scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Andrew Moore

Bio: Andrew Moore is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Terrorism. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 34 citations.
Topics: Terrorism

Papers
More filters

Cited by
More filters
01 Jan 2009
TL;DR: Pre-crime counter-terrorism measures can be traced through a number of interlinking historical trajectories including the wars on crime and drugs, criminalization and, more fundamentally, in colonial strategies of domination, control and repression.
Abstract: This article looks at pre-crime in the context of counter-terrorism. Pre-crime links coercive state actions to suspicion without the need for charge, prosecution or conviction. It also includes measures that expand the remit of the criminal law to include activities or associations that are deemed to precede the substantive offence targeted for prevention. The trend towards anticipating risks as a driving principle in criminal justice was identifi ed well before 2001. However, risk and threat anticipation have substantially expanded in the context of contemporary counter-terrorism frameworks. Although pre-crime counter-terrorism measures are rationalized on the grounds of preventing terrorism, these measures do not fi t in the frame of conventional crime prevention. The article argues that the shift to pre-crime embodies a trend towards integrating national security into criminal justice along with a temporal and geographic shift that encompasses a blurring of the borders between the states ’ internal and external coercive capacities. The counter-terrorism framework incorporates and combines elements of criminal justice and national security, giving rise to a number of tensions. One key tension is between the ideal of impartial criminal justice and the politically charged concept of national security. Pre-crime counter-terrorism measures can be traced through a number of interlinking historical trajectories including the wars on crime and drugs, criminalization and, more fundamentally, in colonial strategies of domination, control and repression. The article concludes by identifying a number of challenges and opportunities for criminology in the shift from post-crime criminal justice to pre-crime national security.

181 citations

Book
Kent Roach1
15 Aug 2011
TL;DR: The United States responded to the call for a legislative war on terrorism with executive power and extra-legalism, and the United Kingdom responded with hyper-legislation.
Abstract: 1. Introduction 2. The United Nations responds 3. Countries that did not immediately respond 4. The United States responds: executive power and extra-legalism 5. The United Kingdom responds: a legislative war on terrorism 6. Australia responds: hyper legislation 7. Canada responds: immigration, inquiries and human security 8. Conclusions.

125 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The secrecy provisions embodied in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (Cwlth) are discussed in this article, where the authors argue that these provisions curb freedom of speech and remove ASIO's activities from the domain of public scrutiny.
Abstract: This article describes the secrecy provisions embodied in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Act 2003 (Cwlth). The article explains how these provisions curb freedom of speech and remove ASIO's activities from the domain of public scrutiny. It argues that by effectively criminalising open discussion of ASIO's activities the provisions insulate much of the domestic 'war on terror' from the public gaze. It also argues that the provisions implicitly sanction lawlessness by ASIO in open breach of the rule of law. By undermining free speech and the rule of law, this legislation increases the risk of torture of persons detained by ASIO. The legislation also exacerbates the punitiveness of such detention. Moreover, the secrecy offences will distort Australian politics by enabling the government to control and manipulate 'security' information. The article concludes that the increase in state secrecy and its impact are part of a continuing shift in the relative distribution of power between state and subject in liberal democracies; a shift that signals a move to more repressive or authoritarian forms of rule.

51 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jude McCulloch1
TL;DR: The declaration of war, the naming of the ‘axis of evil' and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq marked a decisive moment in the history of the world as discussed by the authors, not because it ushers in a new era, but because it represents the culmination, intensification and coming to light of major shifts in global politics that were brewing below the surface for the previous three decades.
Abstract: Nine days after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington President Bush, announced the ‘‘war on terror’’. The declaration of war, the naming of the ‘‘axis of evil’’ and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq marked a decisive moment in the history of the world. The moment is momentous, not because it ushers in a new era, but because it represents the culmination, intensification, and coming to light of major shifts in global politics that were brewing below the surface for the previous three decades. U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney punctuated this change when he stated that the discovery of a new ‘‘great enemy’’ post 9/11 meant that the U.S. role in the world had finally become clear (quoted in Ryan 2002: 1). ‘‘Ground zero’’ in New York City provided fertile political soil from which to launch a new but premeditated stage in the thrust for American power. Simultaneously, governments around the world took advantage of the terror and fear surrounding the collapse of the twin towers by implementing or intensifying security measures which, in less emotionally clouded times, would be rejected as too draconian. Although touted as response to extraordinary events, these changes mark a new zenith in an ongoing power shift between state and subject in liberal democracies. The new openness brings novel opportunities to analyse and understand the changing contours of state and global power. It also provides a challenge to critical criminologists to rethink the boundaries of our discipline so we can apply the insights, built up

47 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The use of counterinsurgency theory and practice in the UK’s ‘war on terror’ blurs the distinction between Pursue and Prevent, coercion and consent, and, ultimately, civilian and combatant.
Abstract: The UK’s counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) seeks to pursue individuals involved in suspected terrorism (‘Pursue’) and seeks to minimise the risk of people becoming ‘future’ terrorists by employing policies and practices structured to pre-emptively incapacitate and socially exclude them (‘Prevent’). This article demonstrates that this two-pronged approach is based on a framework of counterinsurgency; a military doctrine used against non-state actors that encourages, amongst other things, the blanket surveillance of populations and the targeting of propaganda at them. The use of counterinsurgency theory and practice in the UK’s ‘war on terror’ blurs the distinction between Pursue and Prevent, coercion and consent, and, ultimately, civilian and combatant. This challenges the liberal claim that counter-terrorism policies, especially Prevent, are about social inclusivity or ‘safeguarding’ and that the UK government is accountable to the people.

36 citations