Terrorism Freedom And Security

A former Deputy Attorney General of the United States argues that we must preserve our civil liberties and democratic values while fighting terrorism. On September 11, 2001, the United States began to consider the terrorist threat in a new light. Terrorism was no longer something that happened in other countries on other continents but became a pressing domestic concern for the US government and American citizens. The nation suddenly faced a protracted struggle. In Terrorism, Freedom, and Security, Philip Heymann continues the discussion of responses to terrorism that he began in his widely read Terrorism and America. He argues that diplomacy, intelligence, and international law should play a larger role than military action in our counterterrorism policy; instead of waging "war" against terrorism, the United States needs a broader range of policies. Heymann believes that many of the policies adopted since September 11--including trials before military tribunals, secret detentions, and the subcontracting of interrogation to countries where torture is routine--are at odds with American political and legal traditions and create disturbing precedents. Americans should not be expected to accept apparently indefinite infringements on civil liberties and the abandonment of such constitutional principles as separation of powers and the rule of law. Heymann believes that the United States can guard against the continuing threat of terrorism while keeping its traditional democratic values in place.

Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject Sociology - War and Peace, Military, grade: 2,3, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, course: Terrorism, National Security and Constitutional Rights, 8 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: The purpose of this paper is to discuss how the reaction to the new quality of terrorism after September 11, 2001 affects the balance between freedom and civil liberties on the one side, and national and public security on the other side. On the example of the Federal Republic of Germany it is examined, what civil liberties are affected and how. Before doing this, the issue of the perception of terrorism is shortly illuminated. The last part of the paper calls for the engagement of social scientists in response to the curbing of civil liberties and finally gives an outlook on the future development of the balance between freedom and security.

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.

Post-9/11 security measures have sparked fears that the West is violating the very civil rights it strives to protect. Debates centre on the United States, but how have the politics of security influenced the commitment to freedom in other liberal democracies? Addressing security certificates to the war in Afghanistan to the detainment of Abdullah Almalki, Colleen Bell's wide-ranging analysis demonstrates that Canada's counter-terrorism practices are not a departure from liberal governance but rather a reconfiguration of its structures with an emphasis on security. She traces how the logic and practices of security are increasingly coming to define our rights and freedoms.

Papers from a conference, The Security of Freedom, held at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto on Nov. 9-10, 2001.

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

Several democratic countries have used emergency powers to restrict or suspend individual liberties in order to fight terrorism more effectively. Emergency powers are controversial in their potential to undermine democracy and civil liberties. Freeman challenges popular arguments of both the supporters of emergency powers, who focus on their expected effectiveness, and the critics, who focus on the dangers. In reality, the recent experiences of four different democratic states that have invoked emergency powers show that a positive outcome is just as likely as negative outcome. As the United States fights its war against terrorism, it should heed the lessons learned by other democracies in similar struggles, particularly Great Britain's relationship with Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s, Uruguay's response to the Tupamaros in the late 60s and early 70s, Canada's dealings with the FLQ in 1970, and Peru's conflict with the Shining Path movement in the 80s and early 90s.

More than 140 countries around the world have passed new counterterrorism laws since the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. In a 2012 poll, 60% of Canadians said they wouldn't want to give up their civil liberties to prevent terrorism.