Advertisement

Amplifying 21st-Century Exception, 2000–2006

  • Kathryn Marie Fisher
Part of the New Security Challenges book series (NSECH)

Abstract

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

Keywords

Early 21st Century Control Order International Terrorism Parliamentary Debate Habeas Corpus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 12.
    Stuart Croft, “Introduction”, Government and Opposition 42, no. 3 (2007): 269 (with reference to Jörg Monar).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 19.
    Victor Asal and R. Karl Rethemeyer, “The Nature of the Beast: Organizational Structures and the Lethality of Terrorist Attacks”, The Journal of Politics 70 (2008): 447 (cited in Sanchez-Cuenca and de la Calle, “Domestic Terrorism”, 32).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 53.
    Arnold Wolfers, “National Security as Ambiguous Symbol,” Political Science Quarterly LXVII, no. 4 (1952): 484.Google Scholar
  5. 77.
    One study reported 85% of European elites saw immigration as a rising problem, with an increase in xenophobic and nationalist groups (Gallya Lahav, Immigration and Politics in the New Europe, Reinventing Borders (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 143, 179, 189).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 120.
    Richard Johnson, “Defending Ways of Life: The (Anti-)Terrorist Rhetorics of Bush and Blair,” Theory, Culture and Society 19 (2002): 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kathryn Marie Fisher 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn Marie Fisher
    • 1
  1. 1.National Defense UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations