Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Issues of Our Time) (Paperback)

by Alan M. Dershowitz (Author)
Key Phrases: preventive confinement, preventive military action, accepted jurisprudence, United States, Security Council, Preventive Measures (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
Children of deposed kings, sovereign nation states, terrorist organizations, alleged witches-all have been targets, at some point in history, of preemptive action. Whether such action was justified whether the results were as intended and whether the political fallout was tolerable are the factors that complicate this alluring concept, as explored by Dershowitz. Though one might expect Dershowitz to capitalize on the obvious example of the invasion of Iraq (as illustrated by the cover photograph of smoke rising over the Tigris), Dershowitz focuses a good share of this cautious study on Israel, where the policy of preemption has been practiced for decades, to varying degrees of success. The country's 1967 strike against Egypt and Syria to begin the Six-Day War comes as close to perfect preemption as any event in recent history, but that success has proved difficult if not impossible to repeat. If this book is divisive, it's only because Dershowitz calls into question any hardline view, pro or con, of a practice that depends on circumstance and calculated risk-and even then hinges on what the public is willing to accept (profiling, assassinations, a nuclear strike) in the name of a safer tomorrow.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist
When and how should democratic societies respond to potentially dangerous conduct before the conduct takes place? The latest book from this prolific defense lawyer and legal scholar examines preemptive war, preventative detention, and restrictions on dangerous speech, and claims that in the absence of general legal principles (or even a healthy debate) about preemptive action, society's current trend away from deterrence and toward prevention (as accelerated by the "war on terrorism") threatens longstanding notions of individual liberty and state sovereignty. Attempting to articulate the rudiments of a jurisprudence of prevention and preemption, Dershowitz considers the risk calculus applied by Israel in its various preventative wars and digs into his own previous research into the problematic mathematics of prediction. Although the subject matter dovetails nicely with Dershowitz's recent work on torture and terrorism, this account conspicuously avoids those works' polemics and admits that constructing a jurisprudence for a democracy is a daunting task not well served by narrow political stances. Yet perennially provocative Dershowitz sneaks in a punch or two, speculating aloud about the possibility of preemptive action against Iran's nuclear program and arguing that preemptive war in Iraq may have hindered preemptive action against that nation. Best read in conversation with Richard Posner's cost-benefit argument for prevention in Catastrophe: Risk and Response (2004), this book is an academic and accessible framing of an important debate. Brendan Driscoll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co. (February 17, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0393329348
• ISBN-13: 978-0393329346
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.4 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 10.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #902,287 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

20 of 26 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Dershowitz finally wrote his magnum opus, March 18, 2006

By	AVD - See all my reviews

This review is from: Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Issues of Our Time) (Hardcover)

This book is probably the most important one Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has ever written. In "Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Way," Dershowitz analysis one of the most crucial, yet most unexplored paradigm shifts of our time: the shift from deterrence to preemption - a paradigm shift that greatly influences both our domestic and foreign policy, as the White House reaffirmed just last week in its strategy report on national security. And yet, as Dershowitz convincingly shows, to this date there is no jurisprudence that would govern preemption.
In his magnum opus, Dershowitz not only shows why we need a jurisprudence of preemption. Employing historical analysis and legal acumen, he also outlines how we could think of such a jurisprudence.
With the concern of a civil libertarian, Dershowitz carefully examines the many areas of preemption, which are not regulated by, and thus not subject to, the rule of law, ranging from detention over compulsory vaccinations to humanitarian intervention to stop genocides. Although these topics have been discussed a great deal in the public sphere, no attempt has been made to construct a systematic morality and jurisprudence of preemption that would put these issues in context. Dershowitz has now filled this gap.
With "Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Way," Dershowitz showed once more why he is widely considered as one of the greatest public intellectuals of our time.
A must read for everyone interested in law, morality, and public policy!

15 of 20 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars We Don't Want to Go There, July 12, 2006

By	Izaak VanGaalen (San Francisco, CA USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Issues of Our Time) (Hardcover)

In this recently published book, Harvard law professor and lawyer Alan Dershowitz raises some questions about our fundamental assumptions about preventing harmful behavior from individuals and states. He asserts that in the age of terror traditional assumptions no longer suffice and that new tools of jurisprudence are needed to respond to a new kind of threat.

The traditional assumption has been to rely on the rational person standard of behavior which presupposes that a rational person would be deterred from inflicting harm by the threat of punishment. Under this theory the perpetrator would do a cost/benefit analysis of his or her actions and act accordingly. Now, however, in the age of suicidal terrorists with possible access to weapons of mass destruction this assumption no longer holds.

Given these circumstances, Dershowitz argues that there is now a potential need for profiling, preventative detention, forceful interrogation, restraint on free speech, targeted assasinations of terrorists, and preemptive military action. More importantly, he argues that we need a new jurisprudence to regulate these actions in these areas.

For Dershowitz the old maxim that it is better to release ten guilty than to detain one innocent no longer applies; it is better to detain one innocent then to let ten terrorist attacks occur.

The legal mechanism that Dershowitz proposes to regulate the actions of the state are as follows: "the seriousness of the contemplated harm, discounted by the unlikelihood that it would occur in the absence of preemption, would be greater than the likelihood of the harms caused by successful preemption, discounted by the likelihood (and costs) of failed (and successful) preemption." This cost/benefit analysis is a balancing of the probablities. In this balancing, there is obviously a wide margin for error. I can't really see the White House pondering this formula when considering preemptive action nor can I see them being held accountable to it.

Dershowitz also sees the problems with preemption; it is indeed a knife that cuts both ways. In the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel acted preemptively toward the gathering threat of the Arab countries when it was clear they were going to invade Israel. However, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel was then an occupying force and preemption was no longer an option due to probable international condemnation.

In a more recent example, the United States military action in Iraq would have been justified to some extent had there been weapons of mass destruction and the regime's imminent intention to use them. Since none were found the entire project lacked international legitimacy. And the negative byproduct of this preemptive action, is that it has only emboldened Iran and North Korea to produce nuclear weapons while the United States can do nothing. It shows that preemptive action can lead not only to expensive and lengthy military actions, it can and will undermine future preemptive actions.

The problem with Dershowitz' new jurisprudence is that it opens the door to all kinds of abuse - some of which we are seeing already. Applying jurisprudence to the relations of states might work in the Kantian world of the European Union, but it will not work in the Hobbesian world of power politics. In the Hobbesian world we put our trust in the executive branch to carry out policy, and when that trust is betrayed we either vote them out of office or impeach them.

As for a new jurisprudence of preemption, we don't want to go there.

13 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Terrific Read, March 18, 2006

By	Upstater (Upstate New York) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways (Issues of Our Time) (Hardcover)

Not only is this the first serious attempt to outline how we should think about preemptive and preventive military action, but it's a fascinating historical and philosophical examination of the entire field of preemptive state action. Dershowitz makes good use of his legal background in analogizing ways in which the criminal justice system uses and misuses preemptive profiling, detention, and civil commitment to foreign policy and military questions.

As always with Dershowitz, the style is fast, direct, and accessible. All in all, an unusually thoughtful book and a thoroughly enjoyable read.