Evaluating the Legal Challenges and Effects of Counterterrorism Policy

Abstract

Since September 11, 2001, a significant portion of the public policy in the United States has focused upon the threat of terrorism. Following the attacks, the need for increased attention to counterterrorism resulted in substantial allocations of public funding toward these initiatives. Yet, researchers conducting systematic reviews of the literature surrounding counterterrorism strategies have suggested that very few rigorous evaluations of such strategies actually exist, despite these substantial expenditures (Journal of Experimental Criminology 2:489–516, 2006). Even more surprisingly, this shortage of evaluation research persists despite the considerable amount of scholarly attention focused on the topic of terrorism. An example of this can be seen with respect to the numerous legal issues surrounding terror prevention. Post-9/11 legal issues have often taken center stage within policy debates regarding terrorism; some examples include the legality and propriety of interrogation methods, indefinite detentions, wiretapping, and numerous other issues of legal policy. However, while legal scholars have energetically published doctrinal analyses of these issues, few empirical studies related to legal issues have been conducted and even fewer of these can be called evaluations. Thus, this chapter explores the empirical literature related to law and terrorism. Following this, suggestions for areas of research that would benefit from a more detailed investigation are discussed.