September 2007 Issue
Six years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, much of the legal system’s role in the war on terror remains unresolved.
Should the courts take a backseat to the executive branch, as they have historically done during wartime? Or, in this new kind of conflict—with no hope of a discernible, state-sanctioned end—should the courts hold the executive branch as accountable as they would in peacetime?
Neither view seems likely to win out. Rather, we seem to be stumbling toward a third way: building, bit by bit, a new paradigm of the law of terror—defining the limits of executive power, civil liberties, defendants’ rights and the independence of the judiciary with a system that borrows from the law of both wartime and peacetime.
In the aftermath of 9/11, lawyers at New York’s Harris Beach don’t practice law the same way they once did.
From 15,000 FBI interviews of “persons of interest” to 2,972 convictions, how the government’s terrorism-related cases have played out.
In the case of the “20th hijacker,” due process thwarted a courtroom jihad.
Our scorecard of the Justice Department’s legal war against al-Qaida.
Conservatives debate the limits of executive power post-9/11.
The Bush administration lawyers who created the blueprint for the legal war on terror.
Defense attorneys who have tried terror cases score the legal system’s response to 9/11.
Muslim-American attorney Ashraf Nubani dreams of building an ordinary law practice. Meanwhile, there are terrorists—alleged and otherwise—to defend.
How some of America’s best-known defense lawyers and legal commentators would represent public enemy No. 1.
Justice John Paul Stevens has turned dissents he helped draft as a U.S. Supreme Court clerk 60 years ago into majority opinions during the war on terror.
Former military lawyers recount their fight to define justice for enemy combatants.
The 9/11 victim compensation fund worked. But what about the next time?