The danger is less that a state will sponsor a terror group and more that a terror group will sponsor a state—as happened in Afghanistan Zakaria: Stepping away from the partisan screaming going on these days, the 9/11 commission hearings and—far more revealing—the panel's staff reports paint a fascinating picture of the rise of a new phenomenon in global politics: terrorism that is not state-sponsored but society-sponsored. Few in the American government fully grasped that a group of people without a state's support could pose a mortal threat. The mistake looks obvious in hindsight, but was, sadly, understandable at the time of 9/11. What is less understandable is that this same error persists even today.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly on Mar 28, 2004 - 46 comments

Apologies come from the top Queensland, Australia: "QUEENSLAND'S elite anti-terrorism police will no longer use photos of real people in target practice after concerns were raised by indigenous and civil liberties groups." Dp the police have the right to use someone's mugshot for target practice, without permission or consent?
posted by skinsuit on Jul 7, 2003 - 16 comments

Thanks be! Orgnanization finally formed that speaks for all of us terrorized Americans. Except it's not that squeaky clean. Beware of AVOT. They intend to "take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the war we are facing."
posted by crasspastor on Mar 13, 2002 - 26 comments

It's official: ACLU hates the new anti-terrorism bill. So what's new, or, do they have a point?
posted by Rastafari on Oct 24, 2001 - 22 comments

Canada gets it own Star Chamber. New "anti-terrorism" bill allows police to arrest and hold "suspects" for 72 hours without a charge, allows the government agency that monitors foreign communications to spy on Canadians, and creates "investigative hearings" in which you can be compelled to testify before a judge.
posted by tranquileye on Oct 16, 2001 - 8 comments

Hackers face life imprisonment under 'Anti-Terrorism' Act
Hackers, virus-writers and web site defacers would face life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under legislation proposed by the Bush Administration that would classify most computer crimes as acts of terrorism.
posted by venegas on Sep 25, 2001 - 40 comments

It's not just Islamic fundamentalist terrorists that are scared. Sinn Fein publishes an attack on US antiterrorism policy. Perhaps they fear they might be up against the wall eventually themselves, especially since they have steadfastly refused to even pretend to start decommissioning as per the peace agreement?
posted by aaron on Sep 16, 2001 - 18 comments