Emergency Powers

¶ … enemy of the state and a common everyday criminal. This claim is used too suggests that different responses are needed to deter or combat these people and their behaviors. Support This argument is backed up in many ways leading to the discussion on privacy, terrorism and the rule of law. Mansfield (2006) wrote "This home truth gets little recognition from critics of the Bush administration's surveillance activities in the war on terror.

Some of its defenders, too, seem unaware of the full extent to which the Constitution addresses the problems we face today and how useful and relevant its principles prove to be. Warrant This idea warranted, according to this author, that the president, at the time, George W. Bush needed to extra measures to protect the people of the U.S.A. acting as the executive in chief.

The laws that were once applicable before the war on terror, needed to be revised to distinguish between enemies of the state and common criminals. Backing The author backed up this claim with many examples of confusing what a terrorist is and what a common garden variety criminal demonstrates himself as. A discussion of the U.S. Constitution provides much of the backing of this argument.

The author wrote "in combining law and discretion, the Framers of the Constitution made a deliberate departure from the sorry history of previous republics that alternated between anarchy and tyranny. The Framers made a strong executive in order to have both power and security, and they took note of emergency occasions when more power gives more security." Rebuttal The author does not provide a rebuttal in this article. A useful rebuttal however would suggest that the appearance of terrorism as a true emergency is overrated and not accurate. Fear and.