Gutting Habeas Corpus: The Inside Story of How Bill Clinton Sacrificed Prisoners' Rights for Political Gain
"On the eve of the New York state primary last month, as Hillary Clinton came closer to the Democratic nomination, Vice President Joe Biden went on TV and defended her husband’s 1994 crime bill. Asked in an interview if he felt shame for his role passing a law that has been the subject of so much recent criticism, Biden answered, 'Not at all,' and boasted of its successes — among them putting '100,000 cops on the street.' His remarks sparked a new round of debate over the legacy of the crime bill, which has haunted Clinton ever since she hit the campaign trail with a vow to 'end the era of mass incarceration.'

A few days later, on April 24, a lesser-known crime law quietly turned 20. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 — or AEDPA — was signed by Bill Clinton in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. While it has been mostly absent from the recent debates over the crime policies of the ’90s, its impact has been no less profound, particularly when it comes to a bedrock constitutional principle: habeas corpus, or the right of people in prison to challenge their detention. For 20 years, AEDPA has shut the courthouse door on prisoners trying to prove they were wrongfully convicted. Americans are mostly unaware of this legacy, even as we know more than ever about wrongful convictions. Barry Scheck, co-founder and head of the Innocence Project, calls AEDPA 'a disaster' and “a major roadblock since its passage.'Many would like to see it repealed.'"

Bridging the National Security Accountability Gap: A Three-Part System to Modernize Canada's Inadequate Review of National Security 

"In this paper, we urge that Canada’s reformed national security accountability review structure be built on the model of a three-legged stool: first, a properly resourced and empowered committee of parliamentarians with robust access to secret information, charged primarily with strategic issues, including an emphasis on 'efficacy' review; second, a consolidated and enhanced expert review body – a 'super SIRC' – with all-of-government jurisdiction, capable of raising efficacy issues but charged primarily with 'propriety' review; third, an independent monitor of national security law, built on the UK and Australian model, with robust access to secret information and charged with expert analysis of Canada’s proposed or actual anti terrorism and national security legislation. The paper includes draft legislation accomplishing these objectives."

Anti-Terrorism Bill "more about Politics than Public Safety," says Civil Liberties Lawyer
"Anti-terrorism legislation Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled last week gives the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service sweeping new powers that would allow the spy agency to use any undefined measure—other than the use of lethal force, perversion of justice or 'violating the sexual integrity' of an individual—in a new role empowering it to disrupt national security threats, but one of Canada’s most prominent civil liberties and human rights lawyers says it's 'more about politics than public safety.'

The three limitations, along with the stipulation a judge’s warrant would be required before CSIS agents could take measures that would violate Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are the only defined limits to CSIS operations under new provisions that expand its role from surveillance, security investigations and counter-espionage to a mandate to 'disrupt' suspected terror plots in the planning stages, lawyer Paul Champ told The Hill Times."

Canadian Law Professors Warn Against Criminalizing Online Glorification of Terrorism
"If someone posts a statement online that 'all real Muslims should engage in military jihad,' should that be enough for police to come knocking?

In a newly published paper, two Canadian law professors are cautioning the government against rushing to criminalize the glorification of terrorism — or 'radicalized boasting' — on the Internet, saying it could undermine freedom of expression and put the country on 'extremely uncertain constitutional terrain.'

Craig Forcese of the University of Ottawa and Kent Roach of the University of Toronto write that the causal link between radicalized speech on the Internet and violence is still very tenuous. Government officials are better off using existing laws to target the most dangerous Internet materials — those that have clearly crossed a criminal line and are designed to further the aims of terrorist groups, whether it be recruiting or inciting, they said."

View the Working Paper