Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:58:09.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Anti-Terrorism Criminal Law: Where Emergency Regime Meets the Investigative Agenda

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2023

Sigal Shahav*
Affiliation:
Lecturer, College of Law and Business (Israel)
Get access

Abstract

This article aims to show how reform of the law on terrorism not only has the power to create new criminal procedures, it can also create a distinct, parallel field operating alongside general criminal law. This parallel configuration presents certain unique features and processes which merit their own typology – namely, anti-terrorism criminal law (ATCL). First, the article discusses how states have responded to terrorism through reform of four key arenas: military law, immigration law, administrative law and criminal law. Comparison is then drawn between the United States and Israel in their respective approaches, showing that Israel has executed far more sweeping and significant reforms over the last four decades, mainly in criminal procedure. Examples are given to illustrate how Israel's evolving anti-terrorism legislation – and specifically, the new Counter-Terrorism Law of 2016 – changed the criminal procedural landscape to such a degree that it constituted the new field of ATCL. I contend that this move was anti-liberal in its definition and targeting of terror suspects, and in its pursuit of emergency aims and intelligence gathering rather than liberal criminal law objectives. Further, I show that liberal theory struggles to explain the integrated change model that Israel has implemented in its counter-terrorism reforms, and that the theoretical framings of Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault may explain it more effectively.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the Faculty of Law, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Margulies, Peter, ‘Judging Terror in the “Zone of Twilight”: Exigency, Institutional Equity, and Procedure after September 11’ (2004) 84 Boston University Law Review 383, 402Google Scholar; Lavi, Shai, ‘Punishment and the Revocation of Citizenship in the United Kingdom, United States and Israel’ (2010) 13 New Criminal Law Review 404, 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 On terror between military law and criminal law see Fletcher, George P, ‘The Indefinable Concept of Terrorism’ (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 894, 906CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Stuntz, William J, ‘Local Policing after Terror’ (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 2137, 2138 (Stuntz (2002a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stuntz, William J, ‘Terrorism, Federalism, and Police Misconduct’ (2002) 25 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 665 (Stuntz (2002b)Google Scholar; Weisselberg, Charles D, ‘Terror in the Courts: Beginning to Assess the Impact of Terrorism-related Prosecutions on Domestic Criminal Law and Procedure in the USA’ (2008) 50 Crime, Law and Social Change 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oren Gross and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, ‘To Know Where We are Going, We Need to Know Where We Are: Revisiting States of Emergency’ in Angela Hegarty and Siobhan Leonard (eds), A Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century (Routledge Cavendish 1999) 79; Parry, John, ‘Terrorism and the New Criminal Process’ (2002) 15 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 765Google Scholar; ‘Responding to Terrorism: Crime, Punishment, and War’ (2002) 115 Harvard Law Review 1217, 1235.

4 On terror as a criminal offence see Wilson Finnie, ‘Old Wine in New Bottles? The Evolution of Anti-Terrorist Legislation’ (1990) 35 Juridical Review 1, 2–3.

5 On some of these categories see Charles Doyle, ‘Terrorism: Section by Section Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act’, CRS Report for Congress, 10 December 2001, https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=182; Brouwer, Evelien, ‘Immigration, Asylum and Terrorism: A Changing Dynamic Legal and Practical Developments in the EU in Response to the Terrorist Attacks of 11.09’ (2003) 4 European Journal of Migration and Law 399Google Scholar; Robert Chesney and Jack Goldsmith, ‘Terrorism and the Convergence of Criminal and Military Detention Models’ (2008) 60 Stanford Law Review 1079; Waxman, Matthew C, ‘Detention as Targeting: Standards of Certainty and Detention of Suspected Terrorists’ (2008) 108 Columbia Law Review 1365Google Scholar; Yuval Shany, ‘The War against Terror and Absolute Substantive and Procedural Norms’ (unpublished manuscript, on file with author); Yuval Shany, ‘Human Rights and Humanitarian Law as Competing Legal Paradigms for Fighting Terror’ in Orna Ben-Naftali (ed), XIX/1 Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (Oxford University Press 2011) 13; Feldman, Noah, ‘Choices of Law, Choices of War’ (2002) 25 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 457Google Scholar; Jinks, Derek, ‘September 11 and the Laws of War’ (2003) 28 Yale Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar.

