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.

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.

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.

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 this short book, Etzioni, the well-known and respected public intellectual and communitarian thinker, charts a middle course, or third way 'between those who are committed to shore up our liberties but blind to the needs of public security, as well as those who never met a right they are not willing to curtail to give authorities an even freer hand.' This book will prove a useful guide for citizens looking for a thought provoking, well-reasoned and sober analysis of one of the hot button issues of our time.

In each generation, for different reasons, America witnesses a tug of war between the instinct to suppress and the instinct for openness. Today, with the perception of a mortal threat from terrorists, the instinct to suppress is in the ascendancy. Part of the reason for this is the trauma that our country experienced on September 11, 2001, and part of the reason is that the people who are in charge of our government are inclined to use the suppression of information as a management strategy. Rather than waiting ten or fifteen years to point out what's wrong with the current rush to limit civil liberties in the name of "national security," these essays by top thinkers, scholars, journalists, and historians lift the veil on what is happening and why the implications are dangerous and disturbing and ultimately destructive of American values and ideals. Without our even being aware, the judiciary is being undermined, the press is being intimidated, racial profiling is rampant, and our privacy is being invaded. The "war on our freedoms " is just as real as the "war on terror " -- and, in the end, just as dangerous.