No comments about The Terrorism Ahead: Confronting Transnational Violence in the Twenty-first Century.

1 comments about Guantanamo's Child: The Untold Story of Omar Khadr.

1. Michelle Shephard tells the story of a young man few Canadians feel any sympathy for.
   
   However, only a cold-hearted person would not be affected by the tragedy of this young boy, who lost his childhood to his late father's dream of a global jihad. Shephard takes on a huge challenge and accomplishes her goal admirably.
   
   As I put down the book, I could not help but feel deep compassion for Omar Khadr. The book has left me feeling that I should do something to help him. This despite the fact I have a lifelong distaste for jihadism and nothing but contempt for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Omar Khadr deserves a second chance in life, and if he ever wins freedom, he will owe it partly to Michelle Shephard's fine book. For making me look at the young man as a fellow human being, "Thank you Michelle Shephard."

No comments about While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers.

No comments about International Cooperation in Counter-terrorism: The United Nations And Regional Organizations in the Fight Against Terrorism.

No comments about Terrorism and the Limitation of Rights: The ECHR and the US Constitution (Human Right's Law in Perspective).

No comments about 9/11 in American Culture (Crossroads in Qualitative Inquiry).

2 comments about The Stakes: America In The Middle East.

1. An Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland and a frequent contributor to TV, radio and print media, Shibley Telhami's cogent mideast political analysis is more accessible to the general public than most. One of the country's most in-demand commentators in the Middle East, his social and political analysis set forth in The Stakes: America In The Middle East clearly and persuasively explains Arab and Muslim attitudes towards the U.S. and why the Arab-Israeli conflict remains integral to resolving the war on terrorism.



2. Sure, America has a stake in the Middle East. And Telhami knows plenty about the region! And he has some good ideas for what we ought to do! And I actually have little idea what we ought to do. How can I have the nerve to give him only one star?
   
   I'll tell you how.
   
   The problem is this. The main issues in the region are truth and human rights. Now, Telhami does give Truth some respect. He shows that many people in the Middle East have a big problem with Truth. And he gives some examples. Unfortunately, he also gives Untruth equal respect. And he basically appears to recommend that the fight against human rights had better be given equal weight with the struggle to defend human rights. Or else!
   
   And that's not enough.

4 comments about Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.

1. The book focuses on the damage done to the Iraqi citizenry by the fighting in Iraq. The suffering of Iraqis is made plain. It has it's slow points but the book ultimately succeeds by effectively describing the horror of war and the plight of innocents who find themselves trapped in it.



2. This book really shows how true evil masks itself behind such high sounding words as `honor,' `glory,' `dignity', `patriotism', `for god and country', 'victory', and so on; words that may have inspired a young man or woman to join the military (although many others may do so for other reasons such as economic necessity) only for many of them to later find that they have been duped and diabolically deceived by those so called `responsible' politicians who had sent them over there along with those other cowardly politicians who only pretend that they want them to come back home.
   
   It's only too late when these young soldiers realize that they are simply the tools of a greedy power elite who only seek profit from human butchery, slaughter and misery and these people could care less about the Iraqi people or for that matter, they could care less about the American soldiers who are used as sacrificial cannon fodder to serve some sick pathological agenda to `occupy' (read: conquer and rape) another culture. In fact, it's even beyond sick as to what goes on in Iraq. It's just plain evil.
   
   By reading the personal testimonial accounts of those soldiers who have been deeply traumatized from their experiences in Iraq, this book really gives the reader a feel for the reality of the horrors of war. The accounts given by the soldiers regarding their experiences traveling in the moving convoys is simply horrific and it's clearly a living nightmarish hell for not only the unfortunate innocent Iraqi's who are butchered from these convoys but for the American soldiers themselves who actually think that they are fighting for some greater `cause.' Any politician that can read about the things that go on over in Iraq and not be so deeply affected as to immediately put an end to this campaign of terror is simply not human.
   
   This is an excellent book and it does what it's supposed to do, which is to bring awareness to the reader; mentally, emotionally and physically, of the pathology of war.



3. This book divided into 4 parts, (checkpoints, raids, convoys and detentions) gives you a daily life front row seat for what it's really like in Iraq. I kept lowering the book and saying to myself "We'll never be able to make it up to them. NEVER". (Soldiers and civilians). Can you imagine being innocent and no one understands what you're saying? Not able to stop the car at a check point because the brakes don't work? Having your dog shot in front of you? Having your friends killed because they couldn't avoid a convoy? This book gives you many accounts on what it's really like over there. I highly recommend it.



