The States & Antiterrorism Dialogue & Resistance
Type
Publication
Authors
Category
Publication Year
2004
Publisher
University of Michigan Press, United States
URL
[ private ]
Pages
29p
Subject
Antiterrorism, State, Criminalization
Tags
Abstract
In the early days after September 11, a number of states moved quickly to enact various forms of strengthened antiterrorism legislation—some expanding the de‹nition of terrorism in state law and strengthening punishments, others adopting
new measures on emergencies and public health, and some engaging in vigorous debate about providing law enforcement with new wiretapping and surveillance tools. These moves did not occur in an empty playing ‹eld, for a number of states had already begun addressing terrorism-related issues in the 1990s. In Illinois, for example, where several heavily scrutinized Muslim American charitable organizations were based, the legislature had passed a law in 1996 that criminalized solicitation of or providing support for “international terrorism.” California
had adopted legislation against manufacturing, possessing, using, or threatening to use “weapons of mass destruction” in 1999, as well as against possession of some biological agents.
new measures on emergencies and public health, and some engaging in vigorous debate about providing law enforcement with new wiretapping and surveillance tools. These moves did not occur in an empty playing ‹eld, for a number of states had already begun addressing terrorism-related issues in the 1990s. In Illinois, for example, where several heavily scrutinized Muslim American charitable organizations were based, the legislature had passed a law in 1996 that criminalized solicitation of or providing support for “international terrorism.” California
had adopted legislation against manufacturing, possessing, using, or threatening to use “weapons of mass destruction” in 1999, as well as against possession of some biological agents.
Description
29 p.; 28 cm
Number of Copies
1