[Hamp-law] Fwd: LJST Lecture Series presents "The Terrorist Cremeny" Sept. 24th - lecture by Jennifer Daskal

[Flavio Risech]

On *Thursday, Sept. 24 at 4:30pm in* Room 100 Clark House at Amherst 
College, Jennifer Daskal, Assistant Professor of Law at American 
University Washington College of Law will present a paper entitled *“The 
Terrorist Crenemy/./”* This is the first presentation in a series of 
seminars that will take place this year on the theme “Criminals and 
Enemies.”

Professor Daskal teaches and writes in the fields of criminal law, 
national security law, and constitutional law. Before teaching, Daskal 
was counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at 
the Department of Justice and served on the Secretary of Defense and 
Attorney General-led Detention Policy Task Force.  Her publications 
include /Pre-Crime Restraints: The explosion of Targeted, Non-Custodial 
Prevention/, (Cornell L. Rev. 2014) and /The Geography of the 
Battlefield: A Framework for Detention and Targeting Outside the ‘Hot’ 
Conflict Zone/, (Penn. L. Rev. 2013).

To receive a copy of the paper which will look at how government 
policies and laws have changed since the September 11, 2001 attacks, 
please email the LJST Dept. Coordinator at mlestes at amherst.edu 
<mailto:mlestes at amherst.edu>.

This event is *co-sponsored by The Lamont Lecture 
Fund*.https://www.amherst.edu/academiclife/departments/ljst/events


*_ABOUT The Lecture Series – CRIMINALS and ENEMIES_*

The trial of Boston Marathon bombing suspect has renewed a debate that 
has vexed thinkers since the 9.11 attacks--whether terror suspects 
should be treated as criminals or enemy combatants.  That debate, 
however, has left largely untouched the more foundational distinction 
between criminal and enemy, a distinction foundational to liberal legality.

Our seminar series for 2015-16 series willexamine the changing meaning 
of the criminal-enemy distinction.  In an age of global legality and 
universal human rights, is it meaningful to consider any person as 
beyond the protections of an organized community?  Should citizenship 
continue to define a meaningful limitation on how a nation-state treats 
a person or group committed to violently disrupting social order?  What 
assumptions about persons and law inform the distinction between enemy 
and criminal, and do those assumptions remain meaningful?

/Megan L. Estes Ryan/

/Academic Coordinator/

/Law, Jurisprudence & Social Thought/

/Amherst College/

/PO Box 5000/

/Amherst, MA   01002/

/413-542-2380/

/mlestes at amherst.edu <mailto:mlestes at amherst.edu> /



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.hampshire.edu/pipermail/hamp-law/attachments/20150918/c91fb388/attachment.html>