The several costs of responding to the threat of terrorism

Public Choice

Volumn 128, Issue 1-2, 2006, Pages 351-356

  Niskanen, William A ^a  

^a CATO INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Civil discourse; Civil liberties; Fiscal costs; Homeland security; Terrorism

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748574598     PISSN: 00485829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11127-006-9057-5     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Cahill, T. (2003). Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea:Why the Greeks Matter, Doubleday: London.
2. Easterbrook, G. (October 7, 2002). Weapons of mass destruction meaningless, New Republic.
3. Eggan, D., & Tate, J. (June 12, 2005). U.S. campaign produces few convictions on terrorism, Washington Post.
4. Friedman, B. (July/August, 2005). Homeland security, Foreign Policy.
5. Karp, J. (June 14, 2005). Protecting Jets from Missiles, Wall Street Journal.
6. Lynch, T. (2005). The Patriot Act, Cato Handbook on Policy, Cato Institute: Washington.
7. Mueller, J. (Fall, 2004) A False Sense of Insecurity, Regulation.
8. Pena, C.V. (March 28, 2005). $400 Billion defense budget unnecessary to fight war on terrorism, Policy Analysis No. 539, Cato Institute: Washington.
9. (April 19, 2005) List as a second policy analysis by C.V. Pena, Flying the Unfriendly Skies: Defending Against the Threat of Shoulder-Fired Missiles, Policy Analysis No. 541, Cato Institute: Washington.
10. Rugy, V. de (April 1, 2005). What does homeland security spending buy? Working Paper #107, American Enterprise Institute: Washington.
11. Scarborough, M. (June 29, 2005) The Security Pretext: an Examination of the Growth of Federal Police Agencies, Briefing Paper No. 94, Cato Institute: Washington.