Amplifying 21st-Century Exception, 2000–2006
The 1990s left us with Labour’s initiative for a single permanent UK-wide law.1 and on 20 July 2000, the Terrorism Bill became the Terrorism Act.2 With this move to permanent counterterrorism law, a new amplifying tone was set for subsequent measures, including the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCS) 2001, Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) 2005, and Terrorism Act (TA) 2006.3 In addition to these legal moves, a new counterterrorism strategy was formed in 2003 and made public in 2006: CONTEST, The UK Strategy for Countering International Terrorism. Through this new strategy, it was stated that “annual spending on counter-terrorism, intelligence, and resilience will reach £2bn, which is double what it was prior to 9/11”.4 and counterterrorism was increasingly institutionalized. This process of institutionalization was not a predetermined outcome, not least given ongoing expressions of concern over counterterrorism in terms of counterproductive consequence and suspensions of liberty. In November of 2001, following the 11 September 2001 attacks, one House of Commons research paper explained the group Liberty’s conclusion that the “UK already has some of the most draconian anti-terrorism measures anywhere in the Western World and further measures are likely to violate fundamental principles, be counter-productive in the long term and at the same time are unlikely to be effective”.5
KeywordsEarly 21st Century Control Order International Terrorism Parliamentary Debate Habeas Corpus
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 31.Gilles Kepel, Beyond Terror and Martyrdom: The Future of the Middle East (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2008), 124–125.Google Scholar
- 53.Arnold Wolfers, “National Security as Ambiguous Symbol,” Political Science Quarterly LXVII, no. 4 (1952): 484.Google Scholar