Substitute Justice? Challenges to American Counter-Terrorism Activities in Non-American Courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how American courts have in their decisions denying remedies to those adversely created by American counter-terrorism have created a demand for substitute justice in which those adversely affected by such activities seek remedies in the courts of other democracies. The first part examines those conditions of American exceptionalism and extra-legalism that have created the demand for substitute justice including broad state secrets and the refusal to provide damages for detention at Guantanamo or habeas corpus with respect to detention at Bagram. The second part examines substitute justice litigation in Australia involving Guantanamo detainees David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib and the third part examines substitute justice litigation in Canada involving Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and Abdullah Khadr. The fourth part examines substitute justice litigation in Britain involving a range of Guantanamo detainees including Abbassi and Binyam Mohamed. It also examines the grant of habeas corpus that failed to produce Bagram detainee Yunus Rahmatullah to the British courts as well as pending legislation designed to curb such litigation and prevent the disclosure of secrets involving misconduct by third parties, most notably American agencies. The last part assesses substitute justice litigation concluding that while it often fails to produce effective and immediate remedies for the litigants, it has provided some indirect review and criticism of American counter-terrorism activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".