A few more words on the Cato book -- a lot of material there, obviously. One article raised a useful question that sometimes comes to mind -- why exactly do we have certain rights, in particular, special focus on religious freedom. Some are not satisfied with "so it is written, so it is done," especially since many find ways around what is written. Thus, Prof. Amar is no fan of "taking the Fifth" though historically it was believed to be an essential liberty. This is partially because it originally often had more favorable applications -- some religious dissenter was forced to take an oath and pledge that they believed something they did not. All the same, the privacy security and safeguard against illegitimate pressure from the government remains. This is so even if some believe it is a criminal protection mechanism that inhibits the search for truth. [Congressional abuse of its investigatory power underlines why Amar's sentiments are overblown.]
The same arises respecting the Fourth Amendment, especially the "exclusionary rule," which many find ridiculous. Such people do basically understand the value of the amendment itself though they might not think it affects them. This is not quite the case for some people, who know the importance of requiring the state to have probable cause before they invade their privacy, sometimes even that not being "reasonable" (e.g., removing objects from one's body). Thus, the "knock and announce" (a security for perhaps 800 years in England) article underlines all the innocents affected by police raids. Also, the overall privacy concerns at the heart of the amendment clearly have broader applications, the specific security but the tip of the iceberg.
As to religion, some wonder why religious practice should be given special concern, especially respecting accommodations (exceptions) to general laws. Certain religions after all are clearly troubling, worse because they are based on faith, not reason. The article ends up suggesting it is a reflection of Madison's understanding that religion itself was a positive good though it footnotes others that suggest the First Amendment reflects an Enlightenment sentiment for a secular state. The truth appears to be a bit complex, see John Witte Jr. in Religion and The American Constitutional Experiment, various strands involved ... fairly common when it comes to constitutional rights.
I'd add that the article's suggestion that "conscience" is separate from "religion" is misguided -- they are intimately connected. This is shown by various discussions, past and present, case law and generally, which speaks of "freedom of conscience" as the core issue at hand -- it is like "freedom of expression" being used over "speech," suggesting the broad concerns involved that go beyond the potentially narrow bare words of the First Amendment. As to "autonomy," well that is (or should be) given special security as well. My basic conclusion would be that "religion" is basic to self, a core value and liberty that would be any likely list of basic freedoms.
At any rate, the effort to understand why we have certain liberties is a worthwhile discussion. One final comment on the articles. The first Hamdan discussion, the sensible one, does a good job showing how unabsurd the Court's reading of "Common Article 3" securities was. In fact, it appears quite logical (contrary to various comments on how "absurd" such a path is ... even the dissents admitted it was a "reasonable" interpretation) that it covers domestic groups not of an "international" character, such as civil wars and such. The commentary underlines the point, including concern for groups that would not have the "political and diplomatic" (pace Yoo) remedies of official governments. Again, an interesting book.
OTOH, looking at Sam Harris' The End of Faith was an annoying experience. One example is Harris' argument that a single sociopath with a knife could kill a city full of pacifists -- as if pacifists do not believe in any sort of self defense. [Milton Meltzer's young adult book, Ain't Gonna Study War No More suggests the error in such absolutism ... surely not "typical" pacifism.] He also discusses the violence of Islam, and it surely is a strand of it. But, if the religion (as compared to other factors) is to blame for Muslim terrorism, why was it not so prevalent for hundreds of years before the 20th Century? How about the million or so of Muslims in this country? And, why no discussion (at all apparently) about states like Iraq that showed a Muslim population can be part of the modern era? Heck, what about Iran, which is a fairly productive society overall? I also don't buy his defense of torture.
I listened to him both on C-SPAN and Air America, and he comes off as an listless sort with some possibility of a jerky side. The material clearly is worthwhile, and some nuggets of value are there -- suggestions that taxation is a good thing overall (you need to work from below, not just dump a ton of money on a glorified band of nomads ala Saudi Arabia ... the Parliament after all started as a taxation device). Also, Harris underlines the troubles our Christian beliefs (or something said to be Christian) causes society, including "victimless crimes." The harms really seem to me in aggregate much worse than that suffered by Islam terrorism, surely for our own society. Perhaps starting to write a book on 9/12/01 is not a good thing. Anyway, a few too question begging bits that seem too dumb for such a "smart" guy.
BTW, I also checked out the graphic novel representation of the 9/11 Commission Report. The two commission leaders appreciated the effort and it has received very good reviews. It is proof that the medium has very good potential. One thing shown is the numerous things Clinton did to fight terrorism in the 1990s, things that had real effects, if ultimately not enough to stop things. He was not helped by the Republican Congress, who if anything thought he was too excited about the whole thing. [The need somehow to get the FBI/CIA to "ok" a response to the Cole bombing seems weak, but electoral realities really must be factored in there.] He deserves more respect for the effort though. Also, recent events belie the claims that the famous 8/6 PDB was just of "historical" interest.
I did not read the whole thing, though it was only a bit over 100 pages, but enough to respect its value.