Can the President strip you of all your rights just by labeling your an “unlawful enemy combatant”? A couple of smart lawyers don’t think so.
Phil Carter has thought about the Padilla case, and thinks the case for denying him everything from the right to counsel to habeas corpus doesn’t stand up. Jonathan Turley agrees, and has some choice thoughts on the practice of de-classifying top secret information for the purpose of lobby the Supreme Court through the newspapers.
The more I think about it, the more it seems an insult to conservatives to call the Bush Administration “conservative.”
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Books:
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
UCLA Homepage
Curriculum Vitae
Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com
View all posts by Mark Kleiman