The emerging law of detention
Subtitle: the Guantánamo habeas cases as lawmaking
By: Benjamin Wittes, Robert Chesney and Rabea Benhalim
Contributors: Chesney, Robert; Benhalim, Rabea; Brookings Institution. Governance Studies; Brookings Institution. Governance Studies Program
Publisher: Governance Studies at Brookings
Published: 2010
Place of publication: [Washington, DC]
Language: eng
Format: [electronic resource] :
Number of pages: 106
Subjects: Habeas corpus; Detention of persons; Prisoners; Terrorism; Law and legislation
Other titles: Guantánamo habeas cases as lawmaking.
Description: "President Obama's decision not to seek additional legislative authority for detentions at Guántanamo Bay, Cuba--combined with Congress's lack of interest in the task--means that, for good or for ill, judges must write the rules governing military detention of terrorist suspects. As the United States reaches the president's self-imposed January 22, 2010 deadline for Guantanamo's closure with the base still holding nearly 200 detainees, the common-law process of litigating their habeas corpus lawsuits has emerged as the chief legislative mechanism for doing so."--Exec. summary (p.1).
Notes: Title from PDF title page (viewed on July 7, 2011).

At head of title : Governance Studies at Brookings.

"January 22, 2010."

Preserved in the OCLC Digital Archive; Harvested from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0122_guantanamo_wittes_chesney/0122_guantanamo_wittes_chesney.pdf on July 7, 2011.

Includes bibliographical references.
Table of contents: title: Executive summary; title: Introduction; title: Historical context for the current Habeas litigation; title: Burden of proof; title: The scope of the government's detention authority; title: Is detainability, once established, permanent?; title: Evidentiary presumptions; title: The court's treatment of hearsay evidence; title: The admissibility and weight of involuntary statements; title: Mosaic theory and the totality of the evidence; title: Would different judges have reached different results?; title: Issues on appeal; title: Conclusion; title: Appendix I; title: Appendix II.