Reply to Christine Sylvester, “Terro rWars: Boston Iraq”: An examination of differences between counter-terrorism and war as seen through the Iraqi experience of occupation

This response examines what is overlooked in Sylvester’s analysis of similarities between the US police security response to the Boston marathon bombings (2013) and Kevin Powers’ fictionalized account of the US war operations in Al Tafar, Iraq (2004) and evaluates the consequences for our understanding of contemporary war. This is done by highlighting differences between the experience of residents in Boston and the (real) town of Tal Afar, key among them the insecurity, fear and calamity that result from the distinct political realities in these locations. The experience of war from the perspective of the victims adds an important dimension to the debate over the changing nature of war. At a time that is marked by an unprecedented level of technologization and visual mediation, it brings into focus the fragmentary and often one-sided evidence on which our knowledge of contemporary war is based. It reminds us to ask not only what we know about war, but how we know it.

Counter-terrorism and (in)security : Fallout from the Bali bombing

In the wake of the Bali bombing the Australian government has proposed a number of national security measures that pose a real danger to human security in Australia and the region. These measures include renewed and increased military and intelligence exchanges with Indonesia, and laws that allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) to detain people without charge or even suspicion in order to gather intelligence. In less emotional times these initiatives would be rejected as contrary to human rights concerns and Australia’s democratic traditions, which include the rule of law and due process protections. In the current climate, however, human rights and civil liberties are apt to be portrayed as unaffordable luxuries.

`Counter-terrorism`, human security and globalisation - from welfare to warfare state?

The continuing erosion of civil liberties in Western democracies, and in particular Australia, as a response to the threat of terrorist attack - the position taken that laws eroding civil liberties will ultimately fail in its attempt to combat terrorist activity while adding to human insecurity and violence - counter-terrorism measures resulting in the militarisation of law enforcement and provoking terrorism - linking counter-terrorism with globalisation.

Counter-terrorism across the policing continuum

Over the past two decades private and hybrid forms of policing have grown considerably in Australia. As a result, governments have begun to recognize the role played by non-state police agencies and personnel in the provision of public order and safety, further extending and legitimizing non-state policing. In addition, the private ownership of critical infrastructure and 'communal spaces' has led to a central role for non-state police in the area of 'high policing' counter-terrorism. In response to changes to the auspices and providers of policing, state police were beginning to explore new ways of working with private and hybrid forms of policing, with the emergence of a new type of experiment in policing partnerships, the Police-Private Security Committee (POLSEC). This paper examines these trends and implications for ongoing developments in Australian policing.

Security networks in the field of counter-terrorism in Australia

This thesis examines networks as a means of organising counter-terrorism in Australia and the conditions that promote the effectiveness of security networks. It presents a framework for analysing network dynamics and network effectiveness in this field that can assist researchers to better understand networks and practitioners to better manage networks.

The EU Counter-Terrorism Policy Responses to the Attacks in Paris: Towards an EU Security and Liberty Agenda. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 81/February 2015

This paper examines the main EU-level initiatives that have been put forward in the weeks following the attacks in Paris in January 2015, which will be discussed in the informal European Council meeting of 12 February 2015. It argues that a majority of these proposals predated the Paris shootings and had until that point proved contentious as regards their efficacy, legitimacy and lawfulness. The paper finds that EU counterterrorism responses raise two fundamental challenges: A first challenge is posed to the freedom of movement, Schengen and EU citizenship. Priority is being given to the expanded use of large-scale surveillance and systematic monitoring of all travellers including EU citizens, which stands in contravention of Schengen and the free movement principle. A second challenge concerns EU democratic rule of law. Current pressures calling for the adoption of measures such as the EU Passenger Name Record challenge the scrutiny roles held by the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the EU on counterterrorism measures in a post-Lisbon Treaty setting. The paper proposes that the EU adopts a new European Agenda on Security and Liberty based on an EU security (criminal justice-led) cooperation model that is firmly anchored in current EU legal principles and rule of law standards. This model would call for ‘less is more’ concerning the use, processing and retention of data by police and intelligence communities. Instead, it would pursue better and more accurate use of data meeting the quality standards of evidence in criminal judicial proceedings.

The EU and its Counter-Terrorism Policies after the Paris Attacks. Liberty and Security in Europe No. 84, 27 November 2015

This paper examines the EU’s counter-terrorism policies responding to the Paris attacks of 13 November 2015. It argues that these events call for a re-think of the current information-sharing and preventive-justice model guiding the EU’s counter-terrorism tools, along with security agencies such as Europol and Eurojust. Priority should be given to independently evaluating ‘what has worked’ and ‘what has not’ when it comes to police and criminal justice cooperation in the Union. Current EU counter-terrorism policies face two challenges: one is related to their efficiency and other concerns their legality. ‘More data’ without the necessary human resources, more effective cross-border operational cooperation and more trust between the law enforcement authorities of EU member states is not an efficient policy response. Large-scale surveillance and preventive justice techniques are also incompatible with the legal and judicial standards developed by the Court of Justice of the EU. The EU can bring further added value first, by boosting traditional policing and criminal justice cooperation to fight terrorism; second, by re-directing EU agencies’ competences towards more coordination and support in cross-border operational cooperation and joint investigations, subject to greater accountability checks (Europol and Eurojust +); and third, by improving the use of policy measures following a criminal justice-led cooperation model focused on improving cross-border joint investigations and the use of information that meets the quality standards of ‘evidence’ in criminal judicial proceedings. Any EU and national counter-terrorism policies must not undermine democratic rule of law, fundamental rights or the EU’s founding constitutional principles, such as the free movement of persons and the Schengen system. Otherwise, these policies will defeat their purpose by generating more insecurity, instability, mistrust and legal uncertainty for all.

Meta-level terrorism futures : constructing and deconstructing using causal layered analysis

Focused on the alternative futures of terrorism, this study engages with the different levels of terrorism knowledge to identify and challenge the restrictive narratives that define terrorism: that "society must be defended" from the "constant and evolving terrorist threat". Using Causal Layered Analysis to deconstruct and reconstruct strategies, alternative scenarios emerge. These alternative futures are depicted collectively as a maze, highlighting the prospect of navigating towards preferred and even shared terrorism futures, once these are supported by new and inclusive metaphors and stakeholder engagement.

Constructing Enemies: 'Islamic Terrorism' in Political and Academic Discourse

Jackson, Richard, (2007) 'Constructing Enemies: 'Islamic Terrorism' in Political and Academic Discourse', Government and Opposition, 42(3) pp.394-426 RAE2008