How Many Terrorists Are There? The Escalation in So-Called Terrorism Prosecutions

The Socialization Of Terrorism In Canada

“…The various definitions of terrorism within the US' national security and law enforcement communities provided for a wide array of ambiguous offences that were prosecuted as terrorism offences but were perhaps better situated as hate or conventional crimes. In order to pursue maximum sentences, overly-keen prosecutors sometimes chose to apply terrorism charges in situations that were clearly unrelated to terrorism (Buchhandler-Raphael, 2012;Demleitner, 2003).…”

Sound and Fury: Pretextual Prosecution and Department of Justice Antiterrorism Efforts

“…As detailed below, the FBI has devoted enormous resources to antiterrorism efforts since September 11, 2001 and like all bureaucracies faces pressure from congressional patrons to justify these expenditures with measurable results. FBI agents may manipulate the already ambiguous definition of terrorism so as to sweep more conduct under the “terrorism” classification and thereby increase the reported numbers of terrorism investigations and arrests (Demleitner 2003). Overreliance on technical prosecutions also suggests that federal prosecutors have forsaken their role as gatekeepers against investigator overzealousness in favor of a “notch‐on‐the‐gun” mentality that seeks to pigeonhole mundane criminal behavior into the government's priority du jour .…”

“…If congressional antiterrorism appropriations are a hammer, a lot of criminal behavior begins to look like a nail. Furthermore, insofar as aggressive use of the technical strategy inflates the number of “terrorists” being prosecuted, it may “augment public insecurity and create unnecessary alarm over run‐of‐the‐mill criminal activity” (Demleitner 2003: 42).…”

“…It is unsurprising that focus on the Justice Department's efforts at employing the traditional criminal justice process to combat terrorism is lost in the glare of prison abuse scandals and the broader constitutional debate of executive branch prerogative. Scholars have engaged the normative debate as to what should be considered terrorism (Begorre‐Bret 2006; Demleitner 2003; Schmid 2004). They also have considered the general question of whether the criminal justice process is well suited to antiterrorism efforts (Breinholt 2005; Chesney 2005).…”

“…But the difficulty with prosecuting individuals suspected of terrorist involvement with other crimes such as immigration or false statement offenses is that “the Justice Department lacks any validation of its claimed success. Without any adjudication of a terrorist connection, ipse dixit is not enough” (Richman and Stuntz 2005: 587; see also Demleitner 2003: 40). The question becomes: How does one study the behavior of FBI agents who claim to use consensual declinations and federal prosecutors who purport to use a strategy of pretextual prosecution?…”