The Big Chill: First Amendment Protections and the War on Terror

  • Martin Wallenstein


This chapter contains an examination of the impact on First Amendment rights from the so-called “war on terror.” Perhaps nothing widens the ideological divide between crime control advocates and civil liberties advocates quite so dramatically as discussion of the war on terror. Herb Packer’s notion about the dynamic tension between advocates of crime control and advocates of civil liberties informs the debate. Crime control advocates see the greatest threat as coming from law-breakers and thus generally trust governmental institutions, while civil liberties advocates see unchecked governmental power as the greatest threat. Strategies employed in the war on terror may seriously disrupt the delicate balance necessary to allow order and liberty to coexist. The direct and indirect effects on First Amendment protections are formidable.


Criminal Justice System Civil Liberty Crime Control Attorney General Bush Administration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abrams, N. (2006, November 1). The developments in U.S. anti-terrorism law: Checks and balances undermined. J. Int. Crim. Just. 4(5), 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, P., & Shane, S. (2009, April 21). Pressure grows to investigate interrogations: Obama assures C.I.A. it won’t be blamed. NY Times pp. 1, 18.Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, N. (2007, September 17). Music scholar barred from U.S., but no one will tell her why. NYTimes pp. B1, B5.Google Scholar
  4. Bowdler, N. (2007, September 25). Hostile intentions. The BBC World Service Newshour. Google Scholar
  5. Burton, A. (2006). Fixing FISA for long war: Regulating warrantless surveillance in the age of terrorism. Pierce L. Rev. 4, 381.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, D., & Dempsey, J.X. (2002). Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  7. Deflin, M., & Maybin, L. (2005). Interpol and the policing of international terrorism: Developments and dynamics since September 11. In: L.L. Snowden & B.C. Whitsel (Eds.), Terrorism: Research, Readings, and Realities (pp. 175–195). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  8. Dick, P. (2002). The Minority Report. New York: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1956).Google Scholar
  9. Donadio, R., Mazzetti, M., & Shane S. (2009, November 5). Italy convicts 23 Americans, most working for C.I.A., of abducting Muslim cleric. NY Times, p. A15.Google Scholar
  10. Dowd, M. (2005, January 30). Torture chicks gone wild. NY Times, p. C17. Retrieved from Proquest Historical Newspapers, The New York Times (1851–2006).Google Scholar
  11. Enmund v Florida, 481 U.S. 137 (1982).Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, L., Ho, D., & Segal, J. (2005, April). The Supreme Court during crisis: How war affects only non-war cases. N. Y. Univ. Law. Rev. 80, 1.Google Scholar
  13. Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).Google Scholar
  14. Filisko, G.M. (2006, April 6). Moussaoui sentence debated: Allowing the death penalty for failing to warn could lead to its expansion some scholars say. ABA J. E-Report, p. 3.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, W. (2009, March 24). Censorship seen in exclusion of foreign scholars. Interpress Service. Retrieved through Lexis/Nexis.Google Scholar
  16. Glaberson, W. (2007, September 25). Court advances military trials for detainees. NY Times pp. 1, 26.Google Scholar
  17. Greenhouse, L. (2006, April 4). Justices decline terrorism case of a U.S. citizen: Padilla falls vote short; results leave detention intact – one opinion warns government. NY Times pp. 1, 19.Google Scholar
  18. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006).Google Scholar
  19. How FISA process works. (2006, February 7). The New York Times, p. A18.Google Scholar
  20. Hudson, D., Jr. (2006, April 7). Padilla question leaves unanswered questions: Supreme Court denies review but the issue of detainee status still alive. ABA J. E-Report.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, C., & Tate, J. (2009, April 17). Newly released Bush documents detail torture tactics; Obama: C.I.A. officers won’t be prosecuted. Boston Globe p. A2.Google Scholar