6 On ‘crimmigration’ see Stumpf, Juliet P, ‘The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime, and Sovereign Power’ (2006) 56 American University Law Review 367Google Scholar; Demleitner, Nora V, ‘Immigration Threats and Rewards: Effective Law Enforcement Tools in the “War” on Terrorism?’ (2002) 51 Emory Law Journal 1059Google Scholar; Demleitner, Nora V, ‘Misguided Prevention: The War on Terrorism as a War on Immigrant Offenders and Immigration Violators’ (2004) 40 Criminal Law Bulletin 550Google Scholar; Miller, Teresa, ‘Blurring the Boundaries between Immigration and Crime Control after September 11th’ (2005) 25 Boston College Third World Law Journal 81Google Scholar; Tumlin, Karen C, ‘Comment, Suspect First: How Terrorism Policy is Reshaping Immigration Policy’ (2004) 92 California Law Review 1173, 1228–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 8, Ch I, subch B, Pt 287, §287.3(d); Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act – Article 412, Patriot Act; The Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8, Ch 12, subch II, Pt IV § 1221 and 1226a.

8 Jennifer K Elsea, ‘Detention of American Citizens as Enemy Combatants’, CRS Report for Congress, 31 March 2005, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL31724.pdf; Hamdan v Rumsfeld, 548 US 557 (2006), paras 573–77.

9 ‘Military Order, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism’, 16 November 2001, Federal Register 66, No. 222, 57831–36, https://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/mo-111301.htm; Military Commissions Order No. 1 (US) Procedures for Trials by Military Commissions of Certain Non-United States Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 21 March 2002, http://www.mc.mil/legalresources/militarycommissionsdocuments/historicaldocuments.aspx. This Order addresses, among other things, the rules of evidence and the defendants’ choice of counsel and provides for review of findings and sentences by a review panel comprising three military officers.

10 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Those Responsible for the Recent Attacks Launched Against the United States, 18 September 2001, Public Law 107-40, 115 Stat 224 SJ Res 23, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf.

11 US Code, Title 18, Pt II, Ch 207, §3142, 3144. A material witness warrant is a powerful and sometimes controversial investigative tool because it may result in the detention of a person for days, weeks or sometimes months, even though there may not be sufficient evidence to support charging them with any crime.

12 Imprisonment of Unlawful Combatant Law, 2002 (Israel).

13 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Provision), 2003 (Israel).

14 Order on Security Instruction [Consolidated Version] (Judea and Samaria) (No 1651), 2007 (Israel).

15 This situation is analogous to the state claiming that, as it is hard to collect evidence in sexual assault cases and as there are usually no witnesses to these crimes, it has decided that rape suspects cannot meet with their attorneys, their interrogations will not be recorded, their detention will be longer than usually allowed, and the court can hold a hearing without their presence.

16 On different categories see Daphne Barak-Erez, ‘Terrorism Law between the Executive Model and the Legislative Model’ (2009) 57 American Journal of Comparative Law 877, 877–79.

17 George P Fletcher, ‘Two Kinds of Legal Rules: A Comparative Study of Burden-of-Persuasion Practices in Criminal Cases’ (1968) 77 Yale Law Review 880, 919–25; Judith Resnik, ‘Failing Faith: Adjudicatory Procedure in Decline’ (1986) 53 University of Chicago Law Review 494, 526–34.

18 Sigal Shahav, Anti-Terrorism Criminal Law (Nevo 2019) 162.

19 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press 1971); John Rawls, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press 1993); Paul Craig, ‘Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework’ in Richard Bellamy (ed), The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers (Routledge 2005) 95.

20 Here the liberal model is an ideal type. On conceptual and descriptive understandings see Max Weber, ‘“Objectivity” in Social Science and Social Policy’ in Max Weber, The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Edward Shils and Henry Finch (eds and trans), The Free Press 1949) 49; Hans Henrik Bruun, ‘Weber on Rickert: From Value Relation to Ideal Type’ (2001) 1 Max Weber Studies 138; Dhananjai Shivakumar, ‘The Pure Theory as Ideal Type: Defending Kelsen on the Basis of Weberian Methodology’ (1996) 105 Yale Law Journal 1383.

21 On the emergency aspect see Oren Gross, ‘Cutting Down Trees: Law-Making under the Shadow of Great Calamities’ in Ronald J Daniels, Patrick Macklem and Kent Roach (eds), The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill (University of Toronto Press 2001) 39, 43–45; Oren Gross and Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Law in Times of Crisis: Emergency Powers in Theory and Practice (Cambridge University Press 2006) 365–421. For example, on the emergency aspect in Ireland see Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, ‘The Fortification of an Emergency Regime’ (1996) 59 Albany Law Review 1353, 1384. On emergency and normality see Ernst Fraenkel, The Dual State: A Contribution to the Theory of Dictatorship (Oxford University Press 1941); Nasser Houssain, The Jurisprudence of Emergency: Colonialism and the Rule of Law (University of Michigan Press 2003); John Ferejohn and Pasquale Pasquino, ‘The Law of Exception: A Typology of Emergency Powers’ (2004) 2 International Journal of Constitutional Law 210; Bruce Ackerman, ‘The Emergency Constitution’ (2004) 113 Yale Law Journal 1029, 1041; Antonio Negri, ‘Insurgencies: Constituent Power and the Modern State’ (University of Minnesota Press 1999); Kim Lane Scheppele, ‘Law in a Time of Emergency: States of Exception and the Temptations of 9/11’ (2004) 6 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 1001; Shai Lavi, ‘The Use of Force beyond the Liberal Imagination: Terror and Empire in Palestine, 1947’ (2006) 7 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 199.

22 Shahav (n 18).

23 See sources in n 19.

24 ibid.

25 Weber (n 20); Bruun (n 20); Shivakumar (n 20).

26 Weber (n 20); Bruun (n 20); Shivakumar (n 20).

27 George P Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2000) 575–80.

28 Mirjan Damaska, ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1083, 1092–93 (Damaska (1975a); Mirjan Damaska ‘Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure’ (1975) 84 Yale Law Journal 480, 523 (Damaska (1975b); Glanville Williams, The Proof of Guilt: A Study of the English Criminal Trial (Stevens & Sons 1963); Frederick Pollock and Maitland F William, The History of the English Law (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 1968) 670; Mirjan R Damaska, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (Yale University Press 1986).

29 Stefan Trechsel, ‘Why Must Trials Be Fair?’ (1997) 31 Israel Law Review 94, 95–96; Richard Saphire, ‘Specifying Due Process Values: Towards a More Responsive Approach to Procedural Protection’ (1978) 127 University of Pennsylvania Review 111, 114–17; Larry Alexander, ‘Are Procedural Rights Derivative Substantive Rights?’ (1998) 17 Law and Philosophy 19, 26–31.

30 Stumpf (n 6); Demleitner (2002) (n 6); Demleitner (2004) (n 6); Miller (n 6); Tumlin (n 6).

31 Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner, Preventive Justice (Oxford University Press 2014).

32 RA Duff, Punishment, Communication, and Community (Studies in Crime and Public Policy) (Oxford University Press 2001); Fletcher (n 17).

33 Albert Venn Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edn, Macmillan 1959) 287–88; William E Scheuerman, ‘Survey Article: Emergency Powers and the Rule of Law After 9/11’ (2006) 14 Journal of Political Philosophy 61, 74–81; Jules Lobel, ‘Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism’ (1989) 98 Yale Law Journal 1385, 1385–400.

34 Negri (n 21); Scheppele (n 21).

35 Lavi (n 21); Houssain (n 21).

36 Judith N Shklar, ‘Political Theory and the Rule of Law’ in Allan C Hutchinson & Patrick Monahan (eds), The Rule of Law: Ideal or Ideology (Transnational 1987) 1, 1–3.

