Book Description
Liberty and freedom: Americans agree that these values are fundamental to our nation, but what do they mean? How have their meanings changed through time? In this new volume of cultural history, David Hackett Fischer shows how these varying ideas form an intertwined strand that runs through the core of American life. Fischer examines liberty and freedom not as philosophical or political abstractions, but as folkways and popular beliefs deeply embedded in American culture. Tocqueville called them "habits of the heart." From the earliest colonies, Americans have shared ideals of liberty and freedom, but with very different meanings. Like DNA these ideas have transformed and recombined in each generation. The book arose from Fischer's discovery that the words themselves had differing origins: the Latinate "liberty" implied separation and independence. The root meaning of "freedom" (akin to "friend") connoted attachment: the rights of belonging in a community of freepeople. The tension between the two senses has been a source of conflict and creativity throughout American history. Liberty and Freedom studies the folk history of those ideas through more than 400 visions, images, and symbols. It begins with the American Revolution, and explores the meaning of New England's Liberty Tree, Pennsylvania's Liberty Bells, Carolina's Liberty Crescent, and "Don't Tread on Me" rattlesnakes. In the new republic, the search for a common American symbol gave new meaning to Yankee Doodle, Uncle Sam, Miss Liberty, and many other icons. In the Civil War, Americans divided over liberty and freedom. Afterward, new universal visions were invented by people who had formerly been excluded from a free society--African Americans, American Indians, and immigrants. The twentieth century saw liberty and freedom tested by enemies and contested at home, yet it brought the greatest outpouring of new visions, from Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms to Martin Luther King's "dream" to Janis Joplin's "nothin' left to lose." Illustrated in full color with a rich variety of images, Liberty and Freedom is, literally, an eye-opening work of history--stimulating, large-spirited, and ultimately, inspiring.
Customer Reviews:
They'll Always Wave.......2005-12-26
I read this big book because David Hackett Fischer is a historian I greatly admire and if he finds a theme worthwhile, I consider it a mandatory assignment. Liberty and Freedom eschews philosophy; it studys the symbols that arouse and sustain the national spirit: flags, liberty poles, anthems, medals, seals, catch words, documents and statues.
I admit this was not an easy read for me. I have always found parades tedious. I am tone deaf to martial music. Flags are a piece of cloth flapping in the wind. My love of country is expressed in different ways. In my youth, that included military service in our most (or perhaps second-most) misguided war. I feel repelled by gatherings of still delirious veterans. As years passed, I came to distrust politicians who cheered for flags or other symbols. It was usually a sign that they had scant understanding of their country's history and were feigning patriotism to garner votes. I appreciate symbols as necessary to the human condition, but for me they're tools of the hornswoggler.
The best part of this book is the post WWII history that I lived through. Fischer treats all the prime cultural/political movements as symbols that changed our conception of liberty/freedom. McCarthyism, the Civil Rights Movement, the 60s hippie counterculture, the women's movement, the return of conservatism, and more get chapters. His encapsulations of these events are quite precise. I think this book will grow in importance as years go by. It is truly important, and for a huge hunk of the country, this is the extract of Americana. And I do love it.
America's finest historian outdoes himself.......2005-12-11
David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed established him as one of the finest historians writing for a general audience. Since the publication of that landmark history, Fischer has produced a number of outstanding books, including among them Paul Revere's Ride, and Washington's Crossing, each of which skillfully demonstrates how cultural forces, reflected in individual decisions and actions, affected the course of events at a critical fork in the historical road.
This latest work from Fischer compares favorably to his greatest works, and is a plausible candidate for his finest effort yet.
To be great history, a work must succeed on several levels. One is that it must be interesting -- the reader must feel compelled to press on. Another is that it must be informative; it should educate, ideally in a fair way, conveying what is most important, and minimizing the influence of author bias. But the acid test of what makes for a great history may be whether it enables the reader to understand his world in a fundamentally new, insightful way. Albion's Seed and Fischer's other great works accomplish this. So too does Liberty and Freedom, in spades.
Fischer aims to trace the development of the concepts and values of Liberty and Freedom throughout American history. To lay the foundation, he studies the terms themselves. Liberty, Fischer finds, derives from the classical Latin world, with connotations relating to the release from bondage. Consequently, in later history, it carries overtones of meaning the ability to move and to act without interference or constraint by others.
Freedom, on the other hand, relates to the Germanic "Freiheit," and has different connotations, specifically the possession of the full rights of citizenship, of belonging to a society. We see its connotations in phrases such as "the rights of free-born Englishmen," the sense that in belonging to a community, each member is accorded certain rights and freedoms.
Fischer argues that the English language is unique in carrying these twin concepts within the language in parallel, with the result that English-speaking cultures have long pursued both conceptions, and only more recently have begun to use the terms more interchangeably. The suggestion is made that the dual conception arises in part from the historical fact that both Romance and Germanic language and cultural influences implanted themselves in England many centuries ago.
Fischer traces the flowering of the concepts of liberty and freedom in America, with great attention to how these have been expressed through popular culture and political argument. His history is one of broad participation; elected leaders make cases for their visions of liberty and freedom, but so too do the teeming masses express their evolving views of liberty and freedom in ways that shape the country's direction.