4. Everyone knows that war is horrific, and that terrible, unjust acts are sometimes committed by individual soldiers in theater. It is also widely known and understood that the experience of war often has a tremendously traumatic effect on those soldiers participating in it. However, this book seeks to portray American soldiers in entirety as unstable mad dogs who, because of their own pain and confusion, become mass murderers and sadistic oppressive brutes. In my opinion this book is just a return to the "baby killer" name calling of American soldiers that took place during and after Vietnam. It is just that now it is wrapped in a prettier package to draw direct responsibility away from the soldier and apply it to America itself, the message of the sadistic mad dog brute that is the American soldier is still the same in the end though.

5 comments about Flying Blind.

1. This is quite a book, describing the effect of political correctness on our national security. Almost unbelievable!
   
   Fact: In early 1942, then-Governor of California, Earl Warren, who eventually became Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, with the collusion of President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D), had all of the Japanese/American residents on the Pacific Coast and Hawaii, including U.S. Citizens, interred in what can only be accurately described as "concentration camps." Their property, in most cases, was confiscated and sold, including prime agricultural land.
   
   The reason?: It was thought that they represented a threat, and the U.S. government was fanning racial hatred in time of war against our enemy. We have since paid token reparations on an individual basis, a couple generations and many ruined lives later.
   
   How things have changed!
   
   Today, we are at war with Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists. In 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Iran was attacked by young Muslim Male extremists mostly between the ages of 17-40.
   
   
   In 1983, the U.S. Marine baracks in Beirut was blown up by young Muslim Male extremists mostly between the ages of 17-40.
   
   in 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year-old American passenger in a wheelcair was killed and thrown overboard by young Muslim Male extremists mostly between the ages of 17-40.
   
   In 1988, Pan Am flight 103 was bombed over Scotland by young Muslim Male extremists mostly between the ages of 17-40.
   
   On October 12, 2000, 17 U.S. Sailors lost their lives on the U.S.S. Cole, bombed by young Muslim Male extremists mostly between the ages of 17-40.
   
   On September 11, 2001. four airliners were highjacked and flown into the World Trade Center and Pentagon by young Muslim Male extremists mostly between the ages of 17-40.
   
   In December, 2001, a young Muslim male extremist tried to light a shoe bomb on a commercial jetliner.
   
   In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped on murdered by young Muslim Male extremists mostly between the ages of 17-40.
   
   Since then, the scenario has been much repeated, with captives, including a woman humanitarian worker, in Iraq, being shot and beheaded, etc. The culprits, as you can see, are not hard to identify in this country, when they venture here to do their mischief.
   
   But this author tells us that if more than two members of the same ethnic group, or who appear to be of the same ethnic group, are stopped at the airline for secondary screening, the airline will be fined for "profiling." If, for example, you have four or five young Muslim Males mostly between the ages of 17-40, you may only stop two of them for further searching or questioning, or be fined for profiling.
   
   The world has changed, but not for the better.
   
   If police are aware that cocaine smuggling in South Florida is being carried out massively, and that 90 percent of the traffickers are black males in new, big shiny black Cadillacs, who would you expect them to keep an eye out for on the highway?
   
   But, they can't single them out. That would be profiling.
   
   Has the country gone nuts, or what?
   
   That is this author's question.
   
   Joseph (Joe) Pierre
   author of Handguns and Freedom...their care and maintenance
   and other books
   
   



2. "Flying Blind" refers to the way our politically correct policies on screening passengers before flight effectively blind our security apparatus to the most likely dangers. The author, Michael Smerconish, is a radio personality in Philadelphia. He got on this issue when he was taking a flight with his family and his eight year old son was selected for "secondary screening". Makes sense, right? Many terrorist acts have been committed by eight year old boys.
   
   Then he heard John Lehman questioning Condoleezza Rice during the 9/11 hearings and was shocked to hear Secretary Lehman refer to a policy that airlines would be fined if they singled out more than two people of a given ethnic group, say Arabs, for screening. He then did an on air interview with Lehman, then wrote a news article, then a TV show on this issue. He also interviewed Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines who confirmed this PC policy about random screening.
   
   So, if you think our security is enhanced by pulling aside children, old women, or other members of groups never implicated in terrorism, then this book really is not for you. However, if you would like to see how and why Norman Mineta insists on the present policy, you will find this book valuable. It is a short book and reads quickly. There is even a CD with portions of the author's radio show that are relevant to this book.
   
   I believe our present policies on screening are foolish and putting us at risk. Smerconish is not advocating racial profiling, however, putting increased attention on those who are more likely to be terrorists simply makes sense. Check your blood pressure before you read this book because when you see how out of it so many in our government are you might explode.



3. This book is great as it points out the type of power that one man can have in our government administration. Because of Mr. Maneta being able to sacrafice security for PC and not getting fired for it is amazing. Because of this book I have put the Bush administration and the republican party on notice that they must fix this NOW or I'll be voting differently next election.
   
