At times of extraordinarily serious terrorist threat, many governments have accorded law-enforcement authorities special powers of arrest and detention. These powers have generally been temporary and were meant specifically to aid the government in capturing and prosecuting terrorists and eliminating extremist threats to society, while avoiding the imposition of unjustly severe measures that might infringe on civil rights and civil liberties. These expanded powers, however, have generated public concern and criticism of government, especially when coupled with the suspension of long-standing and cherished democratic protections such as habeas corpus and due process of law.

The United Kingdom provides a good example of a democratic country that has made extensive use of such emergency powers. Since 1973 the United Kingdom has enacted no less than three separate laws sanctioning extrajudicial measures. They include successive Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts, first signed in 1973; the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 1975; and the Terrorism Act 2000. These laws must be formally reconsidered and approved by Britain's Parliament on a regular basis. In various forms, they have allowed arrests without warrants (written authorizations) and prolonged detentions of terrorist suspects without the bringing of charges; broader police powers of search and arrest; trial by judge alone rather than by jury; denial of access to the media for banned groups; and the outright banning of organizations designated as subversive (intending to overthrow the government).

D International Counterterrorism

International cooperation against terrorism historically has had a somewhat uneven record. During the early 1970s international cooperative efforts produced various aircraft antihijacking agreements, including the 1970 Hague Convention for the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation. Attempts were later made to extend these treaties to embrace a broader array of international antiterrorist agreements. Almost without exception, however, those efforts foundered because of the international community's failure to agree on a definition of terrorism.

Recent events suggest greater progress toward meaningful cooperation among governments in fighting terrorism. Even before September 11, 2001, the United Nations had taken important steps to punish Afghanistan's Taliban regime for providing sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1267 (passed in 1999), 1333 (2000), and 1363 (2001) imposed sanctions on the Taliban for harboring bin Laden and failing to close down al-Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. These resolutions demonstrated a change in international attitudes toward terrorism along with a commitment to isolate states that refuse to adhere to international norms.

On the day after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks the UN Security Council approved Resolution 1368, which reaffirmed the UN's commitment “to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”; recognized the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the [UN] Charter” against terrorism; and unequivocally condemned “in the strongest terms” the September 11 attacks. Two weeks later, Security Council Resolution 1373 was approved. It called for the prevention and suppression of terrorism financing and greater exchange of the operational information needed by UN member-states to fight terrorism.

VII HISTORY

A Early Terrorism

More than 2,000 years ago the first known acts of what we now call terrorism were perpetrated by a radical offshoot of the Zealots, a Jewish sect active in Judea during the 1st century ad. The Zealots resisted the Roman Empire's rule of what is today Israel through a determined campaign primarily involving assassination. Zealot fighters used the sica, a primitive dagger, to attack their enemies in broad daylight, often in crowded market places or on feast days—essentially wherever there were people to witness the violence. Thus, like modern terrorists, the Zealots intended their actions to communicate a message to a wider target audience: in this instance, the Roman occupation forces and any Jews who sympathized or collaborated with the invaders.

Between 1090 and 1272 an Islamic movement known as the Assassins used similar tactics in their struggle against the Christian Crusaders who had invaded what is today part of Syria. The Assassins embraced the same notions of self-sacrifice and suicidal martyrdom evident in some Islamic terrorist groups today. They regarded violence as a sacramental or divine act that ensured its perpetrators would ascend to a glorious heaven should they perish during the task.