Someone who is considering buying this book should be aware that this is just about the quickest 800 pages you will ever come across. I devoured it in just a few days on my commutes. His writing is brisk, the volume handsomely illustrated. The chapters are brief and thematically very tightly organized. If there is a slow patch in the book, I cannot recall it.
One of Fischer's more interesting conclusions pertains to the role of America's military conflicts in shaping the progress of American freedom. His general thesis is that each conflict has led at first to a curtailment of individual freedom, but then has resulted in its considerable expansion. Consider, for example, that the Civil War began with the suspension of habeas corpus and ended not only with its reinstatement but with the (then) radical 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, establishing emancipation and equal protection of the laws. WWII began with the incarceration of Japanese Americans, but its end ushered in the integration of America's schools, armed forces (and major league baseball.) Even the Cold War, which has become equated in Hollywood's popular memory with the early abuses by Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee, produced the boomerang effects of Miranda Rights, the Civil Rights act, and many other expansions of liberty in the 1960s.
Fischer's message is a hopeful one in the climate of America's current conflict. He reminds us not only that each of America's conflicts has produced an initial constraint on individual liberties followed by their subsequent expansions, but also that each conflict has advanced the ball relative to the one before. The restraints on individual freedoms, for example, that occurred in the context of World War I far surpassed those that occurred in either WWII or the Cold War.
Fischer saves his most powerful lesson till the end, when he documents that political power flows to those who publicly dedicate themselves to liberty and freedom, not to those who promise cradle-to-grave security, government-provided benefits, or any variant thereof. Americans' commitment to the twin conceptions of liberty and freedom remains strong even as Americans disagree on what these concepts mean and how they should apply to our daily lives. But the politician who ignores these fundamental values does so at his/her own peril.
Introduction Excellent-Rest of Book SO-SO.......2005-12-08
The introduction is excellent, comparing the word "freedom" with "liberty" and noting that the English language was the only one to use both words at the time of the American Revolution. This artifact of language formed a necessary foundation for American thinking. The rest of the book is more like a collection of separate essays, loosely linked with the theme of images and iconography. The concluding chapter of the book is weak and fails to tie together a central theme. The book can be considered a reference work for images relating to freedom and liberty in America.
Iconography of Liberty and Freedom.......2005-01-04
This is the third book in the four book (projected) that Fischer began with the seminal "Albion's Seed".
Liberty and Freedom is devoted to those two concepts, which Fischer holds are key to understanding the culture of America. Fischer uses quilts, flags, photos, paintings, sculpture and pretty much anything else under the sun(toilet decorated with a bald eagle, anyone?) to illustrate this thesis.
Clearly, Fischer is concerned with the idea of America. What is most novel about this book is the way that Fischer tries to assimilate some of the newer teachings of social history with the the method of traditional history(focus on military events/political leaders).
Never one to shy away from histiographical concerns, Fischer illustrates these varying approaches in a short appendix.
This book is of high quality, copiously illustrated and is published in conjunction with a touring museum exhibition that is travelling as far west as St. Louis (as a Californian, I am a little upset that it isn't coming out farther).
The chapters of the book are short to the point of being anecdotal: two pages on Emerson, four pages on Thoreau, three pages on Martin Luther King. However, that is in line with Fischer's central concern which is to document the imagery of the ideas of liberty and freedom in American history.
The heavier intellectual lifting is towards the front of the book. In the first hundred pages, Fischer produces a nifty chart that documents the differing origins of the concepts of liberty and freedom (Did you know that liberty derives from the Roman republic/empire whereas Freedom comes from Germanic/Anglo tribal roots?). He then relates these concepts to the cultural groups that settled America (and to which Albion's seed is entirely devoted).
While it is possible to quibble with the result, I will save that for the real historians. Suffice it to say, this book is an awesome achievment, and Fischer is once again to be commended, not only for his attempts to bravely reconsile two competing schools of history, but also for his large spirited message, that groups which turn away from the concepts of liberty and freedom ultimately lose the battle in America's "marketplace of ideas."
A must for cynics and believers alike.
A WINNER FOR THE SYMBOL-MINDED.......2004-12-01
If you're interested in American symbols of all kinds and/or in the varied and changing attitudes Americans have had toward liberty and freedom, this is a must-have book. Well-organized, easy to read but profound, with over 500 illustrations, this book again marks David Hackett Fischer as an author with a unique understanding of how the country's present has developed out of a past few Americans understand. Bravo, David!
