In the Name of National Security

Abstract

September 11 , 2001 was not the beginning of the War on Terror. Indeed, America has been fighting terrorism and terrorist activity for over thirty years, from the Beirut bombing to the attack on the USS Cole. Over the course of this new-aged battle, the United States has been struggling with the proper balance between national security and our civil liberties. This struggle became exponentially more complicated after the 9/11 attacks and ensuing deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans. Consequently, both American foreign and domestic policy has included provisions that challenge our Constitutional rights and freedoms in the name of national security.
This problem presents an interesting challenge for the court system. On the one hand, the courts must face the fact that we are at war with not only an enemy but also an ideology. Ruling against all violations of our civil liberties will inhibit the tools that law enforcement need in order to combat terrorism and keep our country safe. On the other hand, the courts must also keep protecting our Constitutional rights their primary objective. Regardless of the threat level, the courts have a history of protecting our rights, particularly our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. It is in this atmosphere in which the Roberts Court ruled on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Humanitarian Law Project on June 21, 2010.