Laura K. Donohue is a Fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and at the Freeman Spogli Institute's Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. She has written numerous articles on terrorism and counterterrorism in liberal, democratic states and is the author of Counter-Terrorist Law and Emergency Powers in the United Kingdom 1922–2000 (2001).

'Laura Donohue's sophisticated and complex analysis of counterterrorism law in the United Kingdom and United States warns of the risks to fundamental individual rights when democracies establish counterterrorist regimes. Although governments frame their initiatives in terms of a choice between security and freedom, Donohue challenges this logic. Loss of liberty is not necessarily balanced by gain in safety. Compromises intended to be temporary turn out to be permanent. Leaders and citizens of democracies would be well advised to heed this pointed and timely warning.' Martha Crenshaw, Senior Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University

• 1. The perilous dichotomy; 2. Indefinite detention and coercive interrogation; 3. Financial counterterrorism; 4. Privacy and surveillance; 5. Terrorist speech and free expression; 6. Auxiliary precautions.

Laura K. Donohue is a Fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and at the Freeman Spogli Institute's Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. She has written numerous articles on terrorism and counterterrorism in liberal, democratic states and is the author of Counter-Terrorist Law and Emergency Powers in the United Kingdom 1922–2000 (2001).

'Laura Donohue's sophisticated and complex analysis of counterterrorism law in the United Kingdom and United States warns of the risks to fundamental individual rights when democracies establish counterterrorist regimes. Although governments frame their initiatives in terms of a choice between security and freedom, Donohue challenges this logic. Loss of liberty is not necessarily balanced by gain in safety. Compromises intended to be temporary turn out to be permanent. Leaders and citizens of democracies would be well advised to heed this pointed and timely warning.' Martha Crenshaw, Senior Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University

• 1. The perilous dichotomy; 2. Indefinite detention and coercive interrogation; 3. Financial counterterrorism; 4. Privacy and surveillance; 5. Terrorist speech and free expression; 6. Auxiliary precautions.