The war on terror and civil liberties
Ethan Bronner has an essay in today’s New York Times Book Review on the numerous tomes alleging that the War on Terror combined with John Ashcroft ”are responsible for some of the most egregious civil liberties violations in the history of our nation” according to one of these books. Bronner does a nice job of ...
Ethan Bronner has an essay in today's New York Times Book Review on the numerous tomes alleging that the War on Terror combined with John Ashcroft ''are responsible for some of the most egregious civil liberties violations in the history of our nation'' according to one of these books. Bronner does a nice job of putting these issues into the proper perspective:
Ethan Bronner has an essay in today’s New York Times Book Review on the numerous tomes alleging that the War on Terror combined with John Ashcroft ”are responsible for some of the most egregious civil liberties violations in the history of our nation” according to one of these books. Bronner does a nice job of putting these issues into the proper perspective:
If you believe these changes are eroding the liberties that make this nation great, these books are for you. They will give texture and sharpness to your rage. You can pick from among them based on your level of concern. If you are incensed, go for the Brown essay collection, ”Lost Liberties.” In it, Aryeh Neier says, ”We are at risk of entering another of those dark periods of American history when the country abandons its proud tradition of respect for civil liberties.” And Nancy Chang of the Center for Constitutional Rights says that executive measures taken in the wake of the Patriot Act ”are responsible for some of the most egregious civil liberties violations in the history of our nation.” Given the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the Palmer raids in World War I and the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, both of these statements seem to me hard to defend…. We are at an odd moment in our political debate. Liberals, who favor big government, oppose the one we have now because of who controls it. Conservatives, who shun big government, have discovered the pleasures of having one at their disposal. And in this election year, every debate feeds into a partisan struggle for victory. The truth is that even most liberals would not be so upset about tightening border controls and easing F.B.I. restrictions if this administration showed some understanding of how to confront militant Islam with something other than force. It acts unilaterally and calls it leadership. That only makes one suspicious of everything it does. But liberals must realize that some things are correct and legitimate even if George Bush believes them.
Read the whole thing.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University and the author of The Ideas Industry. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy

America Is a Heartbeat Away From a War It Could Lose
Global war is neither a theoretical contingency nor the fever dream of hawks and militarists.

The West’s Incoherent Critique of Israel’s Gaza Strategy
The reality of fighting Hamas in Gaza makes this war terrible one way or another.

Biden Owns the Israel-Palestine Conflict Now
In tying Washington to Israel’s war in Gaza, the U.S. president now shares responsibility for the broader conflict’s fate.

Taiwan’s Room to Maneuver Shrinks as Biden and Xi Meet
As the latest crisis in the straits wraps up, Taipei is on the back foot.