This Thirteenth Edition of TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS ON LEGAL ISSUES presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An instructor's manual with testing material is available for each volume. USING TAKING SIDES IN THE CLASSROOM is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each TAKING SIDES reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites and is supported by our student website, www.mhcls.com/online.

Preliminary Contents UNIT 1 Law and Terrorism 40592 Issue 1. Should Persons Who Are Declared to Be "Enemy Combatants" Be Able to Contest Their Detention Before a Judge? YES: 40593 Sandra Day O'Connor, from "Majority Opinion, Hamdi, et al. vs. Rumsfeld ," U. S. Supreme Court (June 28, 2004) NO: 40594 Clarence Thomas, from "Minority Opinion, Hamdi, et al. vs. Rumsfeld ," U. S. Supreme Court (June 28, 2004) Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress does not authorize the indefinite detainment of a person found to be an "enemy combatant." Justice Clarence Thomas believes that the detention of an "enemy combatant" is permitted under the federal government's war powers. 700133 Issue 2. Does the President Possess Constitutional Authority to Order Wiretaps on U. S. Citizens? YES: 46546 Memorandum Released by the U. S. Department of Justice, from "Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President," (January 9, 2006) NO: 46547 "Letter to Congress" from 14 Law Professors and Former Government Attorneys to Congressional Leaders, (January 2, 2006) The Department of Justice argues that the Constitution gives the President the right to engage in electronic surveillance, with or without Congressional approval or judicial oversight. It further claims that the NSA wiretapping program ordered by President Bush does not violate federal law, specifically the Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Act (FISA), because such surveillance falls under the auspices of the military response to the 9/11 attacks that was authorized by Congress. Several lawyers with expertise in constitutional law or experience in the federal government argue that the NSA wiretapping program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. They further argue that the president does not have any inherent ability either to engage in warrantless wiretapping or to violate federal law that limits such surveillance. 700134 Issue 3. Is the Geneva Convention Irrelevant to Members of Al Qaeda Who Are Held Prisoner at Guantanamo Bay? YES: 46548 John Yoo and Robert J. Delabunty, from "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees," a Memo to William Haynes II, General Counsel, U. S. Department of Defense (January 2, 2002) NO: 46549 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians, from Brief of Amicus Curiae in Case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , (September 29, 2004) In a memorandum prepared for the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, John Yoo and Robert Delabunty argue that the Geneva Convention only applies to states and that, as a result, captured members of al Qaeda are not covered by the Convention.In an amicus brief submitted by several human rights organizations, it is argued that the Geneva Convenition creates individual rights that are enforceable in United States courts. 700135 Issue 4. Should Someone Held by the CIA and Interrogated in a Foreign Country Be Allowed to Sue the U. S. Government? YES: 46550 American Civil Liberties Union, from "Case of El-Masri v. Tenet ," Grief for Plaintiff/Appellee (September 26, 2002) NO: 46551 Justice