222467to222472

Hans-Joerg Albrecht
Introduction
After September 11 th , a process was initiated by international and
supranational organizations as well as national legislative bodies, a process
that is quite familiar to the German public from experiences made in the
70’s and during the period of what became known as German terrorism.
However, historical parallels can be observed for other European countries,
for example the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984 that followed the
bombings in Birmingham in November 1984, or legislation in France after
series of terrorist activities in 1986 as well as 1995/1996 (Walker, 1992, pp.
31; Hermant/Bigo, 2000).
Legislative responses to German terrorism, also known as anti-terrorism
legislation (Berlit/Dreier, 1984) can be characterized as swift reactions to
terrorist acts, they signalled the states´ activity and readiness to act; these
responses have been also characterized as expressions of a loss of distance
between the legislative and executive branches of the state (Berlit/Dreier,
1984, pp. 258). What could be observed also in German anti-terrorism
legislation of the 70’s concerns politicisation of criminal legislation which
included fundamental debates on questions of terrorism, in particular as
regards the question of how supporters of terrorism should be separated
from legitimate criticism of the states´ response to terrorism. It is back then
that the label of “sympathizers” of terrorism has been created and made
operative in political debates on terrorism. However, the political debates
following September 11 th have been less spectacular than those of the 70’s.
On the contrary, the debates that follow September 11 th demonstrate in fact
an absence of principled discussions, in particular discussions on the
relevance of anti-terrorism legislation for human rights (however, see now
Council of Europe, 2004). The relevance of anti-terrorism legislation for a
profound re-arrangement of fundamental rights certainly is evident (see
Crelinsten/Özkut 2000, pp. 261); what has been gaining momentum in
particular is a new debate on the limits of interrogation and the legitimacy of
torture (Bowden, 2003). It has been concluded in a statement by the US
Department of Justice that the general prohibition of torture leaves room for
interpretation as only extreme acts of pain inflicting interrogation methods
are seen to fall under the prohibition of torture by the UN Convention
Against Torture as well as US law implementing the convention (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2002). What also merely has been discussed
concerns the question whether planned and implemented law reforms
14