37 Rawls (1971), Rawls (1993) (n 19).

38 Jürgen Habermas, ‘Between Facts and Norms: An Author's Reflections’ (1999) 76 Denver Law Review 937, 938–39.

39 Karl Marx, ‘On the Jewish Question’ (1978) The Marx Engles Reader; Mark Tushnet, ‘An Essay on Rights’ (1984) 62 Texas Law Review 1363.

40 Charles Taylor, ‘Atomism’ in Alxis Kontos (ed), Powers Possessions and Freedom: Essays in Honour of C.B. Macpherson (University of Toronto Press 1979) 57; Michael J Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1982); Amy Gutmann, ‘Communitarian Critics of Liberalism’ in Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology (Routledge, in association with the Open University 2003) 182.

41 Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (The MIT Press 1985); Oren Gross, ‘The Normless and Exceptionless Exception: Carl Schmitt's Theory of Emergency Powers and the “Norm-Exception” Dichotomy’ (2000) 21 Cardozo Law Review 1825, 1825–30; Chantal Mouffe (ed), The Challenge of Carl Schmitt (Verso 1999); John P McCormick, Carl Schmitt's Critique of Liberalism (Cambridge University Press 1997).

42 David Dyzenhaus, ‘Schmitt v. Dicey: Are States of Emergency Inside or Outside the Legal Order?’ (2006) 27 Cardozo Law Review 2005, 2007.

43 Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (George Schwab and Leo Strauss trans, Rutgers University Press 1976) 26, 33, 35; Schmitt (n 41) 6.

44 Giorgio Agamben, Homo sacer (Einaudi 2005) 17–23.

45 Schmitt (n 41) Chs 1–2.

46 Schmitt (n 41); Gross (n 41).

47 ECtHR, A and Others v United Kingdom, App no 3455/05, 19 February 2009, para 55.

48 Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF and Others [2009] EWCA Civ 1148, [2008] UKHL 28.

49 Richard A Leo, ‘Police Interrogation and Social Control’ (1994) 3 Social and Legal Studies 93, 114.

50 Michel Foucault, Security, Population, Territory: Lectures at the College de France 1977–1978 (Palgrave Macmillan 2007); Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (Vintage Books 1978) 7.

51 Foucault (1978) (n 50) 7–20.

52 Foucault (2007) (n 50) 92–94.

53 Criminal Procedure Law, 1965 (Israel), s 27A.

54 Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Authorities – Arrests), 1996 (Israel).

55 Haya Sandberg, Interpreting the Detention Law (Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2001) 19, 39.

56 Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Authorities – Arrests), 1996 (Israel); Criminal Procedure Law (Consolidated Version), 1982 (Israel).

57 Criminal Procedure Bill (Enforcement Authorities – Detention, Arrest and Release), 1995 (Israel), s 31(6).

58 Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Authorities – Arrests), 1996 (Israel), s 35(b).

59 HCJ 306/99 Shin Bet v Chen (15 January 1999), para 5. In this case the court permitted the lawyer to pass a letter to the security-suspect client, instead of holding a meeting.

60 Criminal Procedure Law (Interrogation of Suspects), 2002 (Israel), s 17.

61 On 31 May 2010, a flotilla of six vessels advanced towards the coastline of Israel, carrying approximately 700 persons. The largest of the ships, the Mavi Marmara, had approximately 29 crew members and 561 passengers on board. IDF forces boarded the Mavi Marmara and took control of the vessel, encountering violent resistance. When the conflict ended, it was found that nine of the ship's passengers had been shot dead, and 55 passengers and nine IDF soldiers were wounded. The investigation of the Marmara suspects was not recorded.

62 Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010, Turkel Commission, Second Report, February 2013, https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/alternatefiles/he/turkel_eng_b1-474_0.pdf.

63 Team for the Review and Implementation of the Second Report of the Public Commission for the Examination of the Maritime Incident of May 31st, 2010, regarding Israel's Mechanisms for Examining and Investigating Complaints and Claims of Violations of the Law of Armed Conflict According to International Law, Report, August 2015, https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/news/spoketurkelcommittee210915/he/documents_reporteng.pdf.