   This book is a must read for those people that travel and for those that wonder what the government administration fail to do to protect us.



4. Smerconish's upset is that we're fighting a war against young Arab male extremists, and our government enforces politically correct "random screening" of airline passengers instead of targeting those who look like terrorists. It is a good point, and has occurred to millions of airline passengers already - however, it doesn't merit belaboring into 232 pages.



5. Smerconish says what he thinks, which happens to usually be consistent with what I think and experience. It is a fast read, which reminds us that we DO need to keep paying attention and that political correctness is a disease and that common sense is not as common as it needs to be!

5 comments about Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency.

1. The bottom line is Posner's analysis lacks any historical basis or credibility. The "founding fathers" lived during an era much more perilous than "post 9/11" life in the United States (despite all of the fear-mongering by Bush, the echo-chamber mainstream media, and Posner, etc.). Civil liberties have been dangerously and erroneously abridged many times in American history, yet we always seem to not learn the crucial lesson. History has shown that every one of these episodes: Sedition Act (1798) by John Adams, suspension of habeas corpus by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, another Sedition Act by Woodrow Wilson during WW I, and Japanese-American internment by Franklin Roosevelt during WW II was wrong, unnecessary, and repudiated by courts and historians after the fact. Massive violations of civil liberties did not enhance U.S. national security.
   
   To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would surrender a little liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor security.
   
   We do not need new laws like the Patriot Acts or any tampering with the Constitution (especially habeas corpus). We should not EVER torture ANYONE. Here's what every American citizen should demand of every elected official or candidate seeking office:
   
   * Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
   * Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
   * Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President's say-so;
   * Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
   * Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President's say-so in violation of federal law;
   * Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
   * Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
   * Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
   * Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
   * Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.
   
   (from the American Freedom Agenda)



2. This is an intellectual approach towards whether or not we allow civilian rights to be infringed upon in times of crisis and what that allows, leading towards an almost totalitarian state by goverment. Agree or disagree, the arguments are presented well here.



3. Federal Appeals Court Judge Richard A. Posner is known for being both prolific and controversial. In addition to authoring one of the most important academic treatises in the field of law and economics, he is also known for writing on more controversial topics ranging from the 2000 Presidential election to sex. And it's when he writes on these topics, covering areas that are both controversial and likely to be the subject of high-profile Constitutional case law, that he's often at his most interesting, even when you don't agree with him.
   
   In Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution In A Time Of National Emergency, Posner examines the questions and conflicts that have arisen between national security and individual liberty in the wake of the War on Terror and asks the question of just how far Courts should go in either protecting liberty or granting leeway to the state to deal with a perceived emergency.
   
   Posner's entire thesis with respect to the roles that liberty and safety should play in Constitutional jurisprudence can be summed up in the paragraph that opens the conclusion to the book:
   
   "Constitutional rights are largely created by the Supreme Court, by loose interpretation of the constitutional text. Created as they are in response to the felt needs and conditions of the time, they can be and frequently are modified by the Court in response to changes in those needs and conditions. A constitutional right should be modified when changed circumstances indicate that the right no loner strikes a sensible balance between competing constitutional values, such as personal liberty and public safety. A national emergency, such as a war, creates a disequilibrium in the existing system of constitutional rights. Concerns for public safety now weigh more heavily than liberties in recognition that the relative weights of the competing interests have changed in favor of safety. That is the pragmatic response, and pragmatism is a dominant feature not only of American culture at large but also of the American judicial culture."
   
   If you're someone like myself who views individual liberty and the protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as immutable, a paragraph like that is bound to make your blood boil. And, I will admit that there were several times when I found myself wanting to argue with Posner over one obscure point or another (which I imagine would be a fascinating intellectual experience in itself).
   
   Posner's approach, however, is entirely understandable for two reasons. First, it is entirely consistent with his broader adherence to law and economics, which is all about balancing, and pragmatism, and finding efficient outcomes, as a legal philosophy. Second, he's a Federal Judge and, with rare exceptions, the approach that he suggests in this book is entirely consistent with the way that most Federal Judges seem to view questions of the proper line to draw between individual liberty and public safety.
   
   That doesn't mean that Posner is correct, though.
   
   First, there's his view of individual/constitutional rights as something that are strictly judge made, rather than something that exist independent of the whim of the judiciary. Because of what Posner contends to be the inherent vaguenesss of the Constitutional text, it is up to Judges to determine the boundaries of constitutional liberty. The problems with this approach are replete and exist throughout the 200+ years that the Supreme Court has existed. All too frequently, judges have interpreted portions of the Constitution too narrowly, or too broadly, or just ignored it entirely and ruled based on how that though the case should be decided. Leaving the definition of civil liberties strictly and exclusively in the hands of an unelected judiciary is, in the end, a recipe for disaster.
   
