11 EYLÜL SONRASI ABD’DE ÖZGÜRLÜK VE GÜVENLİK DENGESİ AÇISINDAN TERÖRÜ ÖNLEME AMAÇLI TEDBİRLER / ÖZELLİKLE PATRİOT KANUNU İLE GETİRİLEN KISITLAMALAR

Öz

Genel olarak özgürlük ve güvenlik arasında sürekli bir gerilimin var olduğu görüşü, özgürlük ve güvenlik dengesini açıklamakta kullanılagelen temel varsayımdır. Kural olarak özgürlük ve güvenlik arasında bir dengenin varlığı, hem temel hak ve özgürlüklere saygının sürdürülmesi hem de güvenliğin devlet ve bireyler açısından en iyi şekilde sağlanması anlamına gelmektedir. Ancak devletlerin terörle mücadeledeki temel yanlışlıkları, herhangi bir terör riski söz konusu olduğunda güvenlik tedbirlerini artırırken özgürlüklerde belli bir kısıtlamaya giderek dengenin bozulmasına yol açmalarıdır. ABD’de 11 Eylül sonrası yürürlüğe giren, kolluk güçlerinin soruşturma ve araştırma yetkilerinin oldukça genişleten, ev ve işyerlerinin habersiz aranmasını yasallaştıran, kişilere ait finans, sağlık ve eğitim ile ilgili kayıtlara izinsiz giriş yetkisi veren, iletişimin denetlenmesi ve internet iletişimini izleme dahil elektronik gözetim alanlarında da yürütmeye geniş yetkiler tanıyan, yargısal denetimi zayıflatarak yürütmeye oldukça geniş yetkiler tanıyan ve yürütmeye herhangi bir politik grubu terörist olarak tanımlamaya imkan sağlayan Patriot Kanunu, denge yaklaşımındaki yerleşik anlayışı bozmamıştır. ABD’de yürürlüğe giren anti terör kanunları, terörü önlemeye yönelik olarak tasarlanmış olsa da terörizmle ilişkisi olmayan ABD vatandaşlarının, azınlıkların ve özellikle yabancıların özgürlüklerinde ciddi kısıtlamalar getirmiştir. ABD, bir taraftan terör eylemelerini önlemek isterken diğer taraftan masum insanların haklarını da ihlal etmiştir. Özellikle elektronik gözetim alanında yürürlüğe giren düzenlemeler kişilerin özel yaşamına müdahale ettiği yönünde ciddi eleştiriler almıştır. Birey ve devlet güvenliğini sağlamaya yönelik yürürlüğe konan Patriot Kanunu, özgürlüklerde ciddi kısıtlamalar getirmiş ve özgürlük ve güvenlik arasındaki dengeyi özgürlük aleyhine bozmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

• 11 Eylül Saldırıları, Vatanseverlik Kanunu, Özgürlük ve Güvenlik Dengesi, Anti-Terörizm Düzenlemeleri, Önleyici Amaçlı İletişimin Denetlenmesi

MEASURES AIMED TO PREVENT TERROR IN TERMS OF THE BALANCE OF FREEDOM AND SECURITY IN US AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 ATTACKS / ESPECIALLY THE RESTRICTIONS WHICH ARE BROUGHT BY THE PATRIOT ACT

Öz

Generally, the idea of the existence of a continuous tension between freedom and security has been the main assumption used to explain the balance between freedom and security. As a rule of thumb, the existence of a balance between freedom and security means both continuing the respect for the basic rights and freedom, and providing the best security for the state and its citizens at the same time. However, the main mistake of the governments in fighting against terror is that they disrupt the balance by increasing the security measures while limiting certain freedoms whenever there is a risk of any terror. Patriot Act, which came into force after September 11 attacks, and which increased the extensive interrogation and investigation rights of the security forces, legitimized the searching of homes and offices without any notice, provided access to personal records in finance, health and education without any approval, authorized the surveillance of communication, internet and electronic monitoring, weakening the judicial review by giving the governmental executive very broad powers, and allowing the government to define any political group as terrorist; did not disrupt the existing perception in the approach of the balance. Although the anti-terrorism laws that came into force in US were designed to prevent terror, these laws brought serious restrictions to the freedom rights of US citizens with no connection to terrorism, the minorities and especially foreigners. US, on the one hand while trying to prevent terror acts on the other hands has violated the rights of innocent people. Especially the regulations which came into force in the field electronic surveillance have received serious criticisms due to interfering with people’s privacy life. Patriot Act, which was promulgate to ensure the safety of the individual and the state that it brought serious restrictions in the freedoms rights and disrupted the balance between freedom and security in favor of security, against freedom

