"In an age of global terrorism, can the pursuit of security be reconciled with liberal democratic values and legal principles? During its "global war on terrorism," the Bush administration argued that the United States was in a new kind of conflict, one in which peacetime domestic law was irrelevant and international law inapplicable. From 2001 to 2009, the United States thus waged war on terrorism in a "no-law zone." Gabriella Blum and Philip Heymann reject the argument that traditional American values embodied in domestic and international law can be ignored in any sustainable effort to keep the United States safe from terrorism. In Laws, Outlaws, and Terrorists, they demonstrate that the costs are great and the benefits slight from separating security and the rule of law. Blum and Heymann argue that the harsh measures employed by the Bush administration were authorized too broadly, resulted in too much harm, and often proved to be counterproductive for security. Blum and Heymann recognize that a severe terrorist attack might justify changing the balance between law and security, but they call for reasoned judgment instead of a wholesale abandonment of American values. They also argue that being open to negotiations and seeking to win the moral support of the communities from which the terrorists emerge are noncoercive strategies that must be included in any future efforts to reduce terrorism."--pub. desc.

Introduction: The war on terrorism : lessons from the past nine years -- The complicated relationship between counterterrorism and legality -- International law, the President, and the war on terrorism -- The role of government lawyers in counterterrorism -- Targeted killing -- Detention outside the combat zone -- Interrogation -- Negotiating with terrorists -- The case for sustained efforts to reduce moral support for terrorism -- Conclusion: After the next attack.