Featuring Chen Guangcheng, Visiting Fellow, Catholic University; Teng Biao, Associate, Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; and Wei Jingsheng, Chairman, Wei Jingsheng Foundation; with comments by Xia Yeliang, Visiting Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Ian Vasquez, Director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute.
Given the inherent injustice of dictatorial punishment for ‘extreme’ views, and the possibility of all sides having legitimate positions, the only remedy fair to both conservatives and those with whom they disagree is to phase out higher education subsidies.
If Prime Minister Modi makes tough decisions in leading his country forward, the 21st Century might end up being the Indian Century. But if so, he can’t delay much longer in putting his words into action.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
Boumediene v. Bush and the Rights of Enemy Combatants in Wartime
Featuring Timothy Lynch, Cato Institute; and Jeremy Rabkin, George Mason University Law School; moderated by Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute.
The war on terror has presented U.S. courts with many thorny legal issues relating to civil liberties and national security. On December 5 the Supreme Court takes up the case of Boumediene v. Bush, which centers on the right of “enemy combatants” being held in Guantanamo Bay to have their detention reviewed by American civilian courts. On one hand, what right does the president have to hold people indefinitely without recourse to judicial review? On the other, does the Constitution really require that everyone picked up by our military in wartime have access to our courts? Fundamentally, how do you balance liberty and security during a war without end where the enemy doesn’t play by the traditional laws of war? Please join us for a spirited debate of these and related issues.