view pdf

Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways

By Alan Dershowitz

January 2006

Dear Editor/Producer:

Is the United States prepared to respond to a nuclear build-up in Iran ? Or to react to North Korea ? As the dawn of a nuclear arms race in third world countries is upon us – how do we respond? At what point can the United States and other nations around the world respond with force to the imminent danger posed by this threat?

Alan Dershowitz has done the first systematic study of this and in his new book, Preemption, A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (W.W.Norton/$ 24.95 /February 2006), he analyzes the preemptive policy in the United States and how it effects the rights of the American people and the effect it has on nations around the world. “There is a desperate need in the world for a coherent and widely accepted jurisprudence of preemption and prevention, in the context of both self-defense and defense of others,” says Dershowitz in his new book, “There is also a pressing need for a neutral body or other fair mechanism to apply any such jurisprudence.”

The United States maintains today that a shift in emphasis on preemptive and preventive uses of force is a response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 , an event that brought home the very need to assess potentially catastrophic threats before the country is attacked. In 2002, President Bush adopted a new emphasis on preemption in his administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) that allows for a broadening of the interpretation of preemption to now include that force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack – all to ensure that a serious threat does not “gather” or grow overtime. The strategy has significant ramifications within the sphere of United States foreign policy. It also comes very close to home as it seemingly threatens the personal freedoms of each and every American.

Do we allow Iran to continue to develop their nuclear abilities, or do we try to prevent it? What are the consequences of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran to stop the build-up? What are the consequences if nothing is done? The highest burden and most difficult decision is when a nation contemplates action that endangers innocent lives, even if it does so to protect innocent lives. A moral compass needs to be established so that those at risk are protected, and that a failure to take action doesn’t result in a situation that ends up endangering even more innocent lives.

Dershowitz examines both sides of the argument. He looks to define the intrinsic relationship between liberty and security. He characterizes the role of the United Nations Security Council as we move through the 21 st century. He applies the current methodology of preemption to situations unfolding daily. Is President Bush justified in his once-secret domestic spying program – an effort the president says is a “terrorist surveillance program?” Do we allow lawmakers on Capitol Hill to expand the Patriot Act, AND is the United States government within its rights to ask Google, Yahoo, and other major search engine companies for the search records of their users? Why all of this now and what does it all mean to Americans? What is preemption and when is preventative use of force allowed to flush out terrorists and to protect the United States from terrorist attacks long before they happen?

Please consider an interview with Alan Dershowitz to discuss the options, the outcomes, and the responsibilities that come with a shift from being a reactive nation to a proactive nation. No one person has presented the intricacies that propel the debate over preemption like Dershowitz does in Preemption. This thought-provoking and timely book will leave you thinking very differently about the consequences of our nation’s response to the imminent threats of nuclear war and terrorist attacks.

< back to prsamples