The War Power In An Age Of Terrorism

This book features a lively debate between two prominent scholars—Michael A. Genovese and David Gray Adler—on the critical issue of whether the Constitution, written in the 18th Century, remains adequate to the national security challenges of our time. The question of the scope of the president’s constitutional authority—if any—to initiate war on behalf of the American people, long the subject of heated debate in the corridors of power and the groves of academe, has become an issue of surpassing importance for a nation confronted by existential threats in an Age of Terrorism. This question should be thoroughly reviewed and debated by members of Congress, and considered by all Americans before they are asked to go to war. If the constitutional allocation of powers on matters of war and peace is outdated, what changes should be made? Is there a need to increase presidential power? What role should Congress play in the war on terror?

Since 9/11, one of the most dominant issues in American politics has been: what exactly is a war on terror and who is in charge of it? Previous books on this topic have fallen off the horse on either side: on the right, making military actions under the Bush administration equal to previous declared wars and ceding too much war-making power to the presidency or on the left, requiring congressional approval for any national security steps at all, contradicting much of American historical precedent. Weinberger presents a novel understanding of the Declare War clause of the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), filtering it through the AUMFs passed by Congress since 9/11 and concluding that the Presidency has wide latitude and autonomy in the overseas theaters, but not on the domestic front.

Also includes information on aftermath of terrorist attack, Al Qaeda, George W. Bush, civil liberties, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, courts, detainees, detention, due process, emergency constitution, emergency powers, emergency regime, existential crisis, extraordinary powers, Founding Fathers, framework statutes, freedom, habeas corpus writ, Iraq war, Abraham Lincoln, Jose Padilla, panic reaction, precedents of presidential powers, presidency, president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, rule of law, second strike, Second World War, secrecy, seizure, September 11, 2001, state of emergency, supermajoritarian escalator, terrorist attack, torture, United Kingdom, etc.

First published in 2004 in the immediate wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, this is an accessible commentary intended to provoke thought and debate on the topic of terrorism. In a collection of challenging essays, questions consider the causes of terrorism and why post-modern terrorism is different. The essays are divided into three key sections, first investigating the civilizational roots and dimensions of contemporary terrorism, next examining the Bush administration’s approach, and finally, considering the complex and changing relationship between fear and freedom. Written by a leading scholar in Middle East and Asian Studies, this comprehensive reissue will be of particular value to students of international relations and terrorism studies, as well as the more general reader with an interest in the global issues faced in the age of contemporary terrorism.

War on Terror, terrorism.

The signal events opening the global war on terrorism were the attacks of September 11. The world media began to focus on one of the terrorist groups, Al-Qaeda, a well-funded terrorist organisation headquartered in Afghanistan or Pakistan with offshoots in many countries. America has turned out to be the primary target of Al-Qaeda. America's first response was the attack on Afghanistan and the establishing of a puppet government. Next America attacked Iraq under the guise of a response to terrorism although no connection has been proven or even alleged except by hardcore neocons aligned with certain elements in the Washington power establishment. This new book pierces the veil of misinformation with frank assessments of the progress or lack thereof of the war on terrorism. Contents: Introduction; Homeland Security form Clinton to Bush: Assessment; United States Homeland Security in the Information Age: Dealing with the Threat of Cyberterrorism; Presidential War Powers and the War on Terrorism: Are We Destined to Repeat Our Mistakes?; International Law and the War on Terrorism; The Evolution of American Grand Strategy and the War on Terrorism: Clinton and Bush Perspectives; Assess

The author addresses the ways that the age of terrorism is affecting American grand strategy. He contends that terrorism has made many of the basic concepts of international relations and national security obsolete. Declaring war on a tactic-terrorism-erodes the clarity necessary for coherent strategy. Dr. Worley then develops what he calls a "guerra strategy" more appropriate for dealing with terrorism and other nonstate threats.

The new "post-9/11 era" is an age of fear. International relations is now not just about power politics but also about fear politics. We live in a world where power is no longer an adequate guarantee against fear. The more powerful a nation is, the more fearful it becomes. This book examines how this transformation came about. It looks at three kinds of fear which define international politics today: fear of postmodern terrorism, fear of American unilateralism, and fear of the state apparatus empowered by the war on terror. The legitimacy of the war in Iraq and its implications for international security; and the impact of the war on terror on democracy and human rights are provocatively discussed.

America is at war with terrorism. Terrorists must be brought to justice. We hear these phrases together so often that we rarely pause to reflect on the dramatic differences between the demands of war and the demands of justice, differences so deep that the pursuit of one often comes at the expense of the other. In this book, one of the country's most important legal thinkers brings much-needed clarity to the still unfolding debates about how to pursue war and justice in the age of terrorism. George Fletcher also draws on his rare ability to combine insights from history, philosophy, literature, and law to place these debates in a rich cultural context. He seeks to explain why Americans--for so many years cynical about war--have recently found war so appealing. He finds the answer in a revival of Romanticism, a growing desire in the post-Vietnam era to identify with grand causes and to put nations at the center of ideas about glory and guilt. Fletcher opens with unsettling questions about the nature of terrorism, war, and justice, showing how dangerously slippery the concepts can be. He argues that those sympathetic to war are heirs to the ideals of Byron, Fichte, and other Romantics in their belief that nations--not just individuals--must uphold honor and be held accountable for crimes. Fletcher writes that ideas about collective glory and guilt are far more plausible and widespread than liberal individualists typically recognize. But as he traces the implications of the Romantic mindset for debates about war crimes, treason, military tribunals, and genocide, he also shows that losing oneself in a grand cause can all too easily lead to moral catastrophe. A work of extraordinary intellectual power and relevance, the book will change how we think not only about world events, but about the conflicting individualist and collective impulses that tear at all of us.