  22. Johnston, D. (2009, August 25). Rendition to continue, but with better oversight, U.S. says. NY Times p. 8.Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan, J., Skolnick, J., & Feeley, M. (1991). Criminal Justice: Introductory Cases And Material, 5th ed., Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, S.J. (2007, September 27). Patriot Act sections on search and surveillance are ruled unconstitutional. NY Times pp. 1, 29.Google Scholar
  25. Mayer, J. (2005, February 14). Outsourcing torture: The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program. New Yorker, 81. Retrieved from Platinum Periodicals Document I.D. No. 831855781.Google Scholar
  26. Mazzetti, M., & Shane, S. (2009, May 24). Rendition to continue but with better oversight. NY Times p. 1.Google Scholar
  27. Minow, M. (2005, May). What is the greatest evil? [Review of the book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, by Michael Ignatieff]. Harv. L. Rev. 118, 2134.Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell, K., & Burgess, S. (Winter 2006). Disappearing dockets: When public dockets have holes, the public’s right to open judicial proceedings is jeopardized. News Media & Law 30, 4–6.Google Scholar
  29. Packer, H. (1968). The Limits of Criminal Sanction. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rashbaum, W.K. (2006, April 24). Terror case may offer clues into police use of informants. NY Times pp. B1, B4.Google Scholar
  31. Rashbaum, W.K. (2006, April 25). Police informer in terror trial takes stand: Recorded a defendant accused in a bomb plot. NY Times pp. B1, B6.Google Scholar
  32. Rashbaum, W.K., & Baker, A. (2009, September 23). How using imam in terror inquiry backfired on New York police. NY Times pp. A1, A4.Google Scholar
  33. Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press (2003). Secret Justice: Secret Dockets.
  34. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).Google Scholar
  35. Santana, R. (2009, April 18). Groups disappointed U.S. not prosecuting CIA agents. Boston Globe p. A4. Google Scholar
  36. Savage, D. (2007, October 8). “State secrets” case may get airing. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from,0,644302.story?col
  37. Savage, C. (2009, September 23). Justice department planning to limit government’s use of state secrets privilege. NY Times p. A16.Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz, J. (2009, March 18). U.S. urged to lift antiterror ban on foreign scholars. NY Times p. A18.Google Scholar
  39. Simondsen, C., & Spindlove, J. (2004). Terrorism Today: The Past, the Players, the Future, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Snowdon, L. & Whitsel, B. (2005) Terrorism: Research, Readings, and Realities., Upper Saddle River, N.J.,Allyn & Bacon/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Strassfeld, R. (2004, June). Symposium: Law, loyalty and treason: How can the law regulate ­loyalty without imperiling it? Lose in Viet Nam, bring the boys home. N.C.L. Rev. 82, 1891.Google Scholar
  42. Susman, T. (2010, July 16). Judge adds years to ex-attorney’s sentence; Lynne Stewart was ­convicted of helping her terrorist client contact his followers. Susman, T (2010, July 16) The Los Angeles Times Part AA; p. 8. Retreived from Lexis/Nexis.Google Scholar
  43. Swarns, R. (2009, August 31). Cheney offers sharp defense of CIA tactics. NY Times pp. 1A, 9A.Google Scholar
  44. Thomas, M. (2006, October). The First Amendment right of access to docket sheets. Calif. Law. Rev. 94, 1534–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987).Google Scholar
  46. The United States Code, Title 22 Section 2656.Google Scholar
  47. United Press International (2004, January 8). Group challenges court’s hidden docket. Retrieved from Scholar
  48. U.S. Constitution, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 8.Google Scholar
  49. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953).Google Scholar
  50. Weiss, D.C. (2007, October 9). Supreme Court rejects CIA detention case. ABA J. Retrieved from http//
  51. Whoriskey, P. & Eggen, D. (2008 January 23) Judge sentences Padilla to 17 years, cites his ­detention, The Washington Post, Washington Post.Com, Retrieved from Lexis/Nexis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communications and TheaterJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations