ABSTRACT
There seems to be general acceptance in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 that some adjustment in the scheme of civil liberties is inevitable. This is partly the product of political defeatism: the state is always looking to limit liberty, and a terrorist emergency provides a fine opportunity. The idea of striking a new balance can be interpreted more or less literally. The term "civil liberties" represents a variety of concerns about the impact of governmental powers upon individual freedom. Perhaps the rule that the government must not imprison anybody it does not propose to charge with an offense is best understood on the model of the rule in chess that one may not move one's king into check. Ronald Dworkin observes a temptation to think that the extraordinary gravity of the crimes that were committed on September 11 is itself a reason for diminishing the protections afforded to those who are charged with such offenses.
