222467to222472

Hans-Joerg Albrecht
certainly are precarious from the viewpoint of efficiency of this type of
networks. Precariousness of such networks follows evidently also from the
perspective of possible counterstrategies. If such counterstrategies - as has
been suggested - will be based on the development of counterterrorism
networks (de Benoist, 2002, p. 39; see also the debate on a European
Intelligence Communication Network, Müller-Wille, 2004) then, democratic
societies would suffer further defeats as this would contribute to a loss of
control of executive powers. If only networks are effective in controlling
networks then, democratic safeguards that are based on transparency, checks
and balances as well as parliamentary debate and votes are not meaningful
anymore.
It is in particular the image of a counter or underworld which makes
terrorism a formidable candidate for an enemy criminal law. For, evidently
there – in this counterworld - even those motives that make conventional
organized crime (e.g. profit and orientation towards the market)
understandable and which thus produce in a certain sense security and
predictability do not exist anymore. It is the image of the counterworld as
well as values and norms that make it different from conventional society
which preclude cognitive stabilization of normative expectations and with
that also counter-factual stabilization once a criminal offence has occurred.
Dangerousness and loss of control are assigned to those who belong to that
counter-society.
Sociological analysis of late modernity (which understands late modernity
also as the very basis of individualized life styles) point in this context to a
precarious balance. It is obvious that the basis for a civil criminal law that
addresses first of all the citizen and which is conceptualized on the basis of
inclusion and integration of the offender (including all the guarantees of the
conventional criminal process for suspects and the accused) is seen in a type
of social integration which precludes that the individual possesses a
significant possibility to express him or herself as an enemy. The potential
to become an enemy under modern conditions of social integration is
reduced to the rare case that integration of individuals is not possible
because of psychopathological conditions. In the centre of the conventional
process of social integration bonds to institutions, values, and the perception
of norms and social order as legitimate rank very prominently. This is not
the case in a society which is based on individualism. Under conditions of
individualism social integration has to be established on another basis. With
these conditions prevailing conditions that make out of individuals or social
groups enemies emerge correspondingly. Individualization causes more
38