Out of the Shadows: Preventive Detention, Suspected Terrorists, and War

Out of the Shadows: Preventive Detention, Suspected Terrorists, and War

Unlike many other developed (and developing) nations, the United States does not have a statute authorizing preventive detention without charges. U.S. law has no formal statutory mechanism by which such a person could be detained. Some have suggested that this is a potentially profound defect in our national security armature. Indeed, had a rational preventive detention regime been in place, we might have avoided some of the many problems we have experienced at Guantanamo ““ problems that virtually everyone acknowledges require a new direction now. On the other hand, others see the absence of a preventive detention law in the U.S. Code as a testament to our collective commitment to individual liberty.

Preventive detention is in fact an established part of U.S. law for a wide range of nonterrorist situations. Federal and state statutes authorize preventive detention of those facing trial on criminal or immigration charges, and of those whose mental disabilities warrant civil commitment. The proper question, therefore, is not whether we should authorize preventive detention “” it is already authorized “” but how and under what circumstances it should be authorized. In particular, is there a case for preventive detention of persons suspected of terrorism beyond the preventive detention authorities that already exist, and are the existing authorities appropriate for detaining suspected terrorists? Are existing preventive detention authorities appropriately drawn to distinguish between those who truly need to be detained preventively, and those who do not? Should different rules apply in light of the potentially catastrophic harms posed by twenty-first century terrorists? Should different rules apply to Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization that has declared war on the United States, attacked us here and abroad, against whom Congress has authorized a military response, and with whom the United States is in an ongoing military conflict in Afghanistan? And if preventive detention is permissible under some circumstances, what are the appropriate substantive and procedural safeguards that should accompany it?

These are some of the most difficult and controversial legal questions of the day. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision extending habeas corpus review to Guantanamo detainees, it is a question that is certain to generate substantial litigation. As I will suggest in this article resolution of these questions must move beyond simple assertions that we must have ““ or must not have “” a preventive detention regime. We already have such a regime ““ the proper question is whether it is a rational and sensible one, and if not, what can be done to reform it in a constructive fashion?


More in this Issue

Rational Ignorance, Rational Closed-Mindedness, and Modern Economic Formalism in Contract Law

This article argues that modern economic formalism is nothing more than an argument for purportedly rational ignorance and closed-mindedness in courts. Although individuals may well be ignorant in many circumstances, courts ordinarily should not strive to be. The article first describes why rational ignorance and (to coin a phrase) “rational closed-mindedness” in individuals fail to […]

Lessons from Punjab’s Missing Girls: Toward a Global Feminist Perspective on Choice in Abortion

Finding Instruction from Punjab’s “Missing Girls”: Towards a Global Feminist Perspective on “Choice” in Abortion employs the current phenomenon of sex-selective abortions in Punjab (India) to call for a re-evaluation of the concept of “choice” as it pertains to women’s reproductive freedom. It is hoped that this case study of sex selection in Punjab will […]

Disaster in the Amazon: Dodging Boomerang Suits in Transnational Human Rights Litigation

Over the past two decades, the number of lawsuits filed against multinational corporate entities for environmental degradation and human rights abuses has skyrocketed. At the same time, U.S. courts have shown an increasing reluctance to hear such cases, turning to the common-law doctrine forum non conveniens (FNC) as a basis for dismissal. FNC dismissals usually […]

Ideology and Exceptionalism in Intellectual Property: En Empirical Study

This article investigates the relationship between ideology and judicial decision-making in the context of intellectual property. Using data drawn from Supreme Court intellectual property cases decided in between 1954 and 2006, the authors show that ideology is a significant determinant of cases involving intellectual property rights: the more conservative a judge is, the more likely […]

A Tale of Two Lochners: The Untold History of Substantive Due Process and the Idea of Fundamental Rights

This article challenges the standard narrative of the Lochner era by challenging one of its most basic assumptions: that the idea of right existing at the beginning of the twentieth century was the modern notion of right-as-trump. Precisely the opposite view prevailed during the first two decades of the century: rights could easily be trumped […]

Yellow by Law

Over the past decade, scholars have paid increasing attention to Japanese-American constitutional history. For the most part, this literature focuses on the government’s decision during World War II to intern people of Japanese ancestry. But the trope of the Japanese as perpetual foreigners predates internment. My aim in this Article is to explore another historical […]