Anahtar Kelimeler

• September 11 attacks, Patriot Act, Balance of Freedom and Security, Anti- Terrorism Regulations, Measure of Preventive Purposed Interception of Communication

Kaynakça

1. ADLER, Andrew, “The Notice Problem, Unlawful Electronic Surveillance, and Civil Liability Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”, University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, ss. 1-60, (2007).
2. AFTERGOOD, Steven, “Domestic Intelligence Surveillance Grew in 2010”, (http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ 2011/05/2010_fisa.html, 09.09.2011).
3. ALKAN, Necati, “Terör Örgütlerinin Finans Kaynakları”, (http://www.egm.gov.tr/temuh/terorizm10_makale5. htm, 12.08.2011).
4. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “How the USA PATRIOT Act redefines “Domestic Terrorism”, (6 December 2002), (http://www.aclu.org/national-security/how-usa-patriot-act-redefinesdomestic-terrorism, 05.08.2010).
5. ARAJ, Bader, “Harsh State Repression as the Cause of Suicide Bombing: The Case of the Palestinian–Israeli Conflict”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 31, Issue 4, ss. 284-303, (April 2008).
6. ARNWINE, Selin Eren, “11 Eylül Saldırılarından Sonra Batı Demokrasilerinde Çıkarılan Yeni Terörle Mücadele Yasalarının Temel Haklara Etkisi: ABD ve İngiltere Örnekleri”, Ankara Barosu Hukuk Kurultayı-2006, Cilt I, I. Baskı, Ankara, ss. 188-205, 03-07 Ocak 2006.
7. BAL, İhsan, Terörle Mücadele, ABD ve Guantanamo, USAK Yayınları, Ankara (2006).
8. BALCI, Kerim, “Özgürlüklere Yasal Gölge”, Aksiyon Dergisi, Sayı: 562, 12.09.2005, (http://www.aksiyon. com.tr/aksiyon/haber-13543-26-ozgurluklere-yasal-golge.html, 12.10.2010).

