Washburn Law Journal
Editor's Note
Volume 45, No. 1 (Fall 2005)
View PDF Version (29 KB)
(requires requires Adobe Acrobat Reader)
This issue of the Washburn Law Journal focuses on the divisive topic of war and terrorism. Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, the 2005 Foulston Siefkin lecturer, authors the lead article, Civil Liberties and the War on Terrorism. He argues that even though Americans have lost a significant amount of liberty as a result of the war on terrorism, they are no safer than before September 11. Professor Chemerinsky contends that the government's detention of American citizens, secrecy, and privacy invasions repeat negative aspects of American history. In Patriotic Dissent, Professor Susan N. Herman responds to Chemerinsky's article by encouraging open dialogue about U.S. policies regarding terrorism. She adds her perspective to the debate and concludes that such discourse, though controversial, is still patriotic. Paul Rosenzweig also responds to Chemerinsky in his article, On Liberty and Terror in the Post-9/11 World: A Response to Professor Chemerinsky. He challenges Chemerinsky's articulation of American history and the criticism of Guant ´anamo detentions and roving wiretaps. Rosenzweig proposes that changes in circumstances after September 11 warrant some modifications of our civil liberties in favor of national security.
Separate articles by Professors Liaquat Ali Khan and Girardeau A. Spann also address the issue of war and terrorism. In The Essentialist Terrorist, Professor Khan urges the United States to reject propaganda promoted by the Highly Influential Terrorist Literature (HITLit), a group of authors who inaccurately portray Muslim militants. In his article Terror and Race, Professor Spann contends that the way in which the United States is waging the war on terrorism harms democratic values, which in turn supports terrorists and their objectives. He further argues that racial minorities bear the brunt of the loss of liberty from the war on terrorism.
This issue also contains two student notes. In A Compromised Solution: Balancing the Constitutional Consequences and the Practical Benefits of Using Juvenile Adjudications for Sentence Enhancement Purposes, Nicole Romine argues that using juvenile adjudications for adult sentence enhancement is unconstitutional because they are obtained in proceedings that lack reliable procedural safeguards. She advocates a compromised solution that will protect individual liberties and address society's interest in punishing criminal activity. Arguing that a medical malpractice crisis does not exist, Melinda Young in her note, Victim's Rights Versus Special Interest: A Difficult Choice for the Kansas Legislature in Its Fight to Abrogate the Collateral Source Rule, concludes that future attempts by the Kansas legislature to abolish the collateral source rule will be found unconstitutional.
Finally, three student-authored comments provide an in-depth analysis of a court's decision in a controversial case. Zach Chaffee-McClure authors a comment regarding the subpoena provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Molly McMurray discusses the Tenth Circuit's use of the doctrine of equitable conversion in a Kansas bankruptcy case and the impact of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Finally, Michael Shultz explores the role of international consensus in court opinions and proposes that, when appropriate, court opinions should incorporate a "humane" consensus.
J.M.F.
