The 9/11 terrorist attacks provoked panicked responses from the United States & the United Kingdom governments and legislatures that resulted in treatment of suspected terrorist detainees in both countries in a manner that is incompatible with and injurious to the Rule of Law. Th e UK and US highest courts undertook judicial review and, in contrast to the deferential national security positions adopted by the same courts more than half a century ago, the highest courts have required the executive and legislative branches to uphold the due process, fair trial, and equality requirements of the Rule of Law. Although these courts have arrived at parallel ultimate conclusions when reviewing the legality and constitutionality of terrorist suspect detentions, for the most part the US courts approach these questions as matters of the law of war, whereas the UK courts generally are examining these questions within a human rights-based context. Th is book documents the climate of fear and abuse that was cultivated by the Bush and Blair administrations and the consequent failure of their respective legislatures to protect the human rights and civil liberties of individuals suspected of terrorist activity. Th e analytical focus is on the four US Supreme Court decisions involving the detention of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the collective four House of Lords decisions involving the detention of suspected terrorists that began in the Belmarsh Prison. Th ese highest court opinions are analyzed within the contexts of history, criminal law, constitutional law, human rights and international law, as well as from various jurisprudential perspectives.