Average customer rating:
|
Secrecy and Liberty:National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (International Studies in Human Rights)
Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Civics
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Human Rights
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Law
| Administrative Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Human Rights
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| International Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Law
| Administrative Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
International Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 9041111913 |
Book Description
The tension between national security and freedom of expression and information is both acute and multifaceted. Without national security, basic human rights are always at risk. On the other hand, the tendency of governing elites to confuse `the life of the nation' with their own survival has often resulted in excessive restrictions on expression and information, as well as other fundamental rights. A proper balance between secrecy and liberty requires a vigilant press and an independent judiciary. It also requires greater clarity than currently exists as to how competing rights and interests should be weighed. This book addresses that gap. Its centerpiece is a set of Principles drafted by a group of international and national law experts, many of whom contributed chapters, to guide governments, courts and international bodies in how to strike a proper balance. The Principles have been widely endorsed, among others by United Nations experts on freedom of expression and independence of judges and lawyers. Sixteen country studies -- profiling, among other states, Albania, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Norway, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia -- explore the tremendous diversity of national security doctrines and the penal and other measures aimed at suppressing allegedly secret information and speech claimed to be subversive, separatist or otherwise dangerous. Five chapters examine the cases considered and approaches taken by the UN Human Rights Committee, three regional human rights bodies, and the European Court of Justice. A Commentary draws on the other chapters to support and elucidate the Principles, noting where they reflect an existing consensus and the points at which they attempt to elicit a more rights-protective approach.
Book Description
In Terror in the Balance, Posner and Vermeule take on civil libertarians of both the left and the right, arguing that the government should be given wide latitude to adjust policy and liberties in the times of emergency. They emphasize the virtues of unilateral executive actions and argue for making extensive powers available to the executive as warranted. The judiciary should neither second-guess security policy nor interfere on constitutional grounds. In order to protect citizens, government can and should use any legal instrument that is warranted under ordinary cost-benefit analysis. The value gained from the increase in security will exceed the losses from the decrease in liberty. At a time when the 'struggle against violent extremism' dominates the United States' agenda, this important and controversial work will spark discussion in the classroom and intellectual press alike.
Book Description
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, national security concerns have become the focus of the general public and of federal authorities. But some citizens and commentators have criticized the government for using national security as an excuse to curtail civil liberties. Others argue that the gravity of the terrorist threat warrants the increased security measures that have been implemented even if civil liberties must be compromised. Should the government be able to encroach on its citizens' freedoms in the name of national security? Should all citizens be willing to give up some constitutional rights to protect the nation?
This timely and balanced discussion by leading experts on the trade-offs between national security and civil liberties is divided into six informative sections addressing the main issues of this crucial debate:
The history of civil liberty issues in wartime
Domestic surveillance and the USA PATRIOT Act
Racial profiling
The use of torture in confessions
The designation of "enemy combatants"
PLUS recent developments, such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal
In addition to excerpts from important recent US Supreme Court decisions on these topics, this volume includes selections from such widely recognized and respected authors as Richard Cohen, Alan M. Dershowitz, Viet D. Dinh, David A. Harris, Nat Hentoff, Philip B. Heymann, Aryeh Neier, Christian Parenti, John T. Parry, Eyal Press, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Stephen J. Schulhofer, Jay Stanley, Barry Steinhardt, Stuart Taylor Jr., Welsh S. White, Frank H. Wu, and John C. Yoo.
This intriguing collection of expert opinion from across the political, legal, and philosophical spectrums will appeal to readers interested in determining for themselves the acceptable level of infringement on individual freedom in this vital conflict between civil liberties and national security.
Customer Reviews:
An accessible and basic analysis of the issues.......2006-11-13
This book gives an excellent review of the many issues presently being debated concerning the balance between civil liberties and an effective national security. The essays that the editors have chosen are concise and cogent arguments for the different positions. It is very easy to pick up and read one essay at a time right before bed. Overall, a worthwhile purchase for anyone interested in an accessible analysis of the divergent viewpoints on this issue. While not the most in depth book available, it definitely gives a decent analysis of the key issues from racial profiling to torture to surveillance. Recommended for those with an interest in this debate.
Book Description
From Justice Department officials seizing people's homes based on mere rumors to the IRS and its master plan to prohibit the nation's self-employed from working for themselves to the perpetrators of the Waco siege, government officials are tearing the Bill of Rights to pieces. Today's citizen is now more likely than ever to violate some unknown law or regulation and be placed at the mercy of an administrator or politician hungering for publicity. Unfortunately, the only way many government agencies can measure their "public service" is by the number of citizens they harass, hinder, restrain, or jail. Already a major issue in the deliberations of the Congress that took office in January of 1995, the power and size of government is certain to be a prominent factor in the 1996 presidential elections. Lost Rights provides a highly entertaining analysis of the bloated excess of government and the plight of contemporary Americans beaten into submission by a horrible parody of the Founding Fathers' dream.
Customer Reviews:
Destruction of America.......2007-06-09
Behind the scenes plans for the destruction of the United States and the men who are involved.
A potent and well documented book. A must read for every citizen concerned about growing government.......2006-03-07
With Lost Rights, James Bovard follows the increase in the size of the federal government in the 20th century and demonstrates how, with each successive layer of new laws and bigger government, the citizens are being coerced in ways that would make the Founders roll over in their graves.
With a style that masterfully intersperses meticulously documented incidents with his own dry, acerbic and often mocking wit, the author demonstrates how an overabundance of laws are increasingly written, not by Congress, but by bureaucrats and regulatory agencies, who see their jobs as a way to tyrannically impose their personal ideologoies on American citizens and business with little regard to the cost or burden. And all too often, the rules they write have the express intention of favoring one party or destroying another.
