|
IN October Term 2008, the Supreme Court handed down Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts—the latest case in the Crawford line under the Confrontation Clause. In Melendez-Diaz, the prosecution sought to introduce an affidavit by a forensic analyst that stated a given substance was cocaine. The defendant objected, arguing that the Confrontation Clause required that the analyst testify in person. Justice Scalia, writing for a five-Justice majority that included Justices Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Thomas, held that the reports of forensic analysts are "testimonial," and thus a prosecutor can only introduce such a report if the analyst is subject to "confrontation," or if the defendant waives that right.
[More]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Counterinsurgency, The War on Terror, And The Laws of War: A Response
|
| Response
|
|
|
|
By David E. Graham
AS a graduate student attending George Washington University in the late sixties, I attended a debate between John Norton Moore and Richard Falk concerning both the wisdom and validity of the ongoing war in Vietnam. As John Moore rose to respond to Professor Falk’s critique of the Vietnam conflict, he uttered this very memorable line: "Dick, I disagree with but two of your points—your premise and your conclusion." After all of these years, I can offer this same assessment regarding Ganesh Sitaraman’s article stating his perceived need for revision of the existing Law of War (LOW) in order for the United States to successfully implement a modern counterinsurgency strategy.
[More]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Constitutional Foundation for Fact Deference in National Security Cases
|
| Response
|
|
|
|
By Robert F. Turner
I have been running the University of Virginia National Security Law Institute each June since 1991 to train professors and government lawyers to teach and work in this emerging field of law. Professor Robert Chesney attended the 2004 Institute and has been a regular instructor in the program since then. I have encountered no young national security law scholar who in my view rivals his considerable talents. I was thus not surprised to find that he has contributed a very thoughtful and insightful article to the Virginia Law Review.
[More]
|
|
|
|
|
