Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties - Annotated Bibliography Example

22 November Annotated Bibliography Allen, Michael. “Civil Disobedience and Terrorism Testing the Limits of Deliberative Democracy.” Theoria: A Journal of Social & Political Theory 56.118 (30 Mar. 2009): 15-39.Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Literary Reference Center. Deliberative Democracy concerns open communication among all stakeholders and that opinions are open to discussion and criticism. Allen studies the limitations of the commitment of deliberative democrats to communication and persuasion over threats and intimidation through investigating civil disobedience and terrorism. He argues that deliberative democrats cannot justify restrictions to terrorism. He agrees with Cohrs that fear can impact the acceptance of anti-terrorism actions and laws. The main phrase here is “civil disobedience.” For Allen, civil disobedience does not always relate to coercion and intimidation, though demonstrators also aim to generate public dialogue and use moral appeals to justice. The approach of the author is to use social and political theory to explain terrorism reactions from the public. This is different from other sources and it so it will be useful in understanding terrorism from the perspective of deliberative democracy. This article is important in emphasizing how deliberative democracy can promote peaceful means of civil disobedience. This is an interesting point on how people can avoid being terrorists themselves by resorting to violence and propaganda. This article will be useful in expanding the debate to consider how democracies are defined and how their definitions can impact the framework of and discourse on terrorism and civil liberties. CATO Institute. Combatting Terrorism, Protecting Freedom. 1996. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. . This reference approaches the subject of terrorism in a critical manner by citing the views of three speakers, Malcolm Wallop, David Kopel, and Nadine Strossen. These speakers agree that the government tends to pursue anti-terrorism policies that hurt civil liberties. They define their approaches against anti-terrorism legislation and their effects on civil liberties. The image that they are forming is that anti-terrorism laws are also anti-civil liberties. Another image is the Big Brother symbol for an authoritarian government that uses terrorism to enhance its powers, while reducing individual rights to their civil liberties. Big Brother, for them, appears paternal, but can be easily exploited by the government for their self-interests, such as reducing freedom of speech and association and privacy rights. Wallop argues that citizens should also be against anti-terrorism legislation that hamper them from enjoying their civil liberties. He calls for anti-terrorism laws that are aligned with the constitution. Kopel has a sarcastic tone when questioning anti-terrorism actions and policies. He argues that the U.K. Has numerous strict anti-terrorism actions and policies, but it only reduced civil liberties without reducing terrorist activities. Strossen emphasizes that anti-terrorism policies both threaten and hurt civil liberties. This reference is important in underscoring the costs of anti-terrorism legislation to civil liberties. It shows that increasing the powers of the government costs people their civil liberties. Cohrs, J. Christopher, Kielmann, Sven, Maes, Jürgen, and Barbara Moschner. “Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties.” Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy (2005). Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Academic Source Premier. Authors examined how right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), personal values, and political ideology could affect attitudes toward reduction of civil liberties and surveillance measured after one year through an Internet survey. Findings showed that RWA, SDO, political ideology, security values, and self-direction values were strong predictors of attitudes toward reduction of civil liberties and surveillance. Their approach focuses on how it is possible that people accept restrictions on their civil liberties during threats of terrorism. The main image of this text is that RWA encourages attitudes of ethnocentrism and fear that can allow favorable attitudes toward surveillance and fewer or weaker civil liberties. When compared to Thorson, this article has a more psychological perspective. It shows that RWA creates a psyche of submission and prejudice that makes it easier for people to accept restricted civil liberties, especially when they are designed to attack certain ethnic or racial groups. This text contributes to the understanding of the interplay between government and personal values and acceptance of anti-terrorism laws that can reduce civil liberties. It is possible that a certain political leaning can be enhanced on a national level, so that greater support for anti-terrorism laws can be accumulated, even if they violate civil liberties. Greenwald, Abe. “A Decade after 9/11 What We Got Right in the War on Terror.” Commentary 132.2 (2011): 14-27. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. Literary Reference Center. The main point of this article is that the government has been mainly effective in curbing terrorism. The author takes the approach against national security arguments that defend anti-terrorism laws. Abe argues that because of fighting in Iraq, Bin Laden fell, and terrorism groups followed thereafter. He justifies the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as critical to undermining the terrorist network of Bin Laden. The word that is repeatedly used is “closure.” Abe notes that though it is important that 9/11 victims feel a sense of closure after Bin Ladens death, it is equally important that terrorists also feel the same “closure.” It connects anti-terrorism with the Arab Spring, as Abe calls for the U.S. to steer these Arab nations away from terrorist ideologies. Abe also cautions the government against anti-terrorism measures that reinforces anarchy. This reference is far from what CATO and Thorson reported on, because the approach is significantly supportive of anti-terrorism legislation and measures. This approach is taken against the perspective of providing both immediate/short-term and long-term actions against terrorism. This article is important in providing an opposing viewpoint to CATO and Thorson and will help balance my learning about terrorism. It is crucial to have different perspectives on terrorism, so that its effect on civil liberties can be more fully appreciated. Perkins, Jared. “Habeas Corpus in the War Against Terrorism: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Citizen Enemy Combatants.” BYU Journal of Public Law 19.2 (2005): 437-471. