In a 2002 speech, President George W. Bush said, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long." Bush has no psychic visionaries, but in the war on terrorism his administration has nonetheless adopted a sweeping new "preemptive" strategy, which turns on the ability to predict the future. At home and abroad, the administration has cut corners on fundamental commitments of the rule of law in the name of preventing future attacks. In this critique, two constitutional scholars argue that these sacrifices in the rule of law, adopted in the name of prevention, have in fact made us more susceptible to future terrorist attacks. They debunk the administration's claim that it is winning the war on terror and offer an alternative strategy in which the rule of law is an asset, not an obstacle, in the struggle to keep us both safe and free.--From publisher description.