Indeed, it's worthwhile noting that, as well as a lot of activities not amounting to terrorism are caught by anti-terror legislation, a great deal of terrorism offences were already caught by pre-existing laws.
While I'm not entirely convinced by the narrative provided by Mark Neocleous in his book 'Critique of Security', he does make a good argument that security legislation is in fact *primarily* used against internal social/economic movements and not against those external threats of violence which the rhetoric would indicate.
I haven't read the security book (although Neocleous in general is great), but that sounds pretty convincing to me. What I would say is that - in security terms - internal and external have something of a dialectical relationship, insofar as even if a security threat is 'external' it is nonetheless 'recieved' and acted upon 'internally'. Indeed, what I think is distinctive about anti-terror legislation (and 'external security' more generally) is that the attempt as portraying it as 'foreign' is an attempt to delegitimate these political movements in a way that ordinary criminal law cannot do/
Indeed, it is quite interesting that in general I think people who commit politically motivated crimes are - all other things being equal - thought of as different and in some sense 'better' than common criminals. But of course, the legal definition of terrorism is almost always ordinary crime plus political intent, in this way what might have been a 'higher' crime is actually transformed into something altogether less noble.
Also - great blog, I'll add you to the roll.
Well I'd definitely recommend the book; as well as making good points he's got a good writing style.
Thanks - until Akbar told me that you'd be speaking at the Glasgow Conversation I had no idea people were blogging about jurisprudential topics. I looked up your blog, liked it, and thought the world could always do with one more!
Again, another right on the mark comment post. Would love to see some more substantive posts on here too.
Keep up the good blogging
Hi Rob, I just wanted to follow up on one other thought. In the news over the last day or so, Team Obama has agreed to release records proving the CIA tortured (though removing the names of the perpetrators themselves), but also stating that rather than pursue criminal investigations that they want to just 'move on'.
1. The 'move on' justification feels incredibly weak in itself. Just imagine an individual trying to say that to a cop, or a spouse after being caught cheating, and so on... Not very convincing, but also the least of the problems with this approach by Obama and company.
2. The releasing of documents suggests that Obama wants to provide transparency and accountability, to cast shame on the act. Beyond the problem that the CNN effect does not necessarily produce shame (ie, look at how Cheney takes pride in his willful flaunting of law), however, the fact that no measures will be pursued and the names are removed suggests that this is an incredibly hollow gesture.
3. Interestingly, Obama does make the blame something that is collective, it is a shameful period in 'our' American history. By making it about the country, there is the implicit suggestion that the torture is a systematic problem, rather than the result of a few bad apples. But this would implicate liberalism itself in the lead up and perpetration of torture, which he is not about to suggest. So it then asks of everybody to become complicit in the act of denying justice - to all willfully ignore the intrinsic injustice of the system, it is a call for a national act of shrugging complicity by condemning everyone while offering an out if they will take it (at the cost that the individuals themselves involved aren't prosecuted).
4. It is interesting that Francis Lieber, the drafter of the codes of war in the American Civil War, specifically noted that soldiers were responsible for their crimes even if they were ordered to do so by a superior officer with repurcusions if they didn't follow orders... Polar opposite to nowadays, when like Kennedy has pointed out, law has simply become politics by other means.
These are all undeveloped thoughts, but just thought I'd put them on the table.
Warmest wishes.
in security terms - internal and external have something of a dialectical relationship, insofar as even if a security threat is 'external' it is nonetheless 'recieved' and acted upon 'internally'.
This is a significant point. From WWI (DORA and the Aliens Act) to now, there seems to be a close relationship between perceived external threat and internal clampdown, with the treatment of immigrants a kind of middle term.
in general I think people who commit politically motivated crimes are - all other things being equal - thought of as different and in some sense 'better' than common criminals
Yes. What political criminals represent isn't a defective version of consensus rationality or even a "neutralising" counter-rationality, but an alternative rationality. Governments can't handle that (and tend to ratchet up the threat level in self-protection), but people tend to respect it.
PS How's things, Rob? I've just about finished teaching for 2008/9, and will be all over your comments section like a rash.
Commenting by HaloScan
