April 19th, 2024
Home | Log in!

Fresh Pick
YOUNG RICH WIDOWS
YOUNG RICH WIDOWS

New Books This Week

Fresh Fiction Box

Video Book Club

April Showers Giveaways


April's Affections and Intrigues: Love and Mystery Bloom

Slideshow image


Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image
Investigating a conspiracy really wasn't on Nikki's very long to-do list.


slideshow image
Escape to the Scottish Highlands in this enemies to lovers romance!


slideshow image
It�s not the heat�it�s the pixie dust.


slideshow image
They have a perfect partnership�
But an attempt on her life changes everything.


slideshow image
Jealousy, Love, and Murder: The Ancient Games Turn Deadly


slideshow image
Secret Identity, Small Town Romance
Available 4.15.24


Less Safe, Less Free
David Cole (2)

Why America Is Losing the War on Terror

New Press
September 2007
On Sale: August 26, 2007
256 pages
ISBN: 1595581332
EAN: 9781595581334
Hardcover
Add to Wish List

Non-Fiction Political | Non-Fiction

A cogent critique of the new "preventive paradigm" in counterterrorism policy by two of the nation's leading legal scholars.

"If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."—President George W. Bush, defending the National Security Strategy doctrine "preemptive war," Commencement Speech at West Point, June 1, 2002

In Steven Spielberg's science fiction thriller Minority Report, the Justice Department uses psychic visionaries to predict and prevent future crimes. President Bush has no psychic visionaries, but in fighting the war on terrorism his administration has nonetheless adopted a sweeping new "preemptive" strategy, which turns on the ability to predict the future.

At home and abroad, the administration has cut corners on fundamental commitments of the rule of law in the name of preventing future attacks—from "waterboarding" detainees, to disappearing suspects into secret CIA prisons, to attacking Iraq against the wishes of the UN Security Council and most of the world when it posed no imminent threat of attacking us.

In this brilliantly conceived critique, two of the country's preeminent constitutional scholars argue that the great irony is that these sacrifices in the rule of law, adopted in the name of prevention, have in fact made us more susceptible to future terrorist attacks. They conclusively debunk the administration's claim that it is winning the war on terror and offer an alternative strategy in which the rule of law is an asset, not an obstacle, in the struggle to keep us both safe and free.

Comments

No comments posted.

Registered users may leave comments.
Log in or register now!

© 2003-2024 off-the-edge.net  all rights reserved Privacy Policy