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 of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
