Liberty In The Age Of Terror

An impassioned defence of the civil liberties and the rule of law in the face of increasing pressure for ever greater 'security' 'A rollicking defence of Freedom and Enlightenment in the style of Tom Paine or William Godwin' Spectator 'The even-handed tone of philosophy professor AC Grayling's latest book does not lessen the intensity of its polemical content ... Grayling underlines the seriousness of today's threats to our liberties' Metro "The means of defence against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." James Madison Our societies, says Anthony Grayling, are under attack not only from the threat of terrorism, but also from our governments' attempts to fight that threat by reducing freedom in our own societies - think the 42-day detention controversy, CCTV surveillance, increasing invasion of privacy, ID Cards, not to mention Abu Ghraib, rendition, Guantanamo... As Grayling says: 'There should be a special place for political irony in the catalogues of human folly. Starting a war 'to promote freedom and democracy' could in certain though rare circumstances be a justified act; but in the case of the Second Gulf War that began in 2003, which involved reacting to criminals hiding in one country (Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan) by invading another country (Iraq), one of the main fronts has, dismayingly, been the home front, where the War on Terror takes the form of a War on Civil Liberties in the spurious name of security. To defend 'freedom and democracy', Western governments attack and diminish freedom and democracy in their own country. By this logic, someone will eventually have to invade the US and UK to restore freedom and democracy to them.' In this lucid and timely book Grayling sets out what's at risk, engages with the arguments for and against examining the cases made by Isaiah Berlin and Ronald Dworkin on the one hand, and Roger Scruton and John Gray on the other, and finally proposes a different way to respond that makes defending the civil liberties on which western society is founded the cornerstone for defeating terrorism.

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.

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 2003, when PublicAffairs and The Century Foundation published an essay collection called The War on Our Freedoms, there was the possibility and the hope that the risks to our liberties would be temporary—a brief era of reaction to already terrible events arising in the wake of 9/11. Today, we understand that the changes set in motion five years ago have broadened as the struggle against terrorism continues. In this sequel, experts and activists including Alan Brinkley and Joseph Lelyveld, legal scholars Kathleen Sullivan and Stephen Schulhofer, and former government officials John Podesta and Bill Bradley report on the diverse actions, taken in the name of security, that will serve to undermine American liberties, and explain why the consequences of these actions are ultimately counterproductive in preventing future terrorism. Today, we clearly see a disturbing pattern of undermining the judiciary, intimidating the press, and invading personal privacy. At the same time, government actions have fueled hostility to America in the world at large and in Islamic communities in particular. The terrorists threaten our liberty, but they are not the only ones.

In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But there is also the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today than trying to win the war against terrorism without losing our democratic souls. Michael Ignatieff confronts this challenge head-on with a combination of pragmatic idealism, historical sensitivity, and astute political judgment. Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and Al Qaeda. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but—just as important—restrained. Restraint also gives democracy its strongest weapon: the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent.

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

Presents a collection of writings that examine the curtailments of civil liberties that have been enacted in the name of security following the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

Offers specific proposals for clear rules of government conduct that will allow us to balance the concerns of national security and democratic rights.