OxBlog

# Posted 6:39 AM by Patrick Belton

OXBLOG READING LIST: Michael Ignatieff, of whom this blog thinks the world, has a new book out with Princeton University Press on political ethics in an age of terror. Rather graciously, they've put out the first chapter for free. This includes Ignatieff's suggestions for moral criteria for antiterrorist actions, which, as they tend to be consequentialist, conservative (in the sense of incrementalist), and in the spirit of the New Haven School (i.e., phrased in terms of a public order of human dignity), I think are likely to be beating down the appropriate track:

As a contribution to this process of standard setting, I would propose the following tests for policy makers. First, a democratic war on terror needs to subject all coercive measures to the dignity test--do they violate individual dignity? Foundational commitments to human rights should always preclude cruel and unusual punishment, torture, penal servitude, and extrajudicial execution, as well as rendition of suspects to rights-abusing countries. Second, coercive measures need to pass the conservative test--are departures from existing due process standards really necessary? Do they damage our institutional inheritance? Such a standard would bar indefinite suspension of habeas corpus and require all detention, whether by civil or military authorities, to be subject to judicial review. Those deprived of rights--citizens and noncitizens--must never lose access to counsel. A third assessment of counterterror measures should be consequentialist. Will they make citizens more or less secure in the long run? This effectiveness test needs to focus not just on the short term, but on the long-term political implications of measures. Will they strengthen or weaken political support for the state undertaking such measures? A further consideration is the last resort test: have less coercive measures been tried and failed? Another important issue is whether measures have passed the test of open adversarial review by legislative and judicial bodies, either at the time, or as soon as necessity allows. Finally, "decent respect for the opinions of mankind," together with the more pragmatic necessity of securing the support of other nations in a global war on terror, requires any state fighting terrorism to respect its international obligations as well as the considered opinions of its allies and friends. If all of this adds up to a series of constraints that tie the hands of our governments, so be it. It is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.

For more, see The New York Review of Books's review and Ignatieff's transcript from a roundtable at the Carnegie Council. (American Prospect has a review article by James Mann, who we also like, but you either need to be a subscriber or read it in Border's....)

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion