Anti-terrorism legislation
Anti-terrorism legislation encompasses a set of laws and regulations designed to prevent and combat acts of terrorism, which are generally understood as violent actions intended to instill fear and influence governmental policies. This legislation is crucial in both domestic and international contexts, addressing diverse forms of terrorism, including physical attacks and cyber threats. In the United States, the response to terrorism has evolved significantly, particularly following high-profile attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the September 11 attacks in 2001. These events prompted the introduction of comprehensive measures, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, which expanded law enforcement's powers for surveillance and investigation to combat terrorism effectively.
Countries around the world have also established their own anti-terrorism laws, often prompted by unique national security concerns. For instance, the UK has seen numerous laws aimed at addressing threats posed by terrorist groups, while Australia and Russia have similarly enacted legislation granting authorities enhanced powers to detain and search suspects. However, these laws frequently raise debates around civil liberties, as critics argue that such measures can infringe upon individual rights and freedoms. On a global scale, organizations like the United Nations play a role in fostering international cooperation against terrorism and addressing underlying socio-economic factors that may contribute to terrorist activities. Overall, anti-terrorism legislation seeks a balance between ensuring security and preserving civil liberties, a challenge that continues to evolve in response to changing threats.
Anti-terrorism legislation
Terrorism is illegal action that is violent or dangerous to human life and is meant to spread fear and influence government policies or affect government activities. Terrorism may include physical attacks—such as bombings, taking hostages, or use of hazardous substances such as anthrax—as well as cyber attacks, which may include hacking websites and financial institutions and the theft of sensitive information.
The United States broadly categorizes terrorism as either domestic or international. Domestic terrorism (or homegrown terrorism) is generally carried out by groups or individuals who may hold extreme views on race or have an antigovernment agenda; some of these people see themselves as revolutionaries working to change the US government. Some radical activists use violence, such as bomb attacks, to draw attention to their cause. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, in which 168 people were killed, is an example of domestic terrorism. International terrorism crosses national boundaries in planning and execution. Many American lives have been lost due to international terrorism acts, including numerous bomb attacks at US embassies and hostage situations in Iran and Lebanon. The attacks of September 11, 2001, elevated international concern about terrorism and prompted new legislation to counter terrorism.
Lawmakers have responded to such attacks with counterterrorism legislation meant to prevent terrorist acts by regulating materials used to make bombs and intercepting information about planned terrorist activities. The United Nations also has encouraged counterterrorism measures, including extradition of terrorists.
Legislation in US History
One of the first instances of terrorism in modern America took place on September 16, 1920, in New York City. A man abandoned a horse and cart on Wall Street; minutes later, the cart exploded, killing thirty people and injuring hundreds. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) suspected Italian anarchists were behind this and other attacks. Many terrorist organizations have operated on American soil. The Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium lists hundreds of these types of groups, including American Border Patrol, American Nazi Party, Animal Rights Militia, Hells Angels, and Earth First! Many date back prior to the 1970s; however, little significant legislation to combat terrorism was passed until the late twentieth century.
The FBI recorded 247 acts of domestic terrorism between 1980 and 2000. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1986 that enabled the FBI to take jurisdiction in some cases of international terrorism involving attacks on American citizens or US interests.
Two large-scale acts of terrorism on US soil several years later prompted additional legislation. In 1993, the World Trade Center bombing in New York City killed six and injured more than one thousand. Several men were prosecuted and found guilty; the man who planned the attack said it was retaliation for the suffering of Palestinians. In 1995, a car bomb detonated at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people, including many children in a day care. Former soldiers who were upset with the US government were tried and convicted of committing the crime. In response, President Bill Clinton proposed new antiterrorism legislation that outlawed funding terrorist groups and allowed for easier deportation of noncitizens suspected of having links to terrorism. Congress refused one aspect of Clinton's proposal—expanding the FBI's authority for wiretapping—and added limiting the tracking of explosives. Clinton signed the law in April 1996.
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks ushered in a new era of terrorism and legislative response. Hijackers crashed planes into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, while another plane went down in a field in rural Pennsylvania when passengers fought the terrorists. Thousands of people died in the attacks. Within weeks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The House voted 357 to 66 in favor of the law, while the Senate endorsed it 98 to 1.
The Department of Justice characterized the Patriot Act as legislation allowing investigators to make the most of tools already in place against crimes such as drug trafficking. Among other actions, it permitted law enforcement to use electronic surveillance to investigate terrorism financing and crimes, including the use of weapons of mass destruction. The act also instituted new penalties on terrorists and their supporters, including longer maximum penalties, elimination of statues of limitations for some crimes, and prosecution for harboring terrorists.
Some aspects of the Patriot Act generated protests, including the provision that allowed law enforcement much leeway in notifying a suspect that an investigation was being conducted. The act permitted the use of roving wiretaps, meaning investigators could follow the communications of an individual over any device. Because the law prohibited interfering with flights and crew members, many passengers were prosecuted in federal courts for being unruly during flights. Those found guilty faced lengthy prison terms and hefty fines, while in some cases, violators were charged for flight diversions and were permanently banned from airlines.
The FBI cited the powers of the Patriot Act as necessary to fight both domestic and international terrorist attacks. In just a few decades, terrorists had killed hundreds of Americans around the globe, including 17 in a bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, and 241 US Marines in Beirut, both in 1983. Other attacks resulted in hostage situations, 189 American deaths when a bomb brought down Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, and the deaths of 17 sailors in the USS Cole bombing in 2000 in Yemen. Law enforcement has largely supported the Patriot Act, much of which has been reauthorized through the years. At the same time, civil rights groups have protested the loss of individual freedoms and the increased power of investigators.
After whistleblower Edward Snowden published documents revealing the National Security Agency's controversial program of bulk phone data collection under section 215 of the Patriot Act in 2013, three provisions, including section 215, were allowed to expire by the Senate in 2015. By the following day, however, President Barack Obama had signed the USA Freedom Act, which reinstated all three provisions with significant alterations to section 215.
Significant International Legislation
Terrorism affects many countries throughout the world. This has prompted officials to create antiterrorism legislation in an effort to thwart these acts, prosecute offenders, and keep residents safe.
Great Britain
Great Britain has experienced terrorism for decades. Conflicts with groups in Northern Ireland led to attacks, including frequent bombings, beginning in the 1970s. Most counterterrorism legislation was depicted as necessary and temporary. As with the Patriot Act, many British laws have remained in effect for many years, and critics have questioned the erosion of civil and human rights due to greater surveillance of the population.
The Afghanistan wars and other conflicts in the Middle East have also affected Great Britain. Major legislation includes the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, the Terrorism Act 2006, and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. The 2000 law expanded the definition of terrorism and gave greater power to law enforcement to stop and search individuals and detain suspects. The 2001 law permits greater freedom in freezing the assets of terrorism suspects. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 extended the time a suspect could be detained without being charged from fourteen to twenty-eight days.
Europe
After widespread fighting began in Syria in 2011, many people traveled to that nation to train and participate in the conflict. Journalists with the Guardian studied reports and concluded that people from twenty-two countries had fought in Syria. France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Germany had the most potential fighters, while Australian officials believed high numbers of fighters journeyed from that country. Many nations had created lists of people who were suspected of terrorist activity, but countries continued to grapple with questions of how to prevent terrorism without infringing upon individual rights. In many cases, civil rights groups argued that legislation was too broad, allowing individuals to be detained without being charged and providing insufficient court oversight of police actions.
Australia
The Australian government has enacted some legislation, including the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 of New South Wales. This act gives power to the commissioner or deputy commissioner of police to permit specific actions in response to terrorist acts. These powers, which may be in effect for from two to fourteen days, are meant to help prevent an attack or capture suspects. Under this law, police gained greater authority to detain people or vehicles, search buildings, close off search areas, and gather evidence. Police must obtain preventative detention orders from the high court to hold a detainee for up to fourteen days. The law also addresses protection of a detainee's rights.
Russia
Russia faced a number of violent actions early in the twenty-first century, particularly because of Chechen insurgents. Suicide bombers in the subways of Moscow killed about eighty people in 2004. Later that year, militants took more than a thousand hostages in a school in Beslan, North Ossetia. More than three hundred people—most of them children—died in the gunfight and explosions that ensued. The Beslan school attack directly influenced future tactics and legislation in Russia. The 2006 federal On Counteraction to Terrorism law redefined terrorism not as an activity or act, but rather as a larger, multifaceted practice meant to achieve some political goal. The law also placed all resources involved in an operation, including military, first responders, and other resources, under the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), the counterterrorism headquarters. The federal government legalized the use of military and combat forces in fighting terrorism and authorized military forces to attack terrorists at home and abroad. However, the law stated such strong counterterrorism action may be performed without declaring a state of emergency and gave the agencies involved widespread powers of surveillance with little oversight.
The 2006 Russian law further defined terrorist activity to include providing information or materials that promote such activity or explain the need for such actions. Critics say such overly broad definitions silence free speech and the freedom of the press. Broadcasters have withheld information about terrorist activities due to fears of being charged with the crime of justifying terrorism.
In the summer of 2016, President Vladimir Putin signed a controversial package of ant-terrorism laws. The legislation includes making the failure to alert authorities of "reliable" intel about suspected terrorist attacks criminal, requiring telephone and internet companies to record metadata for three years, and rendering the expressed approval of terrorism online punishable with a prison sentence of up to seven years, among other harsh statutes.
Data Retention Laws
Many nations have struggled with the issue of data retention laws. These laws require telecommunications and Internet companies to maintain records of customers' locations and traffic metadata—for several years in some cases. The Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, Australia, and Austria were among the nations either implementing or rejecting such laws. In 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled metadata retention laws violated privacy rights and declared them invalid. The CJEU said such laws were too general and did not require any court or body to oversee the application of the law in gathering or using information. Furthermore, companies did not inform customers that their data were being retained.
United Nations Efforts
Since its creation during World War II, the United Nations (UN) has worked to prevent terrorism and punish those involved in terrorist acts. UN legal instruments and amendments have addressed safeguarding nuclear materials, naval piracy, international flights, and hijacking, among other criminal acts, including transporting biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism states that nations must work to prevent terrorists from acquiring funding through groups that claim to be charities or cultural organizations or through crimes such as drug trafficking. It also allows nations to seize funds that are being funneled to terrorists. At the same time, the UN recognizes the need to address social situations that lead to terrorist activity, such as ethnic conflicts and economic instability.
Member states of the UN have been working on a treaty focused on international terrorism. In addition to emphasizing the importance of prosecuting and extraditing those who commit or authorize terrorist acts, the treaty would abolish laws that make terrorist acts legal because of ethnic, political, or religious grounds and would establish the importance of international cooperation to prevent and investigate terrorism and prosecute criminals.
Bibliography
"A Byte Out of History: Terror on Wall Street." Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, 13 Sept. 2007, www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/september/wallstreet‗091307. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
Chen, Stephanie. "Stricter Punishments for Passengers Behaving Badly." CNN, 18 Sept. 2009, www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/09/18/unruly.passenger.airlines/index.html?iref=24hours. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
"Clinton Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill." CNN, 24 Apr. 1996, www.cnn.com/US/9604/24/anti-terrorism/. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
"Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code." Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
Diamond, Jeremy. "Patriot Act Provisions Have Expired: What Happens Now?" CNN, 1 June 2015, www.cnn.com/2015/05/30/politics/what-happens-if-the-patriot-act-provisions-expire/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2016.
Essers, Loek. "EU Data Retention Rules Violate Privacy Rights and Are Invalid, EU Court Rules." PC World, 8 Apr. 2014, www.pcworld.com/article/2141040/eu-data-retention-rules-violate-privacy-rights-and-are-invalid-eu-court-rules.html. Accessed 13 Jan. 2015.
"Groups/United States." Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium, www.trackingterrorism.org/groups. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
Hanman, Natalie. "Explainer: Terrorism Legislation." The Guardian, 22 Jan. 2009, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jan/22/explainer-terrorism-legislation. Accessed 13 Jan. 2015.
"International Legal Instruments." United Nations Action to Counter Terrorism, United Nations, www.un.org/en/terrorism/instruments.shtml. Accessed 13 Jan. 2015.
"NSW Counter Terrorism Legislation." NSW Government, 27 Oct. 2014, www.secure.nsw.gov.au/Legislation/NSW-counter-terrorism-legislation.aspx. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
Omelicheva, Mariya Y. "After Beslan: Changes in Russia's Counterterrorism Policy." E-International Relations, 15 Oct. 2012, www.e-ir.info/2012/10/15/after-beslan-changes-in-russias-counterterrorism-policy/. Accessed 13 Jan. 2015.
Roth, Andrew. "Putin Signs New Anti-Terror Law in Russia. Edward Snowden Is Upset." The Washington Post, 7 July 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/putin-signs-law-to-bolster-russian-surveillance-angering-edward-snowden/2016/07/07/4d307aca-443e-11e6-a76d-3550dba926ac‗story.html. Accessed 1 Nov. 2016.
Safi, Michael, and Nick Evershed. "Australians Fighting in Syria: How Many Have Joined the Conflict?" The Guardian, 9 Apr. 2014, www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2014/apr/09/australians-fighting-in-syria-how-many-have-joined-the-conflict. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
"Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans." InfoPlease, Pearson Education, www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.
Watson, Dale L. "Testimony: Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence." Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice, 6 Feb. 2002, www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states. Accessed 12 Jan. 2015.