Bovard gets to the root of governmental expansion. Namely, overstating a problem is the fast track to more fame, more money, and more power for many politicians and bureaucrats. They have every incentive to exaggerate a problem, foster new legislation, and boast about being proactive. This goes on perpetually until nearly every area of life is subject to some kind of government oversight and regulation. And it's so pervasive, most have become immune and oblivious to it.
The author shows, in one frightening anecdote after another, how the government intends to prevail against the citizen one way or another. The outcome of bureacratic hearings are predetermined. Citizens going up against the IRS are presumed guilty and are subject to property forfeitures until they prove otherwise. Citizens who have property (especially cash) seized by police under the thinnest of pretexts stand little chance of ever getting it back, and the procedural cost of doing so negates the effort.
These are just a few of the injustices detailed in Lost Rights that will leave you shaking your head in disbelief and seething in anger. Others include the abuse of teachers unions and their disdain for parental involvement, the futility of the war on drugs and pornography, the failure of public housing, the subjugating effect of government subsidies, and the power to destroy that comes with the power to tax. To be fair, Bovard does inform the reader parenthetically that some of the most egregious abuses of government have been rejected by the courts.
Time after time, Bovard shows that the best governmental intentions go awry and the realities rarely live up to the promises. Government also has a knack for not anticipating the secondary (often negative) consequences of their policy proposals. Bovard calls for us to start judging government programs more by how effective they have been rather than the flowery rhetoric that always accompanies a new proposal.
For those who favor a more laissez faire government, and want to know just how corrupt, inept, and coercive our government has become, Bovard is a treasure. He convincingly makes the case that the more laws we have, the more injustice increases.
Bovard's one weakness is a flaw common among libertarian advocates and that is he weighs the benefit of every policy on a "net good" basis. If government intervention in a problem doesn't result in an appreciable postive change, the government program should be cast aside. But such a conclusion doesn't examine whether, in the absense of the program in question, would the problem be even worse? Such suggestions also ignore political reality. Right or wrong, people expect the government to "do something" about perceived problems whether it will be effective or not. The solution is obviously to have a more informed and skeptical populace. If everyone in America read this book, it would be a good start.
Bovard's style can be a little too bombastic and bellicose for some who might be of a more left/moderate persuasion. He opens himself up criticism by seeing the world in a very binary fashion with almost no shades of grey. Many will say he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater every time he sees injustice on the part of government. But for the most part, his outrage is justified, as well as infectious, and his anecdotes are faithfully documented.
One of the saddest, and all too real, insights Bovard comes to is about the drama that unfolded in Waco, Texas in 1993 at the Branch Davidian property. Bovard concludes, and I believe he is correct, that the show of force at Waco was intended primarily to send a message, "Obey the government or else." Only after the fact did the FBI admit most of the justifications made contemporaneously for raiding the compound were completely fabricated.
Everyone should read Mr. Bovard's first page.... .......2006-01-19
Click on the link below and then click to the first page and just browse the first page. If you read and understand the second paragraph, you may experience an epiphany.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312123337/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-0532456-2244721#reader-page
Darned thing just keeps growing and growing and..........2004-12-29
James Bovard's treatise on the gradual ebb of liberty in modern America is a fair warning bell. It is disturbing to note that this book was published well before 9/11 and the spate of domestic civil-rights clampdowns that it spawned. Though the chapters are ostensibly devoted to specific subjects (unfair taxation, search and seizure violations, gun control legislation, "drug war" atrocities, etc.), there is considerable overlap. The central premise really isn't that hard to miss: government is getting too big and too powerful, and everyone is in danger, no matter which part of the political spectrum you choose to place yourself. It's hard not to feel a growing sense of anger and frustration as one goes along: is there any area of personal or business life that can't be controlled by the state? Bovard examines affirmative-action laws, the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), the proliferation of gun control legislation, over-regulation of the marketplace (such as government bylaws that force employers to conform to a minimum wage and deal out harsh penalties for noncompliance), licensing and monopoly laws, asset forfeiture laws that enable government to seize your property under any the vaguest of unsubstantiated suspicions, and the thorny issue of "eminent domain" (the practice by which local governments may seize private property so it can be allocated to other private individuals who want it for profit-making purposes but want a way around paying market prices to acquire it). The state has indeed become an overwhelmingly interventionist, controlling force, and there is little evidence that this trend is about to slow down anytime soon. Bovard closes with a final disturbing statistic: Americans must today obey _thirty times_ as many laws as their great-grandfathers had to obey at the turn of the last century, and an ever-greater proportion of the enforcement and regulation carried on by government is _not specifically authorized by statute_, but is instead made up by unelected bureaucrats as they go along.
A Problematic Book.......2004-11-08
This book provides countless examples of people and businesses damaged or threatened by governmental excess, corruption and abuse of power. The examples are often egregious and frightening. Some are familiar, like the kinds of things seen on 60 Minutes. Others are eye-opening. There is enough documentation and familiarity to trust the book's general thrust.
Some of the rhetorical tactics used in the book are questionable. For example, the author will write a paragraph dealing with excessive govermental laws and regulations, and the paragraph will include not just laws that are on the books, but bills that have been considered and rejected. I find this tactic unnecessarily inflammatory, given the amount of actual material that the author claims to exist. Why talk about unfair and coercive laws that don't even exist if there are so many that already do?
The book does not provide balance. The central idea can be found in the following quote:
"The larger government becomes, the more coercive it will be -- almost regardless of the intentions of those who advocate a larger government."
This statement may be true, and numerous examples from the book certainly bolster it. But there are other sides to the argument as well. Since the author doesn't present them, he hasn't refuted them. And since he hasn't refuted them, has he really proven his case? Bovard never presents the other side --that government can actually help and protect people.
It's easy to argue against abusive forfeiture laws and tyrannical law enforcement agencies -- they leave plenty of innocent victims in their wake. But if you're such a believer in non-government, why not talk about Social Security, Medicare or popular government programs that have helped and continue to help many people? The book sets up easy targets and knocks them down, but it shies away from the hard questions.
The book does not provide analysis of the complex world we live in. It presents "power" as a kind of seesaw that totters up or down. On one side sits the government, and on the other, "the people". Any loss of weight or power on one side creates a corresponding gain on the other.
Reality is much more complex. For example, take the legal battle between the US Government and Microsoft. The Government exercised its power against Microsoft through investigations and lawsuits, thus weakening the company and preventing it from conducting business as it chose.
According to Bovard, this would constitute a loss of liberty from "the people" to "the Government." But since Microsoft was arguably excercising its market power to enrich itself at the expense of "the people" (less choice, less innovation, higher prices), the net loss of power from Microsoft to the Government was arguably a gain for "the people".
As another example, take the decision by the FCC to "deregulate" media ownership, thus allowing concentrated ownership of media outlets. According to polls, public opinion, public comment and public hearings, "the people" did not want media ownership deregulated. The Government's
divestment of power to regulate in this area will result in tremendous concentration of media ownership in a few private hands, and arguably, corresponding losses of choice, innovation, accountability and diversity in media. All in all, a net loss for "the people." The book simply does not ever even consider the protection for "the people" that comes from government laws, regulations and enforcement.
Because the book lacks any in-depth analysis of the role of government in society, it ultimately lacks intellectual legitimacy. If all governmental power is power removed from the people, and if this is necessarily "coercive", and if bigger government is necessarily worse and more coercive, then the logical extension of this argument, taken to Bovard's rational conclusion, is that we should have no government at all. None. Period. End of sentence. Why give coercive power over yourself to another?
Some communities in some parts of the world work this way. If someone hurts you, steals from you, kills your friend or relative, it is your responsibilty to remedy the situation. There is no rule of law as we know it.
But Bovard never advocates this result. He clearly likes and wants some amount of government. He wants a police force to punish murderers and other criminals, and he wants an army to defend his country. He wants intellectual property laws that enable him to collect royalties on his books. He wants government systems to adjudicate those laws, and he wants government remedies to punish people who might steal from him. He wants a tax system coercive enough to ensure that he gets all of these things at public expense.
In other words, he wants the amount of government that he wants. Okay, but so does everyone else, from George W. Bush to Ted Kennedy. What makes Bovard's vision of the "right" amount of Government any more valid then yours, mine or Timothy McVeigh's? Bovard launches one anti-government broadside after another, but he never considers the types of difficult questions necessary for an honset debate.
The book also lacks historical perspective. Okay, there is some historical information about where zoning laws came from, and there's a little social commentary about forfeiture laws and environmental protection regulations. But precious little. For the most part, onerous, nonsensical and tyrannical laws are treated as if they dropped from the sky and appeared wholly formed in our nation's legal and political system.
But as every 6th grader knows, that's not where laws come from. They come from legislators and other government officals who are often enough responding to the will of "the people". F0r every ridiculous or tyrannical law that Bovard mentions, there was some set of democratically-elected legislators who supported and passed it and some majority of citizens who elected them.
In other words, at some point, we, the people, have to stop blaming "government" for creating unwanted laws, and we have to take some responsibility for how and why we are allowing and supporting it. Bovard doesn't see any individual responsibilty on the part of the people. He writes as if "government" were an occupying force that dropped out of the sky one day and simply took over.
Given that the book lacks honest debate and critical analysis, it also lacks solutions. Bovard presents a lot of evidence that we have too much government in our lives. But he never articulates what to do about it. Because there is no analysis, there is no criteria on which to decide which laws are good, which are bad, and why. The book may be a "wake up call", but if you wake up and accomplish nothing, is that any more productive than remaining asleep?
Book Description
Since September 11, 2001, much has been said about the difficult balancing act between freedom and security, but few have made specific proposals for how to strike that balance. As the scandals over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and the "torture memos" written by legal officials in the Bush administration show, without clear rules in place, things can very easily go very wrong.
With this challenge in mind, Philip Heymann and Juliette Kayyem, directors of Harvard's Long-Term Legal Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism, take a detailed look at how to handle these competing concerns. Taking into account both the national security viewpoint and the democratic freedoms viewpoint, Heymann and Kayyem consulted experts from across the political spectrum -- including Rand Beers, Robert McNamara, and Michael Chertoff (since named Secretary of Homeland Security) -- about the thorniest and most profound legal challenges of this new era. Heymann and Kayyem offer specific recommendations for dealing with such questions as whether assassination is ever acceptable, when coercion can be used in interrogation, and when detention is allowable. They emphasize that drawing clear rules to guide government conduct protects the innocent from unreasonable government intrusion and prevents government agents from being made scapegoats later if things go wrong. Their recommendations will be of great interest to legal scholars, legislators, policy professionals, and concerned citizens.
Book Description
From the executive director of the ACLU, Anthony D. Romero, and award-winning journalist Dina Temple-Raston, In Defense of Our America takes a critical look at civil liberties in this country at a time when constitutional freedoms are in peril. Using the stories of real Americans on the frontlines of the fight for civil liberties., In Defense of Our America provides a look at the dangerous erosion of the Bill of Rights in the age of terror.
Against the backdrop of post-9/11 America, readers are taken behind the scenes of some of the most important civil liberties cases in America. From the story of the "American Taliban" to the battle against the National Security Agency's warrantless spying program, In Defense of Our America tracks a roster of skirmishes in the larger fight for civil liberties in this country. It tracks an effort in Pennsylvania to force religion into the public school science curriculum and tells the story of South Dakota's attempts to place an outright ban on abortions in the state.
In a narrative that allows the characters to tell the story, In Defense of Our America offers the first inside look at the Lindh family as they saw their son and brother, John Walker Lindh, emerge as a symbol of America's battle against Islamic fundamentalism. It follows Joshua Dratel, a defense attorney at the center of many legal battles over the rights of individuals suspected of terrorism, and tells the story of a modern-day Scopes trial in Dover, Pennsylvania. The book tracks the case of Matthew Limon, a gay teenager sentenced to 17 years for having consensual oral sex with a younger teenage boy in Kansas, and looks behind the reports of a broken judicial system in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
In Defense of Our America chronicles the stories of an array of colorful characters to illustrate the state of play in today's fight for civil liberties, including Cecelia Fire Thunder, the Sioux president who wanted to open an abortion clinic on her South Dakota reservation, and high school science teacher Bertha Spahr who defied a school board dominated by fundamentalist Christians by taking a stand against "intelligent design."
With unparalleled access to key players in some of the landmark tests of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, In Defense of Our America weaves together a compelling narrative that provides an unusually full look at the fight for civil liberties as Americans struggle to protect their rights and ensure their security.
Customer Reviews:
You should read this book........2007-07-12
I watched Anthony Romero on CSPAN2 BookTV pitching this book at a book show in Chicago. He recommended it as a book you might give someone who rolls his eyes at you when you say you support the ACLU.
The book is a good consolidation of how civil liberties have become victims in the war on terror. I'm a politically moderate, active duty military officer and didn't start reading this book until I was convinced that I could do it with an open mind. By that I mean that I sought to eliminate most prejudicial skepticism, since I don't believe any human being can eliminate all of it.
The book hops back and forth a bit, sometimes making it hard to follow. But knowing that the book is designed to be a fairly concise synopsis for a skeptical audience makes me understand why he did it this way. If you dwell on the same subject to long and the reader disagrees with the author, perhaps you can keep the reader engaged by mixing the stories.
The one annoying thing that Mr. Romero does in his book pertains to the abortion argument. He seemingly laments when an abortionist is referred to as a "baby-killer", but in turn summarizes anyone who opposes abortion as "anti-choice" and "the Jerry Falwells." In my opinion, intelligent discussion precludes the use of loaded language, as it only serves to get an emotional rise out of people. I am disgusted by Pro-Lifers who call Pro-Choicers murderers just as I am disgusted by Pro-Choicers who call Pro-Lifers crusaders or fascists. My personal jury is still out on the abortion issue, and when I listen to so many people with an inability to argue without exchanging barbs, I remember why.
The only other thing that I'd like to add is that Mr. Romero rightfully criticizes former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for his role in justifying torture and inhumane treatment of detainees. But I do object to Mr. Romero claiming that Mr. Rumsfeld believed himself above reproach since he was not at Abu Graib when the torture happened. This book was published in 2007 after Secretary Rumsfelf was replaced; towards the end of 2006 it came to light that Secretary Rumsfeld had offered his resignation twice during his tenure and one of those times being quite specifically for the Abu Graib incident. The President rejected the requests both times. This does not mitigate Mr. Rumsfeld's culpability in the matter, but it does speak to his recognition of his responsibility.
Conclusively, it was a good book that leaves me with the desire to learn more about several topics of government and gave me a better appreciation for something that I have known since I took my oath of service: that we must defend our country and our ideals, but we must also ensure that we maintain our country and our ideals worth defending.
Readable but disjointed.......2007-07-07
This is a very readable account of civil rights battles in the time since 9/11, covering specific stories on gay rights, wiretapping, intelligent design, etc. In the preface the authors state it is meant to "read like a novel" and it is an easy and interesting read that most could finish in a couple of days.