64 Criminal Procedure Law (Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Temporary Provision), 2006 (Israel).

65 The 2006 Law initially referred only to Gaza but, following a review, it was changed to cover all security offences in Israel; see also Counter-Terrorism Bill, 2015 Protocols, https://main.knesset.gov.il/Activity/Legislation/Laws/Pages/LawBill.aspx?t=LawReshumot&lawitemid=568876 (eg, protocol of 23 November 2015) (in Hebrew).

66 Memorandum of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers – Special Instructions for the Investigation of Security Offences by a Non-Resident) (Temporary Order), 2005 (Israel).

67 Powers to detain a person for 96 hours without judicial review; extend the detention of a suspect of security offences for up to 20 days in one order; and detain a person for 35 days for questioning without indictment. It was valid for one year from the date of its enactment and was extended until it found a way into the Anti-Terrorism: Memorandum of the Criminal Procedure Law (n 66) s 2(1), 2(5); Combating Terrorism Law, 2016 (Israel), s 47.

68 There were already rules, such as the presumption of dangerousness of security suspects and the extension of the period for bringing a security detainee to court: Criminal Procedure Law (Consolidated Version), 1982 (Israel).

69 Criminal Procedure Law (A Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Temporary Provision), 2006 (Israel), ss 4–5.

70 ibid s 3(c) Protocols; Counter-Terrorism Bill, 2015 Protocols (n 65) (eg, protocol of 23 November 2015 protocol) (in Hebrew).

71 HCJ 8823/07 A v State of Israel (11 February 2010), para 35.

72 Government Bill 539, Draft Criminal Procedure Law (Detention of the Suspect in a Security Offence) (Temporary Order) (Amendment No. 2) 2010, https://www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law15/memshala-539.pdf (in Hebrew).

73 Combating Terrorism Law, 2016 (Israel), s 47.

74 Criminal Procedure Law (A Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Temporary Order), 2006 (Israel), s 5C(b).

75 Criminal Procedure Law (Interrogation of Suspects), 2002 (Israel), s 17.

76 Shklar (n 36).

77 On liberal principles see Antony Duff, Intention, Agency and Criminal Liability: Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law (Blackwell 1990) 116–19; George P Fletcher, ‘The Storrs Lectures: Liberals and Romantic at War: The Problem of Collective Guilt’ (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1499; Damaska (1975a) (n 28); Damaska (1975b) (n 28); Williams (n 28); Pollock and William (n 28); Damaska (1986) (n 28); Trechsel (n 29); Saphire (n 29); Alexander (n 29).

78 Penal Code Bill (Amendment No 61) (Rape), 2001 (Israel).

79 ibid.

80 Penal Code Bill (Amendment No 98) (Protection of a Residence, Property, Business, Fenced Farm and Vehicle), 2008 (Israel).

81 Penal Code Bill (Amendment No 49) (Domestic Violence), 1996 (Israel); Penal Code Bill (Amendment No 64) (Damage and Injury in Aggravated Circumstances of a Family Member), 2001 (Israel).

82 Counter-Terrorism Bill, 2015 (Israel), Explanatory Notes, para 1.

83 Counter-Terrorism Law, 2016 (Israel), ss 2(3)(c)(2)(c), 23: ‘A person who gives a terrorist organization a service or who provides a terrorist with means, … to assist the organization's activity or progress, is liable to imprisonment for five years, unless he has proved that he was not aware that the organization is a terrorist organization’. In this respect ‘being aware’ includes having a suspicion yet refraining from inquiring: s 2(3)(c)(2)(c).

84 Counter-Terrorism Bill, 2015 (Israel), Explanatory Notes, paras 1, 4.

85 ibid para 2.

86 Antony Duff, Citizens, Enemies, Outlaws: The Criminal Law and Its Addressees, paper presented at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 21 May 2008 (on file with author).

87 Markus Dubber, ‘The Citizen in Penal Law’ (2010) 13 New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 190, 191–93.

