Urbanizing the security agenda

The meanings of “terrorism” and “anti‐terrorism” are socially constructed and highly contested. Timothy Luke’s (2004) term “propaganda of the deed” suggests that terrorism is linked to a war of signs. Each deed can be mobilized for different interests to energize and embed each act with layers of politics and culture as a frame for retaliation. According to Robert W. Williams, “Contemporary terrorism is characterized by the randomness of its attacks against an entire population or society—attacks which could include such possible effects as the mass destruction of targets and the mass disruption of social life” (Williams, 2003, p. 282). While internationally these definitions of what constitutes