Presidential Policies on Terrorism: From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama

This multifaceted volume reveals how interactions among transnational terrorism, technology, legal reasoning, presidential assertiveness in foreign and defense policy, and domestic politics have transformed not only the way the United States uses force but the United States itself. Donna G. Starr-Deelen focuses on exploring the legal arguments offered by recent U.S. administrations to justify their response to terrorism while suggesting that Harold Koh's seminal work, The National Security Constitution, does a splendid job of characterizing how the branches of government interact—executive initiative, congressional acquiescence, and judicial tolerance—to produce this response. As her historical survey unfolds, however, Starr-Deelen's narrative encounters other variables that shape the legal context of U.S. counterterrorism and defense policies. In other words, her work offers insights into how the U.S. government has adapted to conduct combat operations on a virtually continuous basis. Starr-Deelen's analysis suggests that since the Great Communicator entered office, all presidents have done pretty much what they pleased when it comes to responding to the threats posed by violent nonstate actors and state-sponsored terrorism. Political exigencies and strategic imperatives, not some well-reasoned legal treatise, drive the decision to treat terrorists as either a criminal problem or a military threat. The legal reasoning supplied by various administrations to justify these activities, as Starr-Deelen reluctantly concludes, is so creative that it sometimes strains the credulity of even the most generous observers. Indeed, given the congressional acquiescence and judicial tolerance she documents, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the legal wrangling over the “war on terrorism” is nothing more than the stuff of partisan politics. When it comes to chief executives, freedom of action is considered to be a very “good thing”; they are all happy to capitalize on the precedents established by their predecessors, regardless of party affiliation.