Can the country carry out a prolonged preventive war against terrorism without gutting fundamental rights?
I think that’s a great risk, and I worry very much about the role that prevention plays. I understand it, I’m sympathetic to it, but I want to make sure that there is a jurisprudence that constrains it. But no matter how carefully you construct these constraints, won’t there be an inevitable erosion of the rights you’ve spent your life defending? I think there will be some erosion. The question is how much, and the question is of what kind. I’m not the one who was pushing for the preventive state. The terrorists are the ones who are creating the need for preventive states. It’s going to happen no matter who the president is. So the question is not whether it’s going to happen, but whether it happens with or without constraints, whether it happens above the radar or below the radar. The Bush Administration wanted it below the radar. I want to see it above the radar. In the area of security, you talk about torture warrants. The idea is that rather than have whatever torture is done under
Related Questions
- What is the coverage for services incurred in a "disaster" country (e.g., terrorism/war) under the Student Health Insurance Plan?
- Is it not self-evident that even prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have certain unalienable Rights?"
- Pakistan orders manhunt for Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. What happened to Mullah Omar?
