The Perilous Dialogue

The Perilous Dialogue

The security or freedom framework fails to capture the single most important characteristic of counterterrorist law: increased executive power that shifts the balance of power between the branches of government. At each point where the legislature would be expected to push back””at the introduction of the measures, at the renewal of temporary provisions, and in the exercise of oversight””its ability to do so is limited. The judiciary’s role, too, is restricted: constitutional structure and cultural norms narrow the courts’ ability to check the executive at all but the margins. With the long-term political and economic effects of this expanded executive strength masked by the immediacy of the security or freedom dichotomy, the true costs of anti-terror legislation in the U.S. and U.K. have gone uncalculated. In both countries, over the past four decades, the relationship between the branches has altered, individual rights have narrowed, and the relationship of the citizens to the state has changed. Counterterrorist law has alienated important domestic and international communities, created bureaucratic inefficiencies, and interrupted commercial activity.

Focusing on these costs does not mean that no benefits accrue from counterterrorist law. Indeed, it is important to recognize where security is gained. It has been nearly seven years since the 9/11 attacks, and no major al Qaeda attack has occurred on American soil. In Britain, intelligence agencies and law enforcement have successfully broken up a number of nationalist and religious terrorist cells. This does not mean that every counterterrorist measure introduced has been responsible for these gains””it would be sloppy logic to assume this””but calculating such benefits is essential to instituting a strong counterterrorist regime.

I am not, however, discussing the security benefits. Instead, I am focusing on the costs, which the assumptions in the security or freedom dichotomy ignore. And here the damage caused to the US and the UK by anti-terror legislation is significantly greater than it first appears. These two countries, moreover, are setting global counterterrorist norms and risk the transfer of these detrimental effects to other liberal, democratic states. Furthermore, it is in response to conventional attacks that both states’ counterterrorist regimes have developed. The proliferation of fissile material, and I would add biological weapons to Professor Holmes’s consideration of nuclear threats, together with a growing willingness on the part of extremists to sacrifice themselves, may drive the two countries to take increasingly drastic measures. The result could be a shift in the basic constitutional structure of both states.


More in this Issue

Respect and Resistance in Punishment Theory

Is it coherent to speak of a right to resist justified punishment? Thomas Hobbes thought so. This essay seeks first to (re)introduce Hobbes as a punishment theorist, and second to use Hobbes to examine what it means to respect the criminal even as we punish him. Hobbes is almost entirely neglected by scholars of criminal […]

Enforcing Nonenforcement: Countering the Threat Posed to Sanctuary Laws by the Inclusion of Immigration Records in the National Crime Information Center Database

The largest federally-maintained database of criminal information, known as the National Crime Enforcement Center (“NCIC”) increasingly includes records related to criminal and civil immigration violations. This article address the unrecognized harms of the NCIC’s inclusion of immigration records and demonstrates that the NCIC effectively compels local enforcement of federal immigration laws in contravention of locally […]

Experimentation on Prisoners: Persistent Dilemmas in Rights and Regulations

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. This federal report recommends long-overdue changes to the federal regulations that limit human subjects research on prisoners. First, the Report recommends more systematic and rigorous review of all experimentation involving prisoners and other persons supervised under any form of state or […]

Citizenship, Organizational Citizenship, and the Laws of Overlapping Obligations

The article reveals a deep ambivalence in the law about the role of individual dissent within public and private settings and offers a way to reconcile the conflicting demands of organizational loyalty and legal compliance. It describes the vast inconsistencies that currently exist in the laws of private sector wrongful discharge, public employee First Amendment […]

Warrantless Wiretapping, FISA Reform, and the Lessons of Public Liberty: A Comment on Holmes’s Jorde Lecture

The Jorde Lecture by Holmes burns with the light of clear analysis and calm rationality. In this Essay, I wish to build on it through consideration of its model of “public liberty.” In particular, I discuss how private liberty, and in particular, information privacy, has an important role, indeed is a precondition, for public liberty. […]

Philosophy and the Politics of Unreason

Stephen Holmes has presented a lecture full of good ideas and genuine common sense. If I were in a position to hire him as Deputy Secretary of State for Policy and Planning, I would. Over the past few years, he has produced a number of pieces that identify the errors and dangers in arguments made […]

In Case of Emergency: Misunderstanding Tradeoffs in the War on Terror

Emergency-room personnel are acutely aware of the serious risks posed by excessive delay. Understanding the need for immediate and unhesitating action, they nevertheless routinely consume precious time to follow protocols drilled into them and practiced in advance. Why do they do this? They do it, quite obviously, to minimize the risk of making fatal but […]