222467to222472

Terrorism, Risk, and Legislation
the future of enemy criminal law after September 11 th – that they have never
thought about giving voluntarily that cognitive minimum which enables a
minimum trust that they will behave as individuals bound by law, norms and
social institutions in the future. As regards the answer to the question what
type of offenders will be labeled as not providing these cognitive
minimums, well known groups of suspects emerge. Among such groups we
find those who are characterized as being determined by (untreatable)
rational choice and not by (treatable) social stress as well as personal and
individual deficits. The model candidate for the enemy criminal law
becomes visible in particular in the context of debates on transaction crime
or organized crime (Stegmann, 2004). There, the suspect is described as a
general threat and not as a threat for individual interests. The offender is
described as a threat for society at large and the social fabric, internal or
external safety of the states. Terrorists fit into that model very well.
Concepts of risks and enemies
Perceptions of the potential of risk (and herewith the capacity to act as an
enemy of society) are evidently determined by the presence of an
organization or a network, in extreme cases also by the view of competing
and uncompatible cultures. This corresponds to views which see the
potential of risk of modern and future terrorism in networks and in the
emerging capacity of “swarming” (Arquilla/Ronfeldt, 2001). From the
viewpoint of strategic organizational perspectives, the most dangerous
variations of future terrorism are described with approaches that are based
on the concept of networks and netwars. The future enemies of the nation
states and security have the following common characteristics. They use
modern communication technology, they have a basis which guarantees
trust and cooperation (such as ethnic membership, religion), a collective
narrative which extends to goals and missions, they form independent but
communicating small groups and develop a capacity to swarm (on the basis
of a common programme and herewith developing a capacity of acting
independently (Hess, 2002, p. 146). Networks of terrorism, by the way,
represent only one type of networks which are making up the economic,
social and cultural world and which are independent from a territorial basis
(de Benoist, 2002, pp. 19). The emergence of networks and the presence of
potentials of recruiting followers and activating social emotions that are
widely dispersed and therefore guarantee also substantial redundancy
37