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Advanced Placement Source. Perkins explores the loss of habeas corpus because of the War Against Terrorism. It gives the case of Hamdi, whose habeas corpus right has been suspended, because he was treated as an enemy combatant. The article argues that the judiciary should prevent public fear and outrage from undermining the Constitution. The main words are habeas corpus, which is a core Constitutional right. Habeas corpus is the Latin for "you have the body". It is a writ (court order) which stresses that the law enforcement officials should allow prisoners to appear in court to determine the legality of detention. This enables prisoners to have their claims be heard by the court. It takes the political trend of relying on the Supreme Court to settle questions of constitutionality. The approach of the write is from the legal viewpoint. From this perspective, it supports the protection of civil liberties and prevention of abuses of executive power. Like the CATO Institute, Perkins emphasizes the importance of civil liberties versus national security. The government will have a hard time justifying sacrifices of civil liberties in this context. This article is important because it allows readers to focus on one aspect of law that anti-terrorism laws violate. Poscher, Ralf. “Terrorism and the Constitution.” Dissent 56.1 (2009): 13-18. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Academic Source Premier. Poscher shows the cleavage in the Supreme Court because of the unconstitutional features of anti-terrorism legislation and this division affects their rulings. Sometimes, they rule for individual civil liberties, and yet at times, they also rule in favor of anti-terrorism measures, due to national security concerns. His approach toward the topic is that people continue to be divided on whether anti-terrorism laws are constitutional or not. The image that is projected by the text is that the Supreme Court has the supreme responsibility in ensuring that laws are constitutional. The approach is legal and focuses on the relationship between rulings and modern interpretations of the Constitution in the age of terrorism. Also, Poscher agrees with Southwood that anti-terrorism actions should not sacrifice human dignity that civil liberties protect. This article is important because it gives examples on the Courts decision on related terrorist cases. It helps readers understand that terrorism is not a one-way street and that it continues to affect people and their institutions. Poscher provides additional support to people who oppose the unconstitutional nature of anti-terrorism legislation. Nevertheless, since Supreme Court is divided in the issue of constitutionality of anti-terrorism legislation, people will remain unsure how long these laws will take effect. Southwood, Nicholas and John Humphreys. “Can We Preserve Liberty in an Age of Terrorism?” Policy 20.1 (2004): 28-35. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Academic Source Premier. This article provides two essays from Southwood and Humphreys. They confirm that terrorism does not preserve liberty. The image that is repeated is that of the government posing to preserve liberties or reduce it because it is only rational during the age of terrorism. It also repeats the word fear, because the government has effectively used “fear” to gain massive support for its sweeping anti-terrorism laws. The authors take the approach that terrorism cannot justify the loss of civil liberties. Fear reduce logic among people, which enhances their vulnerability to increasing executive powers that can allay their fears of loss of power. Southwood believes that liberty is not absolute and that in the age of terrorism, it is fitting to balance liberties with security needs, but it is not right to sacrifice civil liberties for national security. Giving up civil liberties is considered as a plus point for terrorism for him. Humphreys emphasizes that the West is to be blamed on the reduction of civil liberties, not terrorism. This article is important in supporting the alignment of anti-terrorism with civil liberties. This paper poses the irony that fear results to greater fear, when the terrorists become the government itself. Thorson, Carl. Terrorism vs. Civil Rights: A Debate. 2003. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. . This source summarizes the symposium on the conflict between terrorism and civil rights. They agree with the reservations of the speakers from the CATO Institute regarding the ability of anti-terrorism laws in protecting civil liberties. The image that is being repeated here is that terrorism violates civil rights, because the more the government tries to protect people from terrorism, the more they lack protection of the latters civil rights. Several speakers examined the debate on terrorism and its effects on civil liberties. Ben Wizner, attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, stresses that the governments reaction to 9/11 was too “sweeping,” and that Congress barely discussed and analyzed the impacts of new security activities on civil rights. Wizner does not agree with the argument of the government that security needs take precedent over civil rights. Scott Bowman, Political Science Professor from Cal State LA, argues that since 9/11, there had been greater secrecy and more powers given to the executive branch, which are dominant traits of totalitarianism. Professor Terri Givens agrees with Kopel that the UK has initiated these anti-terrorism laws, but they had not effectively stamped out terrorism. This reference is important, because it gives several perspectives on the negative effects of terrorism on civil liberties. They also reinforce the beliefs of speakers from the CATO Institute. Read More