Law And Liberty In The War On Terror

How can we ensure national security against people unafraid to kill themselves along with their victims - people who, self-evidently, will not be deterred by traditional laws which punish offenders after their crimes are committed. This is the challenge for liberal democracies such as Australia. New laws specifically designed to forestall terrorist activity have been a key response. Law and Liberty in the War on Terror describes these laws and debates both their effectiveness and impact on civil liberties. International and domestic commentators from the fields of government, law and political science address questions such as: How does the law define 'terrorism'? Can the criminal justice system accommodate preparatory terrorism offences? Is torture ever acceptable as an interrogative method? What is the role of the judiciary in times of emergency? How do Australia's anti-terrorism laws compare with those of the United Kingdom and New Zealand? How are Australian communities and politics affected by responses to terrorism?"[I] n this book, proponents of the new anti-terrorism laws seek to justify their provisions and opponents argue that the laws go too far. These chapters also show the extent of the changes that have been made to our legal and administrative structures. ... The chapters in this book cannot be dismissed as mere academic analyses. They have to do with the lives and aspirations of all Australians. They ask whether Australia is, and whether it will be, a united, secure, free and confident nation." - Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE, former Chief Justice of Australia

In an 1821 Independence Day speech, John Quincy Adams declared, “[America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.” Much has changed in the past two centuries, and America is now constantly in search of monsters to destroy. History has shown that such an imperial foreign policy is inimical to a peaceful society, and ultimately to individual liberty. Liberty, Security, and the War on Terrorism is a collection of essays that predicted the dire consequences of current U.S. foreign policy before the attacks of September 11, documents the loss of liberty that has ensued in the aftermath, and lays out what the proper role of a peaceful republic should be in a world full of monsters.

Since September 11, 2001, much has been said about the difficult balancing act between freedom and security, but few have made specific proposals for how to strike that balance. As the scandals over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the "torture memos" written by legal officials in the Bush administration show, without clear rules in place, things can very easily go very wrong. With this challenge in mind, Philip Heymann and Juliette Kayyem, directors of Harvard's Long-Term Legal Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism, take a detailed look at how to handle these competing concerns. Taking into account both the national security viewpoint and the democratic freedoms viewpoint, Heymann and Kayyem consulted experts from across the political spectrum—including Rand Beers, Robert McNamara, and Michael Chertoff (since named Secretary of Homeland Security)—about the thorniest and most profound legal challenges of this new era. Heymann and Kayyem offer specific recommendations for dealing with such questions as whether assassination is ever acceptable, when coercion can be used in interrogation, and when detention is allowable. They emphasize that drawing clear rules to guide government conduct protects the innocent from unreasonable government intrusion and prevents government agents from being made scapegoats later if things go wrong. Their recommendations will be of great interest to legal scholars, legislators, policy professionals, and concerned citizens.

This book reviews the war on terror since 9/11 from a human rights perspective.

This book asks whether human rights, since the 9/11 attacks and the 'war on terror,' are a luxury we can no longer afford, or rights that must always remain a fundamental part of democratic politics, in order to determine the boundary between individual freedom and government tyranny. This volume brings together leading international lawyers, policy-makers, scholars and activists in the field of human rights to evaluate the impact of the 'war on terror' on human rights, as well as to develop a counter-terror strategy which takes human rights seriously. While some contributors argue that war is necessary in defense of liberal democracy, others assert that it is time to move away from the war model towards a new paradigm based upon respect for human rights, an internationally-coordinated anti-terror justice strategy, and a long-term political vision that can reduce the global tensions that generate a political constituency for terrorists.

"This book explores the underlying rationales for preventive detention as a tool in this war on terror; analyzes the legal obstacles to creating a preventive detention regime; discusses how Israel and Britain have dealt with incapacitation and interrogation of terrorists; and compares several alternative ideas to the administration's enemy combatant policy under a methodology that looks at questions of lawfulness, the balance between liberty and security, and institutional efficiency. In the end, this book recommends using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor a narrow regime of preventive detention only to be used under certain prescribed circumstances where interrogation and/or incapacitation are the justifications. This book is an essential reference for collections in American studies, political science, and national security studies."--BOOK JACKET.

This book is an analysis and critique of the concepts of ‘exception’ and ‘exceptionalism’ in the context of the politics of liberty and security in the so-called ‘War on Terror’. Since the destruction of the World Trade Centre on September 11th 2001, a notable transformation has occurred in political discourse and practice. Politicians and commentators have frequently made the argument that the rules of the game have changed, that this is a new kind of war, and that exceptional times require exceptional measures. Under this discourse of exceptionalism, an array of measures have been put into practice, such as detention without trial, ‘extraordinary rendition’, derogations from human rights law, sanction or connivance in torture, the curtailment of civil liberties, and aggressive war against international law. Situating exceptionalism within the post-9/11 controversy about the relationship between liberty and security, this book argues that the problem of exceptionalism emerges from the limits and paradoxes of liberal democracy itself. It is a commentary and critique of both contemporary practices of exceptionalism and the critical debate that has formed in response. Through a detailed assessment of the key theoretical contributions to the debate, this book develops exceptionalism as a critical tool. It also engages with the problem of exceptionalism as a discursive claim, as a strategy, as a concept, as a theoretical problem and as a practice. This is the first book to capture the importance of the exceptionalism debate in a single volume, and will be of much interest to students of critical security studies, political philosophy, IR theory and sociology.

It is commonly believed that a state facing a terrorist threat responds with severe legislation that compromises civil liberties in favour of national security. Roger Douglas compares responses to terrorism by five liberal democracies" the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand" over the past 15 years. He examines each nation's development and implementation of counterterrorism law, specifically in the areas of information gathering, the definition of terrorist offenses, due process for the accused, detention, and torture and other forms of coercive questioning. Douglas finds that terrorist attacks elicit pressures for quick responses, which often allow national governments to accrue additional powers. But emergencies are neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for such laws, which may persist even after fears have eased. He argues that responses are influenced by institutional interests and prior beliefs and are complicated when the exigencies of office and beliefs point in different directions. He also argues that citizens are wary of government's impingement on civil liberties and that courts exercise their capacity to restrain the legislative and executive branches. Douglas concludes that the worst anti-terror excesses have taken place outside of, rather than within, the law and that the legacy of 9/11 includes both laws that expand government powers and judicial decisions that limit those very powers. This title was made Open Access by libraries from around the world through Knowledge Unlatched.