14 Jan 2017 The Constitutions of all civilized countries guarantee the fundamental Human Rights of the citizens. Thus fundamental rights (free speech, freedom of assembly, the right to petition, the right to organize, the right to strike and the right to privacy, to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.) should be guaranteed even in periods of so-called “War on Terror”. The presumption of innocence and the right to refrain from self-incrimination, and of Habeas Corpus in the Anglo-Saxon system, are equally fundamental rights must be consistently protected. Advocates of passing special laws to provide broader powers to the security forces, to allow them to move swiftly under conditions of imperfect knowledge, argue from fear of the consequences of delayed action. Opponents believe that it is risky to engage on such a “slippery Slope” and that it would lead inevitably to curtailment of civil rights of the ordinary citizens. They believe that it should be sufficient to have some expanded surveillance (under strict judicial review and control) plus extra-territorial cooperation of the investigative, policing and prosecutorial powers of various governments … Where is the right balance between these two views? Tahany El-Gebaly ,  Petar Stoyanov ,  Amr Moussa ,  Heba El-Rafey ,  Ivo Josipovic ,  Amine Gemayel ,  Abdulaziz Altwaijri