9. BALZACQ, Thierry ve ENSAROĞLU, Yılmaz, İnsan Hakları ve Güvenlik: Türkiye, İngiltere ve Fransa, TESEV Yayınları, (Mayıs 2008).
10. BIGO, Didier, “Liberty, Whose Liberty?, The Hague Programme and The Conception of Freedom”, Security versus Freedom?: A Challange for Europe’s Future, Thierry BALZACQ ve Sergio CARRERA (eds.), Ashgate Publishing Company, Aldershot, (2006).
11. BLOSS, William,“Surveillance and Criminal Justice”, Part 1, Surveillance & Society, Special Issue, Volume 4,No. 3.
12. BULZOMI, Michael J., “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: before and after the USA Patriot Act - Legal Digest”, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 10 July 2010, (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mim 2194/is_6_72/ai_105477700/, 18. 08. 2010).
13. CAVOUKIAN, Ann, “National Security in a Post-9/11 World: The Rise of Surveillance … the Demise of Privacy?”,Green College University of British Columbia, Ontario,(May 2003), (http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/up-nat_sec.pdf, 14.08.2011).
14. ÇETİN, Halis, “Liberalizmin Tarihsel Kökenleri”, C.Ü. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 3, Sayı: 1, ss. 79-96, (2002).
15. ÇİÇEKLİ, Bülent, “Uluslar arası Terörizm ve Uluslararası Göç: 11 Eylül Sonrası Terör Tehdidi ve Göç Kontrol Politikalarının Terörizmle Mücadelede Kullanımı”, Avrasya Dosyası, Cilt: 9, Sayı: 2, ss. 170-194, (Yaz 2003).
16. COŞKUN, Vahap, “Güvenliği Özgürlükte Aramak”, Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı: 8-9-10-11, ss. 1-10, (2003-2004).
17. DAVIES, Barry, Terörizm Ortadoğu’da Şiddet Dünyada Terör, Çev. Pınar Bulut, Truva Yayınları, 1. Baskı, İstanbul, (2006).
18. DEDEOĞLU, Beril, “Terörizm Üzerine Karşılaştırmalar: Bermuda Şeytan Üç- geni”, Beril DEDEOĞLU (der.), Dünden Bugüne Avrupa Birliği, 1. Baskı, Boyut Yayıncılık, İstanbul, (2003).
19. DEMİRAY, Muhittin ve İŞCAN, İsmail Hakkı, “Uluslararası Sistemde Güvenlik Kavramının Değişimi Ekonomik Ve Jeopolitik Arka Planı”, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 21, ss. 141-170, (Ağustos 2008).
20. DEMPSEY, James X., “Civil Liberties in a Time of Crisis”, American Bar Association, (http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter02/dempsey.html, 12.08.2009).
21. DONOHUE, Laura K.,“Criminal Law Anglo-American Privacy And Surveillance”, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 96, No. 3, ss. 1059-1208, (2006).
22. DONOHUE, Laura K., “Security and Freedom on the Fulcrum”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 17, No. 1, ss. 69-87, (2005).
23. DOYLE, Charles, Terrorism: Section by Section Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act, CRS Report for Congress, Updated December 10, 2001, (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/ usapatriot/RL31200.pdf, 12.09.2010).
24. DULIN, Adam, “USA PATRIOT Act And The War on Terrorism”, Journal of the Institute Of Justice & International Studies, Number 3, ss. 215-222, (2003).
25. DWORKIN, Ronald, “Vatanseverliğe Yönelik Tehdit”, Çev. Atilla Yayla, Liberal Düşünce, Cilt: 7, Sayı: 25-26, ss. 259-270, (2002).
26. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), “EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act”, 2001, (http://w2.eff.org/privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_ analysis.php, 24.02.2010)
27. EPSTEİN, Benjamin, “The Patriot Act: Implications for Lawful Interception”, White Paper, AQSACOM, May 2006, (http://www.aqsacomna.com/us/articles/LIPatriotact_amendments_wiretap-v1.pdf, 18.02. 2010).
28. ERDOĞAN, Mustafa, “Liberalizme Yeniden Bakış: Tarihi ve Felsefi Temelleri”, Liberal Düşünce, Sayı: 56, Yıl: 14, (Güz 2009), (http://www.liberal.org.tr/incele.php?kategori=%20MTg=&id=NTEy,05.11.2010).
29. FALK, Richard, “Encroaching on the Rule of Law: Post-9/11 Policies within the United States”, in: Alison BRYSK ve Gershon SHAFIR (eds.), National Insecurity and Human Rights Democracies Debate Counterterrorism, University of California Press, London, ss. 75-91, (2007).
30. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Counter-Terrorism Legislation and Practice: A Survey of Selected Countries, A Research Project Funded by the Sixth Framework Research Programme of DG Research (European Commission), (October 2005).
31. “Genel Denge ve Refah Ekonomisi”, (http://www.ekodialog.com/Acik_ogretim_iktisat/refah_ekonomisi_genel_ denge.html, 24.11.2010).
32. GIBSON, Tobias T., ALBARELLO, Juan Gabriel Gómez ve HENDERSON, Frances B., “The Absence of The Sacred: Democracy in The Age of Militarism”, Journal of the Institute Of Justice & International Studies, Number 3, ss. 28-36, (2003).
