Terrorism Definition, State of Emergency, Political Management, French Penal Code, Homeland Security Act, Patriot Act, Counter Terrorism, Public Security, International Terrorism
Reader
Abstract
Extract
of 6
Abstract
This document discusses the fluctuating nature of terrorism, its legal definition, and the use of emergency powers as a factor of political management.
Extract
[...] These various laws are a reaction to an act and are built in urgency (ad-hocism of Jenny Raflik"17), creating the possibility of 'odious laws' initially targeted at anarchist bombings at the end of the 19th century The use of the expression 'war on terrorism' if it has not been able to achieve a military victory has been able to prepare public opinion to accept laws that it would not have accepted without censure in other circumstances, notably the establishment of a state of emergency. III. State of permanent emergency as a political management The state of emergency designates the transformation of justice in favor of the executive (police and intelligence services) in order to gain speed and efficiency. However, evoked in the fight against an enemy not really named, it cannot be suppressed and transforms into a mode of political management. A. [...]
[...] This expression produces an absurdity since the adjective 'war' automatically makes the insurgent enemy a warrior. Thus, this adjective legitimates the so-called 'terrorists' by making them strategic actors12. B. The security laws in the USA and in France After an attack, laws of exception are legitimized to preserve order, although they 'go against the emerging liberalism13 ». This liberalism, if it applies in part from an economic point of view is not complete, because divergent power relations make no theory apply in its entirety Following the 9/11 attack, many measures will be voted to avoid the reproduction of this type of attack, for example the organization of the country's security through the [...]
[...] The term terrorism being polysemous and proteiform, it can be used for other groups than the Islamist movements. If security organs were only concerned with these, their other functions in maintaining public order would not be fulfilled. [...]
[...] Despite the EU's desire to create a common jurisdiction between member states6, such a definition raises a legitimate problem when there is a conflict against an organization in conflict with a state, whether it is for separatism (particularly targeted by Spanish law) or even subsidiaries of Al-Qaïda or the Islamic State at war with one or more countries. The US definition, on the other hand, distinguishes between domestic terrorism and international terrorism7, with a proximity in the definition compared to the French. The need to name the adversary that differs from country to country makes it impossible to have an agreement between countries to give a legal framework to the term 'terrorism'. [...]
[...] Who can be qualified as a 'terrorist' in France? If we return to the French framework, we understand that the vagueness surrounding this definition or the possibility of a certain opportunism in the use of this label opens up the field of possibilities. The opposition to a 'public order' designating both anarchist or libertarian milieus, riots in the so-called 'difficult' neighborhoods, as well as bombers at war with a government. Thus, this allows MP Marie-Laure Harel to justify its use to designate rioters from the yellow vests.8. [...]
