Customer Reviews

Terrorism & The Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Do you know that your government is arresting people and detaining them for years based on secret evidence? This book shocked me, and made me realize how far our rights have been corroded by our fear of terrorism. Dempsey and Cole provide a clear overview of the law and politics of national security, in a balanced and fair treatment that is more chilling than hysteria. They provide vivid stories of individual victims of FBI abuse, as well as a history of how we got here, and a clear path on how to return to a country that respects basic constitutional rights.

This study is a well-organized, non-hysterical study of the constitutional implications of the fight against terrorism. Detailing FBI efforts to use investigation as a means for restricting political activity (with implications of the First Amendment's protection of legitimate political activity), the book then goes into the legal study of the dealing with controlling the FBI's institutional control-freakness, and judicial tools to accomplish that.

An extensive study of the 1996 Anti-terrorism Act is then undertaken, with an emphasis on its constitutional implications. The authors are highly critical of the use of secret evidence against defendants, as well as of Congress' creation of secret courts and courts specializing in "Alien Terrorist Removal." Understanding these courts is going to be more and more important in the coming years as the US attempts to judicially cope with and respond to the events of September 11.

Knowledge of these issues is essential to not only making sure the Government is able to do its job, but also to do so constitutionally. This book is a good start. However, its section on the "nature and scope of terrorist activity" will seem naive and quaint after the traumatic events of WTC.

Assessing the success of the 1996 Act will be important in developing legal tools and critiquing the current powers of the FBI in our fight against terrorism.

We will see an increase in domestic political spying. It is inevitable. We can counter the dangers of this, and reap its rewards, by ensuring that there are adequate judicial procedures in place wherein individuals can contest illegitimate intrusions by the Government.

I bought this book a couple of years ago and it's still the authoritative reference on the history of the interplay between civil rights and national security. Good reading for journalists, activists, lawyers, and others who just want to learn more about this intriguing subject. One of the obvious lessons from the book is how history repeats itself but every time we as a nation do take notes from past experiences and do try to avoid past mistakes. Congratulations to Cole and Dempsey on a fine piece of intellectual work.

A true eye opener on the abuses and disreguard of the US constitution. Cole and Dempsey document carefully what many citizens suspect playfully. A chilling book.

I first read this book about a year ago, but have just revisited it in light of recent horrific events in New York and Washington.

Let me say straight off, that I'm no supporter of increased governmental powers. I'm one of the breed that feels that the less government influence there is in our lives, the better. Having said that, if one of my loved ones had been victim of these monstrous events, I would want to give my government ANY reasonable powers they asked for in order to bring the perpetrators to justice and to prevent repeat attacks. Personally, if they strayed into questionable territory, I would be glad to turn a blind eye and say a quiet thank you that other people's family, friends and colleagues were safe.

Maybe the Constitution is wrong. Maybe Americans should give more power to their government agencies to fight this new terror. For sure the 'opposition' (Taliban, Ghaddafi, Saddam etc.) don't give a monkey's cuss about human rights. I'm not suggesting that the free world - the democratically elected governments - sink to those levels, but sometimes you've got to fight fire with fire. To try to outwit these murderous vermin without the full approval of the Constitution is like trying to outbox a championship fighter with one hand tied behind your back.

Terrorism & The Constitution raise some interesting questions that are considerably more pertinent now, that when the book was written. I strongly urge you to read it and consider how you should change the Constitution to bring it in line with the new reality.

"Terrorism & the Constitution" was a huge disappointment because it was saturated with personal (author's) opinions and it gave very little legal insight. What I expected was a legal brief. Instead, this book took great effort to slam the F.B.I. Yes, the F.B.I. has a history of mistakes and errors. But by and large it is a very respected arm of our government. The authors failed to mention the media (the liberal press) is guiltier of censoring and manipulating facts than is the FBI. Where's that story? Third, the F.B.I. of today is not the F.B.I. of J. Edgar Hoover. The author made statements supported only by footnotes and seldom elaborated on legal argument. Although I concurred with some of what was written, overall I viewed the book as a vicious attack made against agents who love this country and our Constitution as much as the rest of us do. (No, I am not a FBI agent!) Life has taught me that there are always two sides to every story. I returned the book for a full refund because its pages started coming unglued within the first five minutes of my reading it. I also disliked the author's style of attacks on our D.O.J. I viewed this book being very weak in true legal research and very strong on propaganda. A well-researched and written undergraduate legal paper will complete with this book in a heartbeat. By the way, this critic is a blood relative to ancestors who fought for the American Revolution. I'm a military veteran. I delight in sound criticism. I dislike this style of writing.