Rise of the Counterterrorist States, February 2001

• NCJ Number: 189765
• Author(s): Laura K. Donohue; Juliette N. Kayyem
• Date Published: February 2001
• Length: 25 pages
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services; Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded August 10, 2001

Annotation

This document addresses the three types of State counterterrorist legislation, and the legal and practical questions regarding the proper role of the States in America’s counterterrorist efforts.

Abstract

Three types of measures that fall within a traditional understanding of terrorism and have been addressed at a Federal level have begun to work their way into State statutes. These are measures that (1) prohibit support for international terrorist organizations, (2) focus on the actual or threatened terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and (3) seek to criminalize terrorist-motivated conduct. States have a useful role in efforts to counter the terrorist threat in the United States (U.S.). State criminal law enforcement is relevant given that such violence is criminal conduct. States have a primary responsibility to protect citizens when domestic terrorism is a threat. Federal statutes and the U.S. legal framework give some indication of other considerations that need to be taken into account in determining the States’ role. The group of laws that discuss domestic preparedness should be understood to do exactly what Congress intended in its WMD legislation -– enable States to address consequence management in the event of a terrorist attack. In areas where the States are responsible for domestic preparedness, such as in training, certification for the issuance of vaccines, and environmental consequences, legislation that helps facilitate these should be actively encouraged. In addition, States have sought expansive and easily referenced criminal enforcement of hoax attempts. These laws would not conflict with any Federal statute or Federal necessity for a unified anti-WMD approach. State laws raise important legal issues that deserve particular attention, but the law should not be the only consideration. The primary goal of the States and the Federal government is to maintain an effective and sound counterterrorist policy. 39 notes.