on terror.” What makes this a paradigm rather than merely a conglomeration of evolving policies is the cohesiveness and mutual reinforcement of its underlying rationales about the rights of the US government to prosecute a territorially unbounded war against an evolving cast of enemies. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of a juridical field, the article focuses on how officials who constructed a legal framework for this paradigm, rather than disregarding international law wholesale, have engaged in interpretations and crafted rationales to evade some international humanitarian law (IHL) rules and norms while rejecting the underlying logic or applicability of others. This article traces the counterterrorism war paradigm’s development and explains how it now competes with and threatens to supersede the customary law principles enshrined in IHL.

show abstract

Detention, the War on Terror, and the Federal Courts

Cited by 6 publications

References 42 publications

Reassessing the camp/prison dichotomy: New directions in geographic research on confinement

Reassessing the camp/prison dichotomy: New directions in geographic research on confinement

Solitary Confinement and the U.S. Prison Boom

The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US “War on Terror”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About