Terrorism and the law: Historical contexts, contemporary dilemmas, and the end(s) of democracy

Recent proposals by the G7 (and Russia) to clamp down on terrorists and terrorism do not define that which is prohibited. Instead, a threat is communicated which in turn allows, among other things, greater attention to be paid officially to camouflage charities and terrorist use of the Internet. Nevertheless, it is somewhat of a truism to note that terrorist violence is ultimately defined or characterized, for purposes of legal prohibition, within a highly politicized atmosphere. Starting with a short summary of anti-terrorist codification efforts made this century, this article examines some of the security interests cited by governments today in their respective struggles against terrorism. More specifically, it is argued that individual perceptions of personal and societal threat are heightened unnecessarily not only by a constant stream of governmental anti-terrorist rhetoric, but further, by an awareness of official and unofficial methods of anti-terrorist surveillance, and the use to which the information so obtained can be put.     

When Manu met Mahāsammata

Conclusions When Manu met MS is a story told to explain the origins of the dhammathats. This is where the text came from implies the corollary ... and that is why we must obey the contents of the text. The special feature of this story, which rendered it unsuitable for inclusion in our Postcanonical Adventures survey, is that MS shares equal billing with Manu. The legitimation of law is such a heavy task that it requires the combined efforts of two culture heroes. Forchhammer and Lingat recognised the strangeness of this shared responsibility and interpreted it in terms of sources. Putting their shared position in colloquial language: