222467to222472

Hans-Joerg Albrecht
rights as citizens of a democracy, nor can even adjustments created to deal
with internal organized threats be used effectively against such a global
enemy network”). In the United States president's Military Order on
Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against
Terrorism issued November 13 th , 2001 the alienated and preventative enemy
criminal law is on display.
The German sociologist Beck predicts two types of transnational
cooperation between states which include different forms of criminal law
based social control and different forms in treating not only terrorism but
deviance at large, crime and risk. One type of transnational cooperation
between states refers to the surveillance state. States of surveillance risk at
being transformed into fortresses in which safety ranks very prominently
while freedom and democracy are downgraded (de Benoist, 2002, p. 40;
Beck, 2002, pp. 26); such surveillance or security states are also
characterized by transforming criminal law into police laws geared towards
the control of risks (Bloy, 2003, pp. 20-21). This type of surveillance state at
the same time is in Europe an attempt to establish a European fortress
against the culturally different. A development towards this type of
surveillance states seems to be clear. This is expressed in immigration
control as well as immigration legislation and in the obvious changes in the
laws of political asylum (Albrecht, 2002). The latter was subject to rapid
changes in the last decade with extending deportation and a loss of
importance of the concept of the political offender in exchange for growth in
importance in the concept of the terrorist offender (Kittrie, 2000, pp. 193).
This becomes also visible in the latest amendment to the European
Convention on the Supression of Terrorism (Protocol amending the
European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, Strasbourg, 15. 5.
2003) which seeks to enlarge the scope of “depoliticised” criminal offences
for which extradition to another state may not be refused.
The paradigm of criminal law in this process is transformed from a liberal or
civil type of criminal law and ordinary suspects to a – as Jakobs (2000) has
defined it – enemy type criminal law. This kind of enemy criminal law is
different from a civil type of criminal law insofar as criminal offenders are
imagined who either cannot or do not want to give a cognitive guarantee
that they will behave as ordinary/normal citizens (and not as an enemy).
Such cognitive guarantees are essential as they convey the message that a
person will in principle comply with the basic rules of a society. Enemy
type criminal offenders produce in a certain way the picture that they
diverted from order and law permanently or – that will certainly determine
36