Home
Law
National Security Secrecy: Comparative Effects on Democracy and the Rule of Law

National Security Secrecy: Comparative Effects on Democracy and the Rule of Law

Name: National Security Secrecy: Comparative Effects on Democracy and the Rule of Law
Brand: Cambridge University Press
SKU: 9781107576476
Price: 416.13 HKD
Availability: InStock
Author: Sudha Setty
ISBN: 9781107576476

By Sudha Setty

Cambridge University Press July 2017

Specifications

ISBN-13: 9781107576476
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Publication: July 2017
Format: Paperback
Jurisdiction: U.S. ? Countri(es) for reference only

Details

Excessive government secrecy in the name of counterterrorism has had a corrosive effect on democracy and the rule of law.

In the United States, when controversial national security programs were run by the Bush and Obama administrations - including in areas of targeted killings, torture, extraordinary rendition, and surveillance - excessive secrecy often prevented discovery of those actions. Both administrations insisted they acted legally, but often refused to explain how they interpreted the governing law to justify their actions. They also fought to keep Congress from exercising oversight, to keep courts from questioning the legality of these programs, and to keep the public in the dark. Similar patterns have arisen in other democracies around the world.

In National Security Secrecy, Sudha Setty takes a critical and comparative look at these problems and demonstrates how government transparency, privacy, and accountability should provide the basis for reform.

Introduction

Part I. The Infrastructure of Secrecy in the United States:

1. Executive branch secrecy

2. Congressional complicity

3. An overly deferential judiciary

Part II. Comparative Perspectives on Transparency:

4. International and supranational norms

5. The United Kingdom

6. India

Part III. Societal Tolerance for National Security Secrecy:

7. Public and political resilience

8. Individual privacy and secrecy: a matter of contract or a human right?