My major complaint is that the stories are intertwined for no good effect. After a paragraph on intelligent design, the story suddenly jumps to torture. The entire book plays out this way, jumping back and forth among 5 or 6 stories. While this technique can work in film and novels, with nonfiction it gives me mental whiplash. It would be far better to keep like subject matter together-- indeed, in the references they do just this. So why not in the text?
My other minor complaint is that I would have preferred more detail and reasoning. However, this book does seem to aim at the widest possible audience, and those who follow civil rights may be slightly disappointed.
Book Description
Did America's democratic convictions "change forever" after the terrorist attacks of September 11? In the wake of 9/11, many pundits predicted that Americans' new and profound anxiety would usher in an era of political acquiescence. Fear, it was claimed, would drive the public to rally around the president and tolerate diminished civil liberties in exchange for security. Political scientist Darren Davis challenges this conventional wisdom in Negative Liberty, revealing a surprising story of how September 11 affected Americans' views on civil liberties and security.
Drawing on a unique series of original public opinion surveys conducted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and over the subsequent three years, Negative Liberty documents the rapid shifts in Americans' opinions regarding the tradeoff between liberty and security, at a time when the threat of terrorism made the conflict between these values particularly stark. Theories on the psychology of threat predicted that people would cope with threats by focusing on survival and reaffirming their loyalty to their communities, and indeed, Davis found that Americans were initially supportive of government efforts to prevent terrorist attacks by rolling back certain civil liberties. Democrats and independents under a heightened sense of threat became more conservative after 9/11, and trust in government reached its highest level since the Kennedy administration. But while ideological divisions were initially muted, this silence did not represent capitulation on the part of civil libertarians. Subsequent surveys in the years after the attacks revealed that, while citizens' perceptions of threat remained acute, trust in the government declined dramatically in response to the perceived failures of the administration's foreign and domestic security policies. Indeed, those Americans who reported the greatest anxiety about terrorism were the most likely to lose confidence in the government in the years after 2001. As a result, ideological unity proved short lived, and support for civil liberties revived among the public. Negative Liberty demonstrates that, in the absence of faith in government, even extreme threats to national security are not enough to persuade Americans to concede their civil liberties permanently.
The September 11 attacks created an unprecedented conflict between liberty and security, testing Americans' devotion to democratic norms. Through lucid analysis of concrete survey data, Negative Liberty sheds light on how citizens of a democracy balance these competing values in a time of crisis.
Book Description
A chilling analysis of the constitutional costs of the new war on terrorism, from two leading experts.
Tracing the history of government intrusions on Constitutional rights in response to threats from abroad, Cole and Dempsey warn that a society in which civil liberties are sacrificed in the name of national security is in fact less secure than one in which they are upheld.
In a vivid and important critique of our government's response to threats —real and perceived —from communists in the 1950s, Central American activists in the 1980s, Palestinians in the 1990s, and now Islamic terrorists in the twenty-first century, two leading constitutional scholars warn that many of our government's anti-terrorism efforts sacrifice civil liberties without effectively protecting national security.
James X. Dempsey, former assistant counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights, and David Cole, a law professor and leading civil liberties lawyer, contend that in its response to the attacks of September 11, the Bush administration has already repeated many of the worst mistakes of the past, and is unlikely to make Americans more secure. By comparing recent anti-terrorism measures to law enforcement abuses of the past, the authors make a compelling case against the 1996 and 2001 Anti-Terrorism Acts, both of which offer the FBI far more latitude than is necessary or desirable in a free society.
A new chapter includes a discussion of domestic spying, preventive detention, the many court challenges to post-9/11 abuses, implementation of the PATRIOT ACT, and efforts to reestablish the checks and balances left behind in the rush to strengthen governmental powers.
Customer Reviews:
This Book Lacks Real Solutions.......2006-08-28
This book appears more to be an alarmist than pointing out a real solution to what the author considers as a growing problem. Since 2001 PATRIOT Act, the main problem civil liberities activists have is monitoring international calls from suspected terrorists. If this is all the problems these people have including the author, other than speculating what might happen, then there is no real problem with the 2001 PATRIOT Act that's going to take the average American's liberities away.
Rest in Peace Bill of Rights...slain by the Patriot Act.......2004-12-10
Government response to 'terrorism' is not new; we have previously understood that in 'times of war' civil liberties were suspended (supposedly for the national good). We also know that times of panic (Joe McCarthy) had also prompted otherwise reasonable people to abandon their civil liberties for the now-familiar promise of 'national security'.
Yet, what is new about the post 9/11 climate is the depth of these anti-terrorism policies and the general public's apparent willingness to sacrifice their freedom inexplicably to receive 'security'.
Whether it is the terror alert 'color' of the day, or the list of people who can/cannot fly on planes, national security could instead be used as a tool to generate even more fear...or a weapon to attack political dissenters.
A government effectively stifling criticism of its policies as `being for the terrorists' is allowed to do whatever it wants to citizens whenever it wants. Reminiscent of Nazi Germany, people who still attempt to critique government policy (including the Patriot Act) quickly find themselves labeled as an enemy of the state.
It is significant that the first edition of this book was published after the Oklahoma City bombing. Everybody had agreed this event was a national tragedy, yet the government did not use it as a battering ram to dismantle citizen civil liberties and/or eliminate people whom they have disagreed with. By focusing on case specifics, the Clinton administration found the people who were responsible for that incident (two disgruntled veterans from America's heartland!).
Sharply contrasting, the measures taken in response to 9/11 demonstrate excess and paranoia. "Homeland security" permits the Bush White House to target ANYBODY it does not like.
How else to explain why Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D MA)'s name has repeatedly turned up on the nation's no fly-list, despite a public service career whose length easily exceeds that of many "Homeland Security" officials themselves?
And then there is the issue of increased FBI surveillance to 'combat' terrorist threats. Again, because the FBI had spied on dissenting groups until Hoover's death, there is a strong case that this same government agency will not ethically be able to conduct impartial investigations today.
It is indeed a sad day when we want the rest of the world to be democratic but cannot bring ourselves to have similar conditions inside this same country. The greatest causality of the war on terror is the American Bill of Rights.
Great book, but scary to think about, post-9/11 study........2003-09-18
This book gives a frightening look at how post-9/11 paranoia and the aftermath of that horrific event have lead to the diminution of civil liberties in the U.S.. The passage of the so-called "Patriot Act(s)" will not only make ethnic groups (particularly Arab/Muslims, given that 9/11 was perpetrated by members of that ethnic group) [a] cause to worry, even Americans may be, if their views don't match the current Administration's views, subject to loss of constitutional rights. [The ACLU would have a field day about this, if the premise of the book is true.] It is an important book to read and should be read by everyone who thinks that their civil liberties are unable to be violated by the government. (Conservatives will call this book nonsense, but most of us [moderates and liberals] will find the book an eye-opening study of overreaction and paranoia, by the government, as a result of 9/11.
6 years older , but none the wiser..........2002-10-21
This edition is an updated version of the authors earlier book written in the wake of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act. Remember that Act? That was the one passed in response to Oklanhoma City and gave "sweeping new powers" to federal authorities, so that such a horrible act of terrorism, would never, ever, never, never happen ever again!
Now with 9/11 and the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" (U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T) Act (how much time, do you suppose, does it take to come with these acronyms?), the authors are back with a critical look at a drive towards what has very little to do with counterterrorism and quite a bit to do with increasing and centralizing power.
In the past 12 months we've had proposals for a national ID card, a missle defense system, legalized torture, suspension of writ of habeas corpus, a "homeland security" infrastructure that is heavily reliant on security technologies of dubious value. Basically the only thing that has changed that would have prevented the 9/11 are locked Cabin doors and the newfound general awareness that "cooperating with the hijacker" might not be the best policy for passeners.
Also along the way, a steady trickle of stories of missed opportunities, ignored warning and frustrated investingations have come out regarding the FBI and others to use the powers they already do have.
The bulk of the book deals with FBI misdeed during the Cold War and proposes an unfashionable counterrorism strategy that emphasizes the responsibility of actors, not ideology. Basically, trying to treat terrrorism as a crime not as war.
The proposals are a little narrow. Terrorism of the sort represented by al Quaeda is international, not just national. The fight against it will share more with racketeering and global criminal networks. And a world court is needed. I'm not sure if dealing on a purely "case-by-case" basis will do the trick.
Nevertheless, the authors have offered a well reasoned case and in the current climate when we are asked to give up so much with only the assurance of "trust us" we would do to heed their call.
Average customer rating:
|
At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Thomas E. Baker , and
John F. Stack Jr.
Manufacturer: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
Civil Rights & Liberties
| Current Events
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0742535991 |
Book Description
Two hundred and eleven years ago, Congress proposed and the states ratified the Bill of Rights. Since that time, these rights have been challenged over and over again. The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Civil War, the Red Scares during both World Wars, th
Books:
- Logic for Lawyers : A Guide to Clear Legal Thinking
- Modern Real Estate Practice in Pennsylvania
- Monster
- Natural Swimming Pools: Inspiration For Harmony With Nature (Schiffer Design Book)
- Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Law)
- Operation Lucifer : The Chase Capture and Trial of Adolf Hitler
- Outrageous Misconduct
- Outrageous Misconduct
- Patent Strategy: For Researchers and Research Managers
- Patents, Copyrights & Trademarks for Dummies
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Four to Score
- Deep Ministry in a Shallow World: Not- So- Secret Findings about Youth Ministry
- Treatise on Pineal Gland and Melatonin
- A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier
- Animal Anatomy for Artists: The Elements of Form
- Breaking the Fine Rain of Death: African American Health Issues and a Womanist Ethic of Care
- Animals Eating: How Animals Chomp, Chew, Slurp and Swallow
- On the Beaten Track: Tourism, Art, and Place
- Walks and Talks of an American Farmer In England
- Visual Motion and its Role in the Stabilization of Gaze
Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America
Paul Revere's Ride
Bound Away: Virginia and the Westward Movement
Washington's Crossing (Pivotal Moments in American History)
The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History