88 Carlos Gómez-Jara Díez, ‘Enemy Combatants versus Enemy Criminal Law: An Introduction to the European Debate regarding Enemy Criminal Law and its Relevance to the Anglo-American Discussion on the Legal Status of Unlawful Enemy Combatants’ (2008) 11 New Criminal Law Review: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 529, 530–32. This literature is based on Günther Jakobs’ theory of criminal law: Günther Jakobs, ‘Imputation in Criminal Law and the Conditions for Norm Validity’ (2004) 7 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 490.

89 Military Court of Appeals 56/00, Qawasma v The Military Prosecutor (5 June 2000). In this case, the Court decided that passive membership of a terrorist organisation could also constitute membership.

90 Counter-Terrorism Law, 2016 (Israel), s 2.

91 ibid.

92 ibid s 37.

93 Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, ‘The Fortification of an Emergency Regime’ (1996) 59 Albany Law Review 1353, 1384; Gross (n 21); Gross and Ní Aoláin (n 21).

94 Stuntz (2002a) (n 3) 2138; Stuntz (2002b) (n 3); Weisselberg (n 3).

95 Daphne Barak-Erez, ‘A Constitution for States of Emergency’ in Asher Grunis, Eliezer Rivlin and Michael Karayanni (eds), Shlomo Levin Book: Essays in Honor of Justice Levin (2013) 671, 692, 696.

96 Criminal Procedure Law (A Detainee Suspected of Security Offence) (Temporary Order), 2006 (Israel).

97 Ashworth and Zedner (n 31) 51–72.

98 Shahav (n 18) 116.

99 ibid 122.

100 Neal Katyal and Laurence Tribe, ‘Waging War, Declaring Guilt: Trying the Military Tribunals’ (2002) 111 Yale Law Journal 1259, 1308.

101 Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln, ‘Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research’ in Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research 1 (SAGE 2011).

102 Rasul v Bush 542 US 466 (2004).

103 Hamdan v Rumsfeld 548 US 557 (2006).

104 Hamdi v Rumsfeld 542 US 507 (2004).

105 David Dyzenhaus, ‘The Permanence of Temporary: Can Emergency Powers be Normalized?’ in Ronald Daniels, Patrick Macklem and Kent Roach (eds), The Security of Freedom: Essays on Canada's Anti-Terrorism Bill (University of Toronto Press 2001) 21, 31; Finnie (n 4) 2–3.

106 Goldstein, Abraham S, ‘The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure’ (1960) 69 Yale Law Journal 1149–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Packer, Herbert L, ‘Two Models of the Criminal Process’ (1964) 113 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Dicey (n 33) 287–88; Scheuerman (n 33); Lobel (n 33).

108 Schmitt (n 41); Gross (n 41); Mouffe (n 41); McCormick (n 41).

109 Schmitt (n 41) 15 (‘the rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything: it confirms not only the rule but also its existence, which derived only from the exception’).

110 Sigal Shahav, ‘Anti-Terror Criminal Law’, PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Israel (2016).

111 On criminal government power see Charney, Jonathan I, ‘Need for Constitutional Protections for Defendants in Civil Penalty Cases (1973) 59 Cornell Law Review 478Google Scholar; Stuntz, William J, ‘Substance, Process, and the Civil-Criminal Line’ (1996) 7 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 1Google Scholar; Lon L Fuller, ‘The Adversary System’ in Harold Berman (ed), Talks on American Law (Vintage Books 1971) 34; Rubenstein, William B, ‘The Concept of Equality in Civil Procedure’ (2001) 23 Cardozo Law Review 1865Google Scholar; Marc Galanter, ‘Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change’ (1974) 9 Law and Society Review 95.

112 For restrictions on state power in the liberal legal community see Duff (n 32) 35–36.

113 Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France 1975–1976 (Arnold I Davidson ed, David Macey trans, Picador 1997); Michel Foucault, ‘Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison’ (1977) 84 American Journal of Sociology 1508, 1508–10; Foucault (n 50); Hubert L Dreyfus and Paul Rainbow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago Press 1982) 217, 220–21.

114 Kamin, Sam, ‘How the War on Terror May Affect Domestic Interrogations: The 24 Effect’ (2007) 10 Chapman Law Review 693Google Scholar.