Review and Oversight of National Security Activities With Some Reflections on Canada's Arar Inquiry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The concluding chapter of Philip B. Heymann's and Juliette N. Kayyem's Protecting Liberty in the Age of Terror is devoted to the very important subject of oversight of extraordinary measures. This chapter contains several important insights with respect to review and oversight of the state's increased national security activities in the post-9/11 era. First, the authors argue that oversight should be concerned not only with the fairness of extraordinary measures, but their effectiveness. Second, they argue that that the task of oversight must be divided between both the legislature and the executive and that internal checks within the executive branch ought to be increased. Drawing on these insights, the authors conclude with three main recommendations: (1) that a nonpartisan commission be created to provide for continuing annual and comprehensive reviews of anti-terrorism measures that have significant effects on rights; (2) that Inspectors General within the executive be required to provide systemic reviews of the extraordinary powers exercised by their respective agencies; and (3) that an interagency committee of Inspectors General be formed to conduct joint reviews of agencies that use different extraordinary powers for a shared purpose. In this comment, I will argue that many of Professor Heymann's and Kayyem's insights about the importance and challenges of oversight of the state's increased national security activities are correct and should be heeded. Review is a task for all branches of government including the independent judiciary, specialists in the executive branch and generalists in the legislative branch. It is also important for review bodies to share information, be subject to co-ordination and conduct joint reviews. Co-ordinated review is necessary to mirror and match increased linkages between various agencies with national security mandates and the creation of a whole government approach to the prevention of terrorism. The expansion of national security activities requires new institutions to ensure effective review and public confidence in what are often secret activities. I also explore the relation between review to determine the propriety and the efficacy of the state's security strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».