The most appealing approach is minimalism, which does remarkably well in capturing prominent decisions of the Supreme Court in World War I, World War II, the Cold War, and the war on terrorism." Review: Although this is an important piece of constructive jurisprudence, Sunstein arguably does not make a compelling case for his Ginzburg-style piecemeal judge.
It makes no sense to allow the historically limited wartime provisions of the past to set the constitutional standard for a condition of counter-terrorism which lacks conceivable historical limits.
The potential proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to rogue states and state sponsors of terrorism provides a rationale for invading dangerous states sooner rather than later." The framework of this approach places too much weight on the "rogue state" designation, which criminalizes enemy states and, accordingly, denies them standard protections of international law.
Mark Juergensmeyer's February 2006 lectures include reflections on "God and War: The Odd Appeal of War", in which he suggests that war is "a way of thinking and living through chaos in order to become free from it"; reflections on the question "Are We at War?" in which he ponders the peculiarities of the age of terrorism/counter-terrorism; and reflections on the question "What Does God Have to Do with It?" Also available from Princeton are videos of Arun Gandhi's November 2001 discussion of the power of nonviolence in "Terrorism, Nonviolence, and Justice"; and Jean Bethke Elshtain's October 2001 plea for a strong military response to 9-11 in "Just War and Military Intervention".
Hence, there is an urgent need to limit greatly the damage that terrorists will cause by curbing their access to nuclear arms and the materials from which they can be made..." Click here to download the rest of Etzioni's detailed report on 'Pre-Empting Nuclear Terrorism in a New Global Order' (pdf).
In his view, which is more reasonable than the conventional wisdom, terrorist attacks should be considered as constitutionally and temporally limited "states of emergency" short of war.
This thesis focuses primarily on Prevent, a policy which aims to ‘stop people from becoming terrorist or supporting terrorism (Aly, 2013) and argues that the innovative inclusion of Prevent within the already e...
Key Terms: - Cyber Terrorism: “Any premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which results in the violence against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine groups.” A cyber terrorism attack is designed to inflic...
(Posted 8/20/08) In "The dangers of fighting terrorism with technocommunitarianism: constitutional protections of free expression, exploration, and unmonitored activity in urban spaces," Fordham Urban Law Journal, July 1, 2005, Marc Blitz argues that "Unlike modern Fourth Amendment case law, which gives short shrift to the importance of insulating public space from government control and design, modern First Amendment law places meaningful limits on the control that governmental authorities may exercise over streets, parks, and other public spaces central to urban life." (Posted 9/2/08) The ForaTV video below presents an penetrating workshop on "State and International Legal Responses to Terrorism," held October 22nd, 2007 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Professor Bobby Chesney, a Strauss Center fellow and visiting professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law, facilitated the discussion." Follow this link to see a video webcast of "The Post-Guantanamo Era: A Dialogue on the Law and Policy of Detention and Counterterrorism." (Posted 2/6/09) In "Terrorism and the Proportionality of Internet Surveillance," European Journal of Criminology, Vol.
Cyber terrorism, the more dangerous of the 3, is defined as the use of digital equipment to bring down a country by tapping into its computer based programs and dismantling its infrastructure which incl...
If one rejects this legitimacy, one must object to all killing in war, targeted and non-targeted alike, and thus not support the view, which is criticized here, that targeted killings are particularly disturbing from a moral point of view." (Posted 2/15/09) In "Can Terrorism Be Justified?" Ethics in International Affairs, Rowman and Littlefield, 2001, Andrew Valls argues that "terrorism, understood as political violence committed by nonstate actors, can be assessed from the point of view of just war theory and that terrorist acts can indeed satisfy the theory's criteria." Although I have argued in "The Senses of Terrorism" that Valls' semantic methodology is fundamentally flawed, I nevertheless recommend the article.
Federal government's strategic use of preventive counterterrorism prosecutions, "the entrapment doctrine must be restructured to keep FBI counterterrorism efforts targeted and focused and to safeguard innocent First Amendment activity from the reach of highly inchoate offenses, which are aggressively pursued with undercover informants." To receive regular notices about similar articles and related court cases, sign up for Robert Chesney's excellent national security law mailing list here.