The book, The Lesser Evil, is a chilling realization focused at the policy makers that respond to terrorism. The ultimate question Michael Ignatieff attempts to ask is whether democracies are strong enough to handle the dangers that threaten these institutions and whether or not they are absolutely committed to defend them. Ignatieff begins his book by telling the readers that democracy’s answer to defeating terrorism not only requires violence, but may also require coercion, deception, secrecy, and violation of rights. He then asks how can democracies resort to these conclusions without destroying those values, which that nation stands for.
The first section of this book attempts to draw a line between a wholesome libertarian position maintaining that the abuses of human rights can never be justified and a solely pragmatic perspective that judges antiterrorist measures by their efficiency. Through this middle line he argues that violating these actions by either torture, targeted killing, or illegal detention could push that nation from acting upon the lesser evil reaction then slowly becoming the greater evil.
He then takes the issue of whether emergency derogation of rights reserve or threaten the rule of law and what role human rights should play in deciding a policy during a terrorist emergency. The main argument here introduces the theme of changing laws during a terrorist emergency and the effect these changes have during non-threatening periods or surviving after the decision and dealing with aftermath examining the status of human rights.
In the third and fourth chapter, Ignatieff displays why liberal democracies tend to overreact to terrorist threats and how a nation shifts to terrorism. He mentions that ...
... middle of paper ...
...aw and Policy,” (Edge Hill University July 2010), 17.
McGovern, “Countering Terror or Counter-Productive?” 23.
David Bonner, “The United Kingdom Response to Terrorism,” Terrorism and Political Violence, 4: 4, 1992, 180.
Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil, 54.
Robert Shapiro and Lawrence Jacobs, “Who Leads and Who Follows? U.S. Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy,” in Brigitte Nacos et al., Decision-making in a Glass House (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), 225.
Public Priorities: Deficit Rising, Terrorism Slipping, Pew Research Center Publications, January 23, 2012, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2178/state-of-the-union-economy-jobs-iran-military-spending-social-security-medicare-immigration-tax-fairness-environment.
Daniel Byman, The Five Front War. The Better Way to Fight Global Jihad, 153.
Byman, The Five Front War, 143.
Ibid., 147.
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Jeffrey David Simon, The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), 188-89.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
Traister, Bryce. "Terrorism Before The Letter: Benito Cereno And The 9/11 Commission Report." Canadian Review Of American Studies 43.1 (2013): 23-47.MasterFILE Elite. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
Berry, Jeffrey. Goldman, Jerry (2008). The Challenge of Democracy (9th ed.). Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Linder, Doug (2007).
Peterson, Paul E. "The President's Dominance in Foreign Policy Making." Political Science Quarterly 109.2 (Summer, 1994): 215-234.
Getty, J. Arch, and Oleg V. Naumov. The Road to Terror. London, England: Yale University Press, 1999.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink: a Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-395-14002-1.
Rothe, D. & Muzzatti, S.L. 2004. Enemies everywhere: Terrorism, moral panic and US civil society. Critical Criminology. 1(12): 327–350.
Introduction Human rights are fundamental rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion, language, or other status. And these human rights violations are in some countries like Central African Republic, Syria, USA, Ireland, and etcetera. One example is Syria, where the people afraid live here. Therefore, article 3 of the Universal Human Rights Act is violated in Syria. This essay seeks to consider the human rights violations in Syria.
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
Zakaria, F. (2007). The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (Revised Edition). New York: W. W. Norton.
Layne, Christopher 1994 “Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace,” International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2, Autumn
There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion. A general definition of human rights is that they are rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, simply because they are human. It is the idea that ‘all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.’