Extraterritoriality and extralegality: The United States Supreme Court and Guantánamo Bay

Text and Talk

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 171-200

  Hobbs, Pamela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Constitutional law; Critical discourse analysis; Rhetorical structure; United States Supreme Court

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247346134     PISSN: 18607330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2007.007     Document Type: Review

References (41)

1. Amsterdam, A. G. and Bruner, J. (2000). Minding the Law. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press
2. Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London/Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press
3. Bennett, W. L. (1978). Storytelling in criminal trials: A model of social judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech 64: 1-22
4. - (1979). Rhetorical transformation of evidence in criminal trials: Creating grounds for legal judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech 65: 311-325
5. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
6. Bork, R. H. (1990). The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law. New York: The Free Press
7. Burton, S. J. (1985). An Introduction to Law and Legal Reasoning. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company
8. Cappalli, R. B. (1997). The American Common Law Method. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Transnational
9. Center for Constitutional Rights. (2006). Petitioners. Rasul v. Bush: The Guantánamo detainees case before the Supreme Court. URL: 〈http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/rasul-v-bush/bio-petitioners.asp〉 [last accessed 13 July 2006]
10. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman
11. - (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London/New York: Longman
12. - (2001). Language and Power, 2nd ed. Harlow: Pearson Education
13. Goodrich, P. (1986). Reading the Law: A Critical Introduction to Legal Method and Techniques. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
14. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96: 606-633
15. Greenhouse, L. (2006). Supreme Court blocks Guantánamo tribunals. The New York Times, 29 June 2006, URL: 〈www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/ washington/29cnd-scotus.html〉 [last accessed 12 July 2006]
16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold
17. Hennessey, E. F. (1994). Judges Making Law. Boston: Franklin N. Flaschner Judicial Institute
18. Hobbs, P. (2002). Tipping the scales of justice: Deconstructing an expert's testimony on cross-examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15: 411-424
19. - (2003a). 'Is that what we're here about?': A lawyer's use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse & Society 14: 273-290
20. - (2003b). 'You must say it for him': Reformulating a witness' testimony on cross-examination at trial. Text 23: 477-511
21. - (2005). Unreasonable doubt: Manipulating jurors' perceptions in a closing argument at trial. In Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 35, A. Sarat (ed.), 109-144. Oxford: JAI Press/Elsevier
22. Le Due, D. R. (1976). 'Free speech' decisions and the legal process: The judicial opinion in context. Quarterly Journal of Speech 62: 279-287
23. Levi, E. H. (1948). An Introduction to Legal Reasoning. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press
24. Levison, G. L. (1979). The rhetoric of the oral argument in The University of California v. Bakke. Western Journal of Speech Communication 43: 271-277
25. Los Angeles Times (2004). Ex-terror suspects released. Los Angeles Times, 11 March: A6
26. Matoesian, G. M. (2001). Law and the Language of Identity: Discursive Hegemony in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press
27. - (2005). Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk. Discourse Studies 7: 733-759
28. Mill, J. S. (1864). On Liberty, 3rd ed. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green
29. Miller, A. S. and Scheflin, A. W. (1978). The power of the Supreme Court in the age of the positive state. In The Supreme Court: Myth and Reality, A. S. Miller, 135-212. Westport, CT/London: Greenwood Press
30. O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press
31. Pospisil, L. (1971). Anthropology of Law: A Comparative Study. New York: Harper & Row
32. Rumble, W. E. Jr. (1968). American Legal Realism: Skepticism, Reform, and the Judicial Process. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
33. Topf, M. A. (1992). Communicating legitimacy in U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Language & Communication 12: 17-29
34. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993a). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4: 249-283
35. - (1993b). Elite Discourse and Racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
36. - (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage
37. Vieth, W., Chen, E., and Curtius, M. (2005). Bush leans right in court pick. Los Angeles Times 20 July: Al
38. Wallace, B. (2004). 5 terror suspects return to Britain. Los Angeles Times 10 March: A3
39. Wodak, R. (1995). Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Handbook of Pragmatics, J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, and J. Blommaert (eds.), 204-210. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: J. Benjamins
40. - (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), 63-94. London: Sage
41. Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., and Liebhart, K. (1999). The Discursive Construction of National Identity, A. Hirsche and R. Mitten (trans.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press