- Hardcover: 328 pages
- Publisher: Oxford University Press; First Edition. edition (1 Jan. 2007)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 019531025X
- ISBN-13: 978-0195310252
- Product Dimensions: 23.6 x 2.8 x 15.7 cm
- Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (1 customer review)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 1,304,175 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- See Complete Table of Contents
Terror in the Balance: Security, Liberty, and the Courts Hardcover – 1 Jan 2007
|New from||Used from|
- Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK
- Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost
- Find your preferred location and add it to your address book
- Dispatch to this address when you check out
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
"Admirably clear and free of technical jargon, this is a relentlessly rational dissection of a topic confused by overstatement, opportunistic political posturing and just plain lack of common sense. If you are not convinced, you will be challenged to explain exactly why not."―Charles Fried, Harvard Law School
"It is conventional wisdom that during times of war and emergency, presidents overreact to threats and excessively violate civil liberties, and courts do too little to stop these developments. Terror in the Balance challenges this conventional wisdom from top to bottom. With its incisive and contrarian analyses of contemporary issues like coercive interrogation, military commissions, censorship laws, the PATRIOT Act, and ethnic profiling, Terror in the Balance is an enormously important contribution to the study of constitutional government during wartime. This book will cause civil libertarians to pull their hair out; it will also force them to improve their arguments."―Jack L. Goldsmith, Harvard Law School
"A level-headed approach to considering the stand-alone merits of specific policy proposals in terms of their efficacy and their offsetting costs. The authors provide a framework of analysis and discussion that eschews the far more common, and far less insightful, approaches so often offered by both supporters and critics of current government policies."―Robert M. Chesney, Wake Forest University School of Law
"This book provides a powerfully argued counterpoint to the conventional wisdom that during time of war or emergency the U.S. democratic process operates poorly, and needs to be supervised by rights-enforcing courts. While some may see the book's call for judicial deference as an apologia for executive unilateralism, the authors' rigorous analysis will force civil libertarians to be more precise and sophisticated in their arguments, and public debate will surely benefit."―Curtis A. Bradley, Duke Law School
About the Author
Eric A. Posner is Kirkland & Ellis Professor of Law, University of Chicago. He co-authored The Limits of International Law and New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis, authored Law and Social Norms, and edits the Journal of Legal Studies. Adrian Vermeule is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is the author of Judging under Uncertainty: An Institutional Theory of Legal Interpretation.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Clearly there has been a pattern of deference to executive authority during America's wars; for example, Lincoln imprisoned peace activists. During World War II, leaders believed west coast Japanese-Americans posed a security risk (possibly saboteurs or spies), and the Supreme Court later approved their decision to forcibly relocate tens of thousands of innocent people to prison camps. In retrospect, this decision seems wrong -- the United States committed a giant act of racism since Japanese-Americans looked like the enemy, while Italian-Americans and German-Americans blended in and were not imprisoned. But when America had its back against the wall, the president became practically a dictator and issues such as fairness or rights or tyranny took a back seat to the goal of winning the war. This book argues for increased executive authority in wartime. They write "courts and legislators are institutionally incapable of second guessing security policy." And they may have a point. If America is fighting a so-called "war on terror," then is the president justified in extra-legal actions such as warrant-less wiretapping, "Sneak and Peek" operations in which government agents search peoples' houses clandestinely without warrants, eavesdrop on phone conversations, record personal Internet searches, and so on? These authors argue the president must have such power, and their book is a legal justification why this should be so. But clearly, this is controversial. I think the strategy is flawed since it tries to cope with a difficult problem (foreign terrorism) by exacerbating another type of terrorism (tyranny). It's one step in the direction of turning the United States into a police state.
Thomas W. Sulcer
author of "The Second Constitution of the United States"
(free on web -- google title above + sulcer)
This was not what the American founders had in mind. As Thomas Paine observed, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." (Thomas Paine, in First Principles of Government (1795)) Does anyone believe that their advocacy for an uber-unitary executive is a rational response or proposal based on historical, legal or constitutional scholarship? I use the prefix "uber" intentionally, because the authors are enamored with the legal theories of the Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt. Wow! Let's dismiss Madison and embrace Schmitt's the LEADER is the LAW. That will make us all so much safer, just like it did in Germany in the 1930s.
As Chris Hedges has noted, "Terror, even for those who have nothing to do with terror, becomes the blunt instrument used by Big Brother to protect us from ourselves." This is anti-Americanism at its worst. As Jonathan Turley opines in the Jan 13, 2012 Washington Post, "In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state," resulting in "a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian."
Why would anyone want to read or buy this book, unless they want to be a prosecutor at Gitmo? The book's ideas should be rebutted by anyone who understands anything about the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Again, Benjamin Franklin's quote is more timely than ever: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."