   Given Posner's views on the malleability of constitutional rights, it isn't entirely surprising where he comes down on the debate over when and how much individual liberty should be sacrificed in the name of public safety at a time of supposed national emergency, such as that represented by the War on Terror. With very few, though very interesting exceptions, Posner would give more power to the state to fight the threat posed by terrorism -- notwithstanding the fact that, except for September 11th, there hasn't been evidence of a single foreign terrorist plot on American soil in over five years -- at the expense of individual liberty and privacy.
   
   Another area which Posner brushes over is the fact that national emergencies have, in the past, served as the justification for increases in the size, scope, and power of government. Posner briefly addresses this issue by citing examples from the Post-WW2 and Cold War eras of government regulation that has since abated. In reality, of course, the end of each of these supposed emergencies still resulted in a Federal Government that exerted more control than it did at the time the "crisis" started.
   
   Of course, much of that is explained by the fact that local incumbents in law enforcement find it in their interest to point out how bad things would be under a second term.
   
   There are some points one which I must admit that Judge Posner is right. There is a distinct difference between law enforcement and intelligence gathering. And there seem to be far fewer Constitutional limitations on intelligence gathering, which logically must be considered part of the Article II power of the Executive Branch, than on law enforcement, which finds itself limited by the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments, just to name a few.
   
   And maybe that makes sense.
   
   The purpose of intelligence gathering is, or at least, should be, preventing attacks on the homeland, whether from terrorists or foreign nations, from happening. Law enforcement steps in only after an attack has occurred. In the case of terrorism, law enforcement is an admittedly ineffective tool.There's no point in filing criminal charges against the 19 men who hijacked planes on September 11th, but if we'd been able to break up that conspiracy on September 9th........well, that wouldn't have been a bad thing after all.
   
   In the end, as Posner points out, and as reluctant as I may be willing to admit, it may well be true that there is a trade-off between liberty and security that we all will have to make a decision on in the near future.
   
   On each side, there's an extreme that is entirely unpleasant. Too little government vigilance in the face of a real terrorist threat could lead to the deaths of millions. Too severe a restriction on individual liberty could lead to a free reign for destruction.



4. As a layman I found Posner's book to be a very interesting way to learn about the issues with constitutional law not only in a time of crisis, but in general. He starts out with a discussion on how constitutional rights are created. It clarified many of the questions I had in my mind on how the constitution could be interpreted the way it is. It even made sense. He then explained how national security shapes those rights. He argues for a balance between security and rights.
   
   The next four chapters discuss the rights against detention, the rights against brutal interrogation and searches and seizures, the rights of privacy, and finally the right of free speech. These chapters brought out the arguments based on security and also the arguments of civil libertarians. Posner tended to argue for a balance between those views that changes given the circumstances. In case of dire emergency, the president should be able to suspend some rights. I thought the discussion in the concluding chapter on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was a good way to illustrate his point. Should the constitution be amended to allow this action, or should it continue to be illegal? He brings up the pros and cons of each and his conclusion makes sense to me.
   
   Posner's writing style is very clear and I found that as a layman this complex issue was understandable. Do I agree with all of his conclusions? Probably not; but the general concept of balancing personal security and rights does ring as a principle worth considering. I recommend this book for anyone with an interest in constitutional law and the current war on terror.



5. In another, perhaps better world, Judge Posner would have been a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court. His age reputedly barred him in this one.
   
   Unfortunately, for this book, you could probably stop at the title, and that would give you the gist.
   
   Judge Posner's thesis is that at a time of war, noone can be allowed to second judge the nation's security establishment. Moreover, he argues that judges are particularly unsuitable for the task. He offers examples from history to buttress his thesis.
   
   Unfortunately, unless one starts out with the premise that his conclusion is intrinsically correct, his arguments read, at least to my eyes, as somewhat cyclical and self-serving.
   
   After all, judges balance competing consideration in a vast array of other types of cases all the time. Why not in matters of national security? He also ignores key problems, at least in my reading:
   
   1. Lincoln's actions WERE widely condemned, often fiercely resisted, and are considered by legal historians to be a blot on his legacy.
   
   2. Korematsu, the Japanese internment case, was based on submissions to the Supreme Court that the Justice Department KNEW to be untrue. So the most famous instance of the Constitution not being a suicide pact was based on a lie, a lie that many DOJ official vigorously protested at the time.
   
   As Judge Reinhardt said about Judge Posner, the problem is not in his writing. He is a fine writer, and his writing is enjoyable. The problem is with his thinking and conclusions.