Search

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent actions by the Bush administration, remind us that the federal courts often are required to resolve questions of individual rights in lieu of foreign policy concerns. This paper explores judicial influences in foreign policy litigation across all three levels of the federal judiciary to determine whether judges systematically rule in favor of foreign affairs when confronted with civil liberties challenges. Using an original dataset of federal cases from 1946-2000, the paper provides evidence that the federal judiciary is extremely deferential to governmental authority in the conduct of foreign relations. While the federal judiciary is prone to support foreign policy interests, it is important to understand the conditions under which these judges will rule in favor of civil liberties claims. An important influence is the ideological preferences of judges. The empirical results indicate that more liberal judges -- as measured by partisan affiliations of the appointing president -- are more likely to render decisions in favor of civil liberties. This result holds for each level of the federal judiciary, although the results are more pronounced in the Supreme Court, less so for the Appeals Courts, and the weakest for District Courts. A second important influence involves the presence of a national security defense. The empirical data suggest that lower court judges are significantly affected by these situations; systematically ruling in favor of foreign affairs. However, Supreme Court justices do not respond in a similar fashion; the presence of a specific national security defense is not significantly related to judicial decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In light of the United States' recently elevated attention to terrorism, the issue of national security has become of great importance to the American public in recent years. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) is one of the most significant courts in the judiciary to deal with such issues. Curiously, the business of the court is very different in comparison to other federal courts. The problem is attempting to balance important national security issues with ensuring that civil rights are not violated due to the secret nature of the court. The paper delves into analyzing known functions of the court, reasons for secrecy, structural issues, the quasi-executive nature, affects of the Patriot Act,wiretapping issues and purpose as stated in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. In doing so, we reveal problems that arise with lack of oversight, the non-adversarial process, the structure of the court, ex parte opinions, and the constitutional and civil liberties issues in general. We believe the court could be structured otherwise and still achieve national security objectives. Among the suggestions are using a panel of judges, a Special Amicus to represent the accused, and doing away with the current appeals process the court has. Our arguments are normative due to the secrecy of the court, and our suggestions will promote legitimacy and accountability within the FISA Court. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivist theories of securitization are built on a foundation of communicative action tenets. While this represents an important and innovative advance in international relations theory, securitization ignores some of the components involved in a successful communicative act. Williams (2003) calls for securitization theory to incorporate the hitherto ignored effects of mass media and in this paper we answer this call. We first show that securitization's specification of leaders' speech acts and audiences' legitimative discourse presumes mass media actors are indifferent in how they convey leader representations and justifications of crises. We take this presumption as an empirical question and execute a study of whether the national presses of ally countries differently emphasized the frames Bush invoked in their news coverage of key September 11th speeches. We show from comparisons of chi-square distributions and regression analyses that, far from being passive conveyers of speech frames, the national presses of the US, Canada, France, Britain and Ireland (1) did not convey all of Bush's securitizing problem representations and response justifications proportionate to the extent Bush invoked them in his speeches, and (2) that for each national press factors based on professional norms and/or organizational routines increased the likelihood that a speech sentence would be conveyed in a news story. We discuss the implications of our findings for how securitization theory should conceptualize media actors when redressing this gap in its explanatory models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented on the effects of terrorism on democratic values, civil liberties, and the rule of law, particularly in the U.S., as of January 2016. Also cited are the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., the securitization of the U.S. as cited by author Ivan Greenberg in his book "Surveillance in America: Critical Analysis of the FBI, 1920 to the Present," and the introduction of laws to prevent terrorism in the country.

