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.

In The Fragile Balance of Terror, the foremost experts on nuclear policy and strategy offer insight into an era rife with more nuclear powers. Some of these new powers suffer domestic instability, others are led by pathological personalist dictators, and many are situated in highly unstable regions of the world—a volatile mix of variables. The increasing fragility of deterrence in the twenty-first century is created by a confluence of forces: military technologies that create vulnerable arsenals, a novel information ecosystem that rapidly transmits both information and misinformation, nuclear rivalries that include three or more nuclear powers, and dictatorial decision making that encourages rash choices. The nuclear threats posed by India, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea are thus fraught with danger. The Fragile Balance of Terror, edited by Vipin Narang and Scott D. Sagan, brings together a diverse collection of rigorous and creative scholars who analyze how the nuclear landscape is changing for the worse. Scholars, pundits, and policymakers who think that the spread of nuclear weapons can create stable forms of nuclear deterrence in the future will be forced to think again. Contributors: Giles David Arceneaux, Mark S. Bell, Christopher Clary, Peter D. Feaver, Jeffrey Lewis, Rose McDermott, Nicholas L. Miller, Vipin Narang, Ankit Panda, Scott D. Sagan, Caitlin Talmadge, Heather Williams, Amy Zegart

In seeking to evaluate the efficacy of post-9/11 homeland security expenses--which have risen by more than a trillion dollars, not including war costs--the common query has been, "Are we safer?" This, however, is the wrong question. Of course we are "safer"--the posting of a single security guard at one building's entrance enhances safety. The correct question is, "Are any gains in security worth the funds expended?"In this engaging, readable book, John Mueller and Mark Stewart apply risk and cost-benefit evaluation techniques to answer this very question. This analytical approach has been used throughout the world for decades by regulators, academics, and businesses--but, as a recent National Academy of Science study suggests, it has never been capably applied by the people administering homeland security funds. Given the limited risk terrorism presents, expenses meant to lower it have for the most part simply not been worth it. For example, to be considered cost-effective, increased American homeland security expenditures would have had each year to have foiled up to 1,667 attacks roughly like the one intended on Times Square in 2010--more than four a day. Cataloging the mistakes that the US has made--and continues to make--in managing homeland security programs, Terror, Security, and Money has the potential to redirect our efforts toward a more productive and far more cost-effective course.

The United States' War on Terror lacks identifiable enemies and obvious front lines. It is fought on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan by conventional military forces, in the deserts of Yemen and mountains of Pakistan by Special Operations forces, in the detention centers of Guantánamo Bay by lawyers, and on the domestic front by intelligence agencies. The tools used in this amorphous war have raised questions concerning the nature and scope of executive power, as well as about broader constitutional issues regarding the balance of presidential and legislative war powers. Given the distinctive and potentially endless nature of the War on Terror, it is vitally important to clarify and resolve these issues. Restoring the Balance: War Powers in an Age of Terror advances a theory of war powers that provides a framework for the effective and efficient conduct of the War on Terror. It argues that the constitutional grant of the power to declare war accorded Congress should be understood as the power to give the president extraordinary domestic legislative authority in order to defend the nation. In the absence of a declaration of war, then, Congress's legislative power provides a meaningful check on the ability of the president to alter domestic laws. Restoring the Balance challenges the conventional arguments on both sides of the debate over war powers, using constitutional theory, case law, and political precedent to provide a pragmatic, policy-based theory on the question of war powers in the age of international terror. Casting the "declare war" clause in a new light, it develops an original constitutional interpretation of the appropriate balance between presidential and congressional war powers. Author Seth Weinberger advances a novel understanding of the power to declare war, arguing that the president has broad inherent constitutional powers to deploy U.S. armed forces abroad without specific authorization from Congress. However, without such authorization the president is limited when taking actions that affect the legal status of persons within the United States itself. In short, Restoring the Balance demands that Congress recognize its constitutionally endowed responsibility and take a more substantial role in protecting domestic civil liberties and the fragile balance created by the Constitution.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States went to war. With thousands of Americans killed, billions of dollars in damage, and aggressive military and security measures in response, we are still living with the war a decade later. A change of presidential administration has not dulled controversy over the most fundamental objectives, strategies and tactics of the war, or whether it is even a war. This book clears the air over the meaning of 9/11, and sets the stage for a reasoned, clear, and considered discussion of the future with a collection of essays commemorating the 10th anniversary of the attacks. The contributors include supporters and critics of the war on terrorism, policymakers and commentators, insiders and outsiders, and some of the leading voices inside and outside government.

One of America's most distinguished defenders of civil liberties presents measures that will prevent terrorism and still uphold our democratic values The greatest danger facing the world today, says Alan M. Dershowitz, comes from religiously inspired, state sponsored terrorist groups that seek to develop weapons of mass destruction for use against civilian targets. In his newest book, Dershowitz argues passionately and persuasively that global terrorism is a phenomenon largely of our own making and that we must and can take steps to reduce the frequency and severity of terrorist acts. Analyzing recent acts of terrorism and our reaction to them, Dershowitz explains that terrorism is successful when the international community gives in to the demands of terrorists--or even tries to understand and eliminate the "root causes" of terrorism. He discusses extreme approaches to wiping out international terrorism that would work if we were not constrained by legal, moral, and humanitarian considerations. And then, given that we do operate under such constraints, he offers a series of proposals that would effectively reduce the frequency and severity of international terrorism by striking a balance between security and liberty.

A scathing critique of President Bush's legal advisors, who expanded the reach of his executive powers while creating highly controversial policies for fighting the War on Terror. Argues that these advisors, blinded by ideology, provided largely bad legal advice that caused great harm, and ultimately was unnecessary for national security.

This lively biography of America’s most famous traitor offers a new perspective on his terrible legacy as well as life in Revolutionary Era Connecticut. On September 6, 1781, Connecticut native Benedict Arnold and a force of 1,700 British soldiers and loyalists took Fort Griswold and burnt New London to the ground. The brutality of the invasion galvanized the new nation, and “Remember New London!” would become a rallying cry for troops under General Lafayette. In Homegrown Terror, Eric D. Lehman chronicles the events leading up to the attack and highlights this key transformation in Arnold—the point where he went from betraying his comrades to massacring his neighbors and destroying their homes. This defining incident forever marked him as a symbol of evil, turning an antiheroic story about weakness of character and missed opportunity into one about the nature of treachery itself. Homegrown Terror draws upon a variety of primary sources and perspectives, from the traitor himself to his former comrades like Jonathan Trumbull and Silas Deane, to the murdered Colonel Ledyard. Rethinking Benedict Arnold through the lens of this terrible episode, Lehman sheds light on the ethics of the dawning nation, and the way colonial America responded to betrayal and terror.

This valuable new title profiles more than twenty terrorist organizations operating in the Middle East and their affiliate groups worldwide. Designed as a complete, indispensable guide, the book's profiles describe essential characteristics, external relations and financial support and more.