Thinking Twice: Terror
Law and disorder
By Dan Edelstein
On a wintry day in Washington, an unpopular president handed power over to a younger, charismatic leader known for his rhetorical prowess. As they were from opposing parties, the new president moved swiftly to undo much of his predecessor's work, notably freeing prisoners who had been imprisoned under controversial legislation. Overturning the legislation itself, however, proved to be another matter.
These events took place 208 years ago, when Thomas Jefferson succeeded John Adams. There was no Guantánamo Bay prison at the time, but the Adams administration had passed a series of Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), under which individuals could be jailed, and resident aliens deported, for criticizing the government.
The price of countering terrorism
By Martha Crenshaw
We need a deeper understanding of the long-term political and social consequences of counterterrorism policies in democracies. Professor Edelstein is correct that extraordinary measures are often adopted in haste and without much public discussion and remain law long after the crisis has passed. In fact, governments may use a crisis to press for changes in the law that publics, courts and parliaments had previously resisted (a decision-making pattern of "solutions in search of problems"). No governments started from scratch on 9/11. They built on a long history of legislation and regulation in the terrorism arena.
Share This Story