Since 9/11 scholars have increasingly analyzed terrorism prosecutions affecting judicial behavior during wartime. Whereas research centers on judicial deference to the executive, an under-explored topic concerns how the degree of the threat posed affects outcomes, which is vital to explaining behavior as judges wrestle with competing demands of safety and freedom. Although studies anecdotally suggest different levels of terror prosecutions based on the actual threat to public safety, empirical analyses of terrorism cases have not employed a systematic measurement of the degree of the terror threat posed. We construct a multi-tiered terrorism case type variable that registers distinguishable types of terrorism threats, which then may generate different degrees of judicial deference. We draw off Chesney's typologies to identify terrorism-related prosecutions that consider the nature of the threat that terrorism poses to the polity to test whether judges exhibit different levels of deference in accordance with type of terrorism case at issue. We construct four separate terror threat variables, each one with a different ordinal measure of the terror threat, and we test each variable in a judicial decision-making model based on an original dataset of U.S. District Court post-9/11 USA PATRIOT Act cases. We expect to find judges give more deference to prosecutions punishing egregious terrorism acts but less deference to prosecutions attempting to prevent terrorism by using strategies of suspect surveillance, anti-terrorist funding mechanisms, pre-textual prosecutions, which involve minor crimes or non-criminal immigration laws, or cases that do not present a threat. We also expect that the variables reflecting more detailed ordinal measures of a terror threat will perform better than variables with less detailed measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of women in politics has included the analysis of both elite women and the masses in regard to their voting, political activity, and attitudes. Research of the past three decades has shown that women usually hold different political attitudes than men and vote slightly more to the Democratic side than men, this gender gap has been explored in relation to a number of attitudes, few studies have analyzed whether the gender gap is still evident in an issue area that women might be torn in two hypothesized directions The purpose of this study is to conduct an analysis of the gender gap in individual's attitudes toward the appropriateness of torture to prevent future terrorist attacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr., described the mood in Washington as being --not so much bipartisan but non-partisan." With elites unconstrained by party lines, thus, the post-9/11 period presented the nation's Op-Ed columnists with a unique opportunity to deliberate. But did their conversation resemble a deliberative discussion? What shaped columnists' use of rhetorical phrases and themes across time? How, if at all, did the dynamics of the debate affect ordinary people's opinions?Using data from an automated content analysis of all relevant Op-Ed columns, 2001â??2007, this study examines the nature and dynamics of the US Commentariat's debate. Preliminary tests suggest that the columnists' discussion falls short on several key tenets of deliberation. Additional analyses shed light on what factors drive the media conversation, and explore how elite-level information diffusion affects public response to events. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1.The new trends in the U.S. policy toward Africa have recently emerged as a result of the increasing crisis of the strategy that brought to power the Republican Party about eight years ago. The polemics with the Democrats played its role in this process. In particular, there is a clear incapability of the George W. Bush Administration to cope with the "international terrorism" and to obtain recognition of the American global patterns by the bulk of the world community. 2. In Africa these negative for the U.S. policy trends took a shape of the permanent political destabilization and a lack of peace in such key countries as Somalia, Sudan and some other where in one way or another the so called international terrorists (an American term) or their local advocates (in fact the national-patriotic forces that do not accept an American globalization patterns) try to realize their right on sovereign existence in accordance to the U.N. Charter. Besides that, rich with mineral resources the African continent as in the colonial past steadily becomes a sphere of the world big states competition over these minerals control. To protect its modern interests in Africa the Administration in Washington enjoys the extra-ordinary means - such as a foundation of the Unified Combatant Command for Africa or African Command (AFRICOM). In fact the continent becomes one of the strategic spheres for the U.S. armed forces deployment in case of a global or regional conflict. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the issue of military accountability, force protection, and the response of civilian leaderships to terrorist bombings of U.S. military forces in other countries. The importance of accountability in the concept of civil-military relations is discussed. An overview of the terrorist attack against U.S. military forces in Beirut, Lebanon and at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia is presented.

Presents an institutional analysis of foreign policy making since September 11, 2001 in the U.S. Discussion on who is in charge of U.S. national security policy; Impact of the terrorist attacks on the balance of power; Information on developments that resulted from the terror attacks in September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; Role of the executive branch with President George W. Bush and his advisors in leading the national security policy.

