Counter-Terrorism and State Crime

Author: Liz Fekete

In 2000, a new Terrorism Act, incorporating the broadest ever definition of terrorism and giving police and prosecutors freedom to arrest almost anyone involved in some way with refugee solidarity work, was passed. Then, on 29 March 2001, under the first order made under the Act, twenty-one organisations were proscribed through provisions which allow for the banning of organisations which the home secretary believes are involved in terrorism, or promote or encourage terrorism. As refugee communities began mobilising against the law, and particularly its Proscribed Organisations Order, Liz Fekete asked the civil rights lawyer Gareth Peirce, who has defended those accused of terrorist offences for over two decades, to examine the historical and political context of this the latest addition to the UK's anti-terrorist legislation.

Authors: Bree Carlton and Jude McCulloch

This comment focuses on the treatment and conditions experienced by unconvicted terrorsuspects in Australian prisons paying particular attention to the case of the Pendennis defendants in Victoria's Barwon Prison. Central to this comment is Victorian Supreme Court Justice Bongiorno's recent landmark ruling that identified a link between the treatment and conditions of the defendants and their ability to receive a fair trial, While highlighting the human rights implications that stem from the treatment of the accused in high-security this comment focuses on continuities between the treatment of prisoners and detainees in domestic prisons and the pre-emptive punishment, abuse and torture of unconvicted terror suspects in off-shore US run military prisons in the 'war on terror'. It argues that the Bongiomo ruling is significant insofar as it demonstrates the vital role that civil courts and judicial oversight can play in imposing limits on the arbitrary exercise of state power within criminal justice institutions.

Authors: Jude McCulloch and Sharon Pickering

Combating the financing of terrorism is a key tool in the ‘war against terror’, yet has passed relatively undetected amongst the many other measures that add to the arsenal of the state’s coercive powers and the global dominance of the United States. These measures dramatically expand the discretionary power of law enforcement to respond to political activity as crime and provide a mechanism through which governments can financially cripple individuals, charities, welfare and social justice organizations. This article sets out the nature and impact of some of the combating of financing of terrorism measures post-9/11 within a state crime framework and broader critiques of the war on terror, and highlights a case study of alternative remittance or informal banking systems.

Authors: Jude McCulloch and Bree Carlton

This article sets out to describe and analyse a shift to pre-emptive criminal (in)justice frameworks. Preemptive criminal justice frameworks impose penalties in anticipation of future crimes. We look particularly at legislation and other measures implemented in the context of the ‘war on terror’ and the increased emphasis on national security.

Authors: Jude McCulloch and Sharon Pickering

This article looks at pre-crime in the context of counter-terrorism. Pre-crime links coercive state actions to suspicion without the need for charge, prosecution or conviction. It also includes measures that expand the remit of the criminal law to include activities or associations that are deemed to precede the substantive offence targeted for prevention. The trend towards anticipating risks as driving principle in criminal justice was identified well before 2001. However, risk and threat anticipation have substantially expanded in the context of contemporary counter-terrorism frameworks. Although pre-crime counter-terrorism measures are rationalized on the grounds of preventing terrorism, these measures do not fit in the frame of conventional crime prevention. The article argues that the shift to pre-crime embodies a trend towards integrating national security into criminal justice along with a temporal and geographic shift that encompasses a blurring of the borders between the states ’ internal and external coercive capacities. The counter-terrorism framework incorporates and combines elements of criminal justice and national security, giving rise to a number of tensions. One key tension is between the ideal of impartial criminal justice and the politically charged concept of national security. Pre-crime counter-terrorism measures can be traced through a number of interlinking historical trajectories including the wars on crime and drugs, criminalization and, more fundamentally, in colonial strategies of domination, control and repression. The article concludes by identifying a number of challenges and opportunities for criminology in the shift from post-crime criminal justice to pre-crime national security.