33. GOLDEN, Roger D., “What Price Security? The USA Patriot Act and America’s Balance Between the Security and Freedom”, in: Russell HOWARD, James FOREST ve Joanne MOORE (eds.), Homeland Security and Terrorism, The Mcgraw-Hill Homeland Security Series, Hill Books, New York, ss. 400-425, (2006).
34. GOLDEN, Roger D., “What Price Security? The USA Patriot Act and America’s Balance Between the Security and Freedom”, in: Russell HOWARD, James FOREST ve Joanne MOORE (eds.), Homeland Security and Terrorism, The Mcgraw-Hill Homeland Security Series, Hill Books, New York, (2006).
35. GOLDER, Ben ve WILLIAMS, George, “Balancing National Security and Human Rights: Assessing the Legal Response of Common Law Nations to the Threat of Terrorism”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Vol. 8, No. 1, ss. 43-62, (March 2006).
36. GÖZE, Ayferi, Siyasal Düşünceler ve Yönetimler, Genişletilmiş 7. Bası, Beta Yayınları, İstanbul, (1995).
37. GROENEWOLD, Kyle M., “USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: We Deserve Less”, 14th Annual Illinois Conference for Students of Political Science, (April 2006).
38. “Guantanamo'da işkence itirafı”, 14.01.2009, (http://yenisafak.com.tr/Dunya/?t=14.01.2009&i=162785, 10.07.2011).
39. HAUBRICH, Dirk, “September 11, Anti-Terror Laws and Civil Liberties: Britain, France and Germany Compared”, Government and Opposition, Vol. 38, No. I, ss. 3-28, (Winter 2003).
40. HENDERSON, Nathan C., “The Patriot Act’s Impact On The Government’s Ability To Conduct Electronic Surveillance Of Ongoing Domestic Communications”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 52, ss. 179-209, (2002).
41. HENSHAL, Rowland ve MORGAN, Ian, Amerikan Yalanları: 11 Eylül ve Medeniyetler Çatışması, Çev. Güneş Ayas ve Bora Alioğlu, Salyangoz Yayınevi, (2006).
42. HERSH, Seymour M., Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, Australia, Allen Lane, (2004).
43. Human Rights Watch, “The Road to Abu Ghraib”, Report, 8 June 2004, (http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/ 2004/06/08/road-abu-ghraib, 25.06.2011).
44. IP, John, “Comparative Perspectives on the Detention of Terrorist Suspects”, Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, Vol. 16, , ss. 773-871, (Spring 2007).
45. JIPSON, Art, “The Post-September 11th Era: Interpretations of Security And Civil Liberties ın The Political Margins of The Left And Right”, Journal of the Institute Of Justice & International Studies, Number 3, ss. 40-49, (2003).
46. JORGENSEN, S., C. CAPEK, S. GUSTAFSON ve J. KADZBAN, The Patriot Act–An Impact Analysis, Department of Computer Science And Information Systems Grand Valley State University, 11 December 2003, (http://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?Cluster=17382376343348581508&hl=tr&as_sdt =000&as_vis=1, 05.04. 2010).
47. KABOĞLU, İbrahim Ö., Özgürlükler Hukuku İnsan Haklarının Hukuksal Yapısı Üzerine Bir Deneme, AFA Yayıncılık, İstanbul, (1994).
48. KAYA, Sezgin, “Küresel Terörizmle Mücadelede Alternatif Rejim Modelleri”, Stratejik Araştırmalar Dergisi, Sayı: 5, Yıl: 3, (Temmuz 2005).
49. KEDİKLİ, Umut, “Avrupa Birliği’nin Terörizmle Mücadele Politikaları ve Hukuki Boyutu”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, Cilt: 2, Sayı: 7, ss. 54-79, (2006).
50. KEITH, Dana, “In the Name of National Security or Insecurity?: the Potential Indefinite Detention of Noncitizen Certified Terrorists in the United States and the United Kingdom in the Aftermath of September 11, 2001”, in: Florida Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, No. 2, ss. 405-481, (2004).
51. KENNEDY, Charles H., ve SWIRE, Peter S., “State Wiretaps and Electronic, Surveillance After September 11”, Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 54, ss. 101-120, (April 2003).
52. KERR, Orin S., “Updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act”, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 75, ss. 225-243, (2008).
53. KHAN, Zmarak, “The National Security Agency (NSA) Eavesdropping on Americans: A Programme that is Neither Legal Nor Necessary”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, ss. 61-80, (December 2006).
54. LİU, Edward C., Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until February 28, 2011, CRS Report for Congress, February 10, 2011, (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40138_20110228.pdf, 05.09.2011).
55. LİU, Edward C., Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Extended Until June 1, 2015, CRS Report for Congress, June 16, 2011, (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R40138.pdf, 05.09.2011).
56. MART, Susan Nevelow, “Protecting the Lady from Toledo: Post-USA PATRIOT Act Electronic Surveillance at the Library”, Law Library Journal, Vol. 96, No. 3, ss. 449-473, (2004).
57. METİN, Yüksel, “Terörle Mücadele ve İnsan Hakları”, Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, Sayı: 5, ss. 118-132, (Aralık 2005).
58. MICHAELSEN, Christopher, “Balancing Civil Liberties Against National Security? A Critique of Counterterrorism Rhetoric”, University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2, ss. 1-21, (2006).
59. MICHAELSON, Christopher, “Antiterrorism Legislation in Australia: A Proportionate Response to the Terrorist Threat?”, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 28, Issue 4, ss. 321-339, (July 2005).
60. MÜDERRİSOĞLU, Ruhsar, “11 Eylül ile Birlikte Yeni Dünya Düzenine (!) Doğru”, Osman Metin ÖZTÜRK (der.), Uluslararası Terörizm ve Dış Politika, Biltek Yayınları, Ankara, ss. l7-20, 2002.
61. NEOCLEOUS, Mark, “Security, Liberty and the Myth of Balance: Towards a Critique of Security Politics”, Contemporary Political Theory, Vol. 6, ss. 131–149, (2007).
62. O’BRIEN, David M., “Reflections on Courts And Civil Liberties in Times of Crisis”, Journal of the Institute Of Justice & International Studies, Number 3, ss. 11-20, (2003).
63. ÖZDOĞAN, Ali, “Teknik Dinlemeye Dair! Gizli Dinleme Kanunlarına ve Uygulamalarına Dair Bir Araştırma”, Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü İDB Yayınları, Ankara, (2004), (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid=953472, 20.10.2009).
64. ÖZEREN, Süleyman ve Hüseyin CİNOĞLU, “Terörizm ve Amerika Birleşik Devletleri: 11 Eylül Öncesi ve Sonrası Terörle Mücadele Politikalarının Değerlendirilmesi”, İhsan BAL (der.), Terörizm, Terör, Terörizm ve Küresel Terörle Mücadelede Ulusal ve Bölgesel Deneyimler, USAK Yayınları, Ankara, ss. 159-195, (2006).
65. ÖZKAN, Emre ve KOTAN, Ömer Faruk, “Ebu Gureyp Hapishanesi: Terörle Mücadelede Yanlış Strateji”, İhsan BAL (der.), Terörizm, Terör, Terö-rizm ve Küresel Terörle Mücadelede Ulusal ve Bölgesel Deneyimler, USAK Yayınları, Ankara, ss. 49-77, (2006).
66. PARKER, Ellen, “Implementation of the UK Terrorism Act 2006: the Relationship Between Counterterrorism Law, Free Speech, and the Muslim Community in the United Kingdom Versus the United States”, Emory International Law Review, Volume 21, Issue 2, ss. 711-757, (2007).
67. PARKER, Tom, “Fighting an Antaean Enemy: How Democratic States Unintentionally Sustain the Terrorist Movements They Oppose”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 19, No. 2, ss. 155–179, (2007).
68. PIKOWSKY, Robert A., “An Overview of the Law of Electronic Surveillance Post September 11, 2001”, Law Library Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4, ss. 601-620, (Fall 2002).
69. POSNER Eric A. ve VERMEULE, Adrian, Terror in The Balance: Security, Liberty, And The Courts, Oxford University Press, NewYork, (2007).
70. POSNER, Richard A., “A Privilage or A Right?”, in: A. ETIZONI ve H. J. MARSH (eds.), Rights vs. Public Safety After 9–11, Rowman Little Field Publisher, New York, (2003).
71. POSNER, Richard A., “Security Versus Civil Liberties,” The Atlantic Monthy, Vol. 288, No. 5, December (2001).
72. ROACH, Kent, “The Criminal Law and Terrorism”, in: Victor RAMRAJ, Michael HOR ve Kent ROACH (eds.), Global Anti- Terrorism Law And Policy, Cambridge University Press, (2005).
73. ROPER, Mary Catherine, “ABD’de Sınırlanan Yurttaş Hakları”, Çeviren: Gül Okutan, in: Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, Sayı: 5, ss. 116-117, (Aralık 2005).
74. ROSE, David, Guantanamo Amerika’nın İnsan Haklarına Karşı Savaşı, Çev. Şule Gülmen, Birinci Basım, 1001 Kitap Yayınları, (2005).
75. ROSENBACH, Eric, ve PERITZ, Aki J., Confrontation or Collaboration? Congress and the Intelligence Community, Cambridge, Mass: The Belfer Center, Harvard University, (June 2009).
76. ROSSLER, Thomas, “A New Mission And New Challenges: Law Enforcement And Intelligence After The Usa Patriot Act”, Journal of the Institute Of Justice & International Studies, Number 3, ss. 70-77, (2003).
77. RUBEL, Alan, “Privacy And The USA PATRIOT Act: Rights, The Value of Rights, And Autonomy”, Law and Philosophy, Vol. 26, ss. 119–159, (2007).
78. SCHMID, Alex S., “Terrorism and Human Rights: A Perspective from the United Nations”, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 17, Issue 1-2, ss. 25-35, (Winter 2005).
