ineliminably vague and political understandings of terrorist' and 'national security give to the executive a wide scope for dealing conveniently with those it considers to be threats I will not try here to answer the very interesting question of why the United States of America is in the moral panic that still seems to grip that nation or why so many other countries have succumbed to that same panic. Rather, I want to deal with the lawyers question, 'What is the proper legal response to terrorism statutes?where propermeans in light of our commitments to the rule of law. Since it is controversial what the content is of the rule of law, the lawyers question is, as we will see, also the legal philosophers question about the nature of law -how to unpack the idea of law in the phrase the rule of law Note that the lawyer's question might seem to be badly posed, since the proper response to terrorism is often thought to be a response outside, or largely outside, of the rule of law. The political issues involved seem outside the scope of control by law, where control means scrutiny by judges of the legality of executive decisions and action about national security. It is interesting in this regard that two of the most eminent constitutional lawyers in the USA men who have traditionally supported Democratic civil rights causes, are reputed to have testified to legislative committees in favour of President Bushs kangaroo, military tribunals Moreover, eminent judges in the common law world began to adopt something like this same reaction in anticipation of their country either getting a terrorism statute or revising the egal regime it already had for dealing with terrorism. If judges adopt such a stance in advance of any change of the law on the statute books, it will surely follow that the stance can only be invigorated after the change has been made3 ineliminably vague and political understandings of ‘terrorist’ and ‘national security’ give to the executive a wide scope for dealing conveniently with those it considers to be threats. I will not try here to answer the very interesting question of why the United States of America is in the moral panic that still seems to grip that nation or why so many other countries have succumbed to that same panic. Rather, I want to deal with the lawyer’s question, ‘What is the proper legal response to terrorism statutes?’ where ‘proper’ means ‘in light of our commitments to the rule of law’. Since it is controversial what the content is of the rule of law, the lawyer’s question is, as we will see, also the legal philosopher’s question about the nature of law - how to unpack the idea of law in the phrase ‘the rule of law’. Note that the lawyer’s question might seem to be badly posed, since the proper response to terrorism is often thought to be a response outside, or largely outside, of the rule of law. The political issues involved seem outside the scope of control by law, where control means scrutiny by judges of the legality of executive decisions and action about national security. It is interesting in this regard that two of the most eminent constitutional lawyers in the USA, men who have traditionally supported Democratic civil rights causes, are reputed to have testified to legislative committees in favour of President Bush’s kangaroo, military tribunals. Moreover, eminent judges in the common law world began to adopt something like this same reaction in anticipation of their country either getting a terrorism statute or revising the legal regime it already had for dealing with terrorism. If judges adopt such a stance in advance of any change of the law on the statute books, it will surely follow that the stance can only be invigorated after the change has been made