After the attack on the World Trade Center, a struggle immediately began over how to characterize that event. Was it an act of war or a crime? Those who wanted to contain the event within the framework of ordinary politics, to be handled by properly designated officials within pre-existing procedures and language, said the act was a crime, the perpetrators were criminals, and those who aided the criminals should be apprehended and tried in a court of justice. The resulting punishment would complete the event and everything would proceed within ordinary, diachronic, time. The lyrics of God Bless America that spontaneously sounded throughout the country drowned out the discourse of crime. War became the defining word. The country began to speak in a different voice and entered a different mode of time ? a synchronic time in which past, present, and future become mixed up, reversed, and conflated. That song was in fact a late and generic coda to a host of patriotic hymns written by Unionists in the massively disruptive period of the American Civil War. The most famous is Battle Hymn of the Republic (technically, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory) whose verses track the path of the nation through the apocalyptic Book of Revelation in the Bible: ?He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; / He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment seat.? Equally famous is another hymn of that era, My Country, Tis of Thee. It begins with the Puritan nation founders and ends: ?Our father?s God, to thee, / Author of liberty, / To thee we sing; / Long may our land be bright / With freedom?s holy light; / Protect us by thy might, / Great God, our King.? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Terror tactics and campaigns had major, though different effects in the wars in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. In El Salvador, most war dead were unarmed civilians killed directly (not by "collateral damage") and the left suffered disproportionately. But the FMLN guerrillas were able to "stalemate" terror as well as the war, and international protest combined with this factor to reduce terror by the middle of the decade-long war. Also in El Salvador, the initial campaign of terror in 1980-81 led some, to join the guerrillas. In Guatemala the military's terror was unabated until the guerrillas had largely and swiftly been defeated and the indigenous population was, by far, the principle victim of terror. In Nicaragua, terror tactics against civil members of the Sandinista government depleted, and in some areas, removed government civilian presence and, in a larger sense, exhausted the economy in this war of attrition. The U.S. covered over terror in Guatemala, and even more actively did so in El Salvador and was complicit in its perpetuation in Nicaraugua. The "memory" of these years remains, in all three countries and in the U.S., contested terrain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arguing against the impression that in Plato's Republic Thrasymachus merely offers a semicoherent account of justice, this paper demonstrates that it is possible to reconstruct from his utterances an implicit, framing account of the formation of what it calls a 'normative order'-the animation of a society through its orientation toward a particular societal end (e.g., freedom, honor, wealth, etc.)-the social relations that produce and sustain it, and elite's manipulation of both. This reconstructed framework is then developed by offering a reading of the later books of the Republic as an extended, implicit dialectic between Thrasymachus and Socrates regarding the political sociology underlying this account. This developed Thrasymachean account of normative orders is then applied to recent conceptual, institutional, and rhetorical developments in the United States during the terrorism era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do terrorist attacks on their country make citizens more nationalistic? Given the importance of both terrorism and nationalism in modern societies and international relations, this is a critical question. Terror Management Theory (TMT) suggests that because the experience of a terrorist attack raises the salience of our mortality and reminds us of our vulnerability, it will cause us to cling to our own worldview and to reject others' - especially those whom we hold responsible for the attacks. This anxiety leads to intolerance for dissent, hostility toward difference, a desire for vengeance, and increased nationalism (Pyszczynski 2004). We use TMT to generate two hypotheses about the effects of terrorism and fear on nationalism that we then test in four culturally and politically dissimilar cases: the U.S., Spain, Israel/Palestine, and Peru. We find that under certain conditions, TMT does help explain popular responses to terrorist attacks; but our case studies suggest mitigating factors that can potentially weaken its predictive power. The paper is co-written by a professor and three senior undergraduate students, as part of a project at Lebanon Valley College supporting collaborative faculty-student research in the social sciences and humanities. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public opinion toward Muslims and the Islamic faith has become increasingly important not only because of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the ongoing American war efforts in the Middle East, but also because of the growing presence of Muslims in the American citizenry. However, very little is known about how the American public feels about Muslims and Muslim Americans or the factors shaping such feelings. In this paper, we use data from a nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and from the 2004 National Election Study to assess the opinions that Americans hold of both Muslims and Muslim Americans and to examine the variables shaping such evaluations. We find that partisanship and ideology play a relatively minor role in determining these attitudes, while evaluations of Muslims and Muslim Americans are shaped substantially by evaluations of other cultural "outgroups," such as Atheists, gays and lesbians, African-Americans, and even Jews. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the threat posed by agricultural bioterrorism in the U.S. It looks at the vulnerability of the U.S. towards terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001 attack and the significant measures taken by government to provide physical protection to the citizens. The article highlights the ease of an agricultural bioterrorism attack and global economic implications of bioterrorism.

The end of the Cold War brought about fundamental changes for the U.S. defense industry. Faced with reduced military spending, the industry has relied on rapid consolidation and government assistance in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and the opening of foreign markets that were traditionally off-limits to grow and prosper in the post-Cold War world. The U.S. has since become the largest supplier of weapons to the developing world. Given this strategy of targeting foreign markets, it is increasingly important to examine the possible consequences - both in terms of U.S. national security and the socioeconomic conditions within’ the importing state. This study uses cross-sectional time-series data to analyze the relationship between U.S. arms transfers and stability in the developing world. A nonrecursive multiple-equation model is constructed composed of three endogenous variables to define political and social stability. U.S. arms transfers along with fourteen control variables are used to explain variation in the endogenous variables. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the persistent findings of research conducted on public reactions to terrorism is that women report higher levels of threat, personal vulnerability, and anxiety in response to terrorist acts (Fischhoff et al. 2003; Goodwin et al 2005; Skitka et al. 2004; Solomon et al 2005). A series of longitudinal studies suggest that women were more likely to experience posttraumatic distress than men and exhibit more severe symptoms following the September 11 terror attacks (Silver et al 2002; Thomas, 2003). Despite having been more effected by these events, American women were significantly less supportive than men of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of these attacks (Huddy et al 1995; Huddy et al in press). We know little, however, about the origins of these gender differences. While a variety of theoretical explanations have been offered to explain gender differences in support of the governmental use of force - including gender differences in personality, socialization, and contemporary gender roles - the literature on this topic is mixed and inconclusive. In this study, we examine the extent to which the gender gap in support of military action can be traced to gender differences in how men and women react emotionally to terrorism, focusing specifically on anxiety and anger. We draw on data from the National Terrorism and Threat survey, a national panel of Americans interviewed by telephone at three time points between October 2001 and June 2003 to investigate this link between emotional reactions to terrorism and foreign policy attitudes. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article looks at the intersections and interactions between the United States and Mexico in the issue realm of foreign policy. Specifically we will analyze the differences and possible convergence of views on the issues of terrorism, immigration, free trade agreements, drug trafficking, and the external use of foreign policy. We find that while there are differences of opinion, particularly in the application of force in Iraq and on free trade, there is much positive convergence in opinions on the issues of terrorism, immigration, and drug trafficking. Future relations between the United States and Mexico do not need to be conflictual as long as the media and leaders focus on the similarities, rather than differences, in public preferences between the populations of the two states. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]