79. SCHULHOFER, Stephen J., “No Checks, No Balances: Discarding Bedrock Constitutional Principles”, in: Richard C. Leone ve Jr. Greg Anrig, (eds.) The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism, The Century Foundation, New York, ss. 74-99, (2003).
80. SCHWARTZ, Paul M., “Warrantless Wiretapping, FISA Reform, and the Lessons of Public Liberty: A Comment on Holmes’s Jorde Lecture”, California Law Review, Vol. 97, ss. 407-432, (2009).
81. SEAMON, Richard Henry ve GARDNER, William Dylan, “The Patriot Act And The Wall Between Foreign Intelligence And Law Enforcement”, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Volume 28, Issue 2, ss. 320-463, (2005).
82. SKINNIDER, Eileen, “Counter-Terrorism Measures and the Impact on International Human Rights Standards in the Field of Criminal Justice”, Report, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, (July 2004), (http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/Counter%20terrorism%20measures.pdf, 14.08.2011). “Subpoena”, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena, 12.11.2010).
83. ŞAFAK, Erdal, “USA Patriot Act (ABD Yurttaşlık Yasası) Terörle Mücadele Terörü”, Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, Sayı: 5, ss. 108-109, (Aralık 2005).
84. THAMAN, Stephen C., “ABD’de 11 Eylül Açısından Önleyici ve Baskılayıcı Tedbirler”, Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, Sayı: 5, ss. 110-115, (Aralık 2005).
85. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), “Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prioners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba”, Report, (July 2006), (http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOn Torture.pdf,10.07.2011).
86. TURAN, Tuba, “War on Terror in The US and UK: An Evaluation With Regard to Civil Liberties”, USAK Year Book of International Politics And Law, Volume 1, International Strategic Research Organization (USAK), Ankara, ss. 31-50, (2008).
87. TURHAN, Faruk ve AKSU, Muharrem, “İnsan Haklarının Korunması Açısından Önleyici Amaçlı İletişimin Denetlenmesi Tedbiri”, Uluslararası Davras Kongresi, Küresel Dialog, ekitap, Isparta, ss. 2202-2226, 24-27 Eylül 2009.
88. TURHAN, Faruk, “Almanya’da Terörle Mücadele İçin Ceza Kanununda Yapılan Değişiklikler”, Hukuki Perspektifler Dergisi, Sayı: 5, ss. 133-136, (Aralık 2005).
89. TURHAN, Faruk, “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi (AİHM) Kararları Işığında Kişi Özgürlüğü ve Türkiye/Gözaltında Kayıplar, Hakim Önüne Çıkarma ve Gözaltı Süreleri”, Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: IV, Sayı: 1-2, ss. 204-258, (Haziran- Aralık 2000).
90. “USA PATRIOT ACT 2001”, (http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html,10.05.2010).
91. WALDRON, Jeremy, “Security and Liberty: the Image of Balance”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol. 11, No. 2, ss. 191–210, (2003).
92. WHITNEY, Justin W., “FISA’s Future: An Analysis of Electronic Surveillance in Light of the Special Needs Exception to the Fourth Amendment”, Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 47, ss. 127-149, (2007).
93. WILKINSON, Benedict, “Getting The Balance Right: Is There A Trade-Off Between Security And Civil Liberties?”, 22 May 2009, (http://goaintelligence.org/main/intelligence/2009/05/getting-the-balance-right-is-there-a-trade-off-between-security-and-civil-liberties, 21.10.2009).
94. WILLIAMS, David, “Terrorism and The Law in The United Kingdom”, University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, ss. 179-190, (2003).
95. WOLFENDALE, Jessica, “Terrorism, Security and the Threat of Counterterrorism”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 30, No.1, ss. 75-92, (2007).
96. Y. KAMISAR et al., Basic Criminal Procedure: Cases, Comments, and Questions, 2005, s. 479’den aktaran, KHAN, Zmarak, “The National Security Agency (NSA) Eavesdropping on Americans: A Programme that is Neither Legal Nor Necessary”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 2, No. 2, ss. 61-80, (December 2006).
97. YAMAN, Didem, “11 Eylül Sonrasında ABD: Algılamalar, Psikolojik Yansımalar ve Yasal Düzenlemeler”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, Cilt: 1, No: 1, , ss. 117-142, (2005).
98. YARDIMCI, Mehmet Murat, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Hukuku, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi İçtihatları ve Türk Hukukunda İletişimin Denetlenmesi, Birinci Baskı, Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara, (2009).
99. YEH, Brian T. ve DOYLE, Charles, “USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis”, CRS Report For Congress, Updated 21 December 2006.