These two areas of contention within the study of terrorism can be argued to have played important roles in the development of the debate between the military and policing models of counterterrorism. In the absence of a coherent understanding of terrorism and what it constitutes, it has enabled and exacerbated the misconceptions that can be seen to have produced certain (supposedly detrimental) elements of both models.
The Efficacy of Policing Policies
Policing policies of counterterrorism are framed around the notion that terrorism, as an act, is carried out in contravention of national laws. 70 In this sense, it is classed as a criminal offence and subject to the legal enforcement of the state in which it is committed. These policies are elements of the larger criminal justice model of counterterrorism, as Ronald Crelinsten suggests 71 , and are seen as a more traditional approach to combatting terrorism. 72 They can be exercised in both reactive and proactive approaches to fighting the threat that terrorism poses. The capture and detention of terrorist suspects, for example, may be seen as a form of reactive counterterrorism in that steps can only be carried out after an act has been committed. A proactive approach, on the other hand, can be evidenced in activities such as intelligence gathering. Both of these elements are said to serve as a form of deterrence to potential terrorist 70 Alex P. Schmid, 'Frameworks For Conceptualising Terrorism', Terrorism and Political Violence , 16.2 (2004), 197–221, pp. 197– 199. 71 Crelinsten, Counterterrorism , pp. 48-49 72 Harvard Law Review Association, 'Responding to Terrorism: Crime, Punishment, and War', Harvard Law Review ,115.4 (2002), 1217–1238, p. 1224.
28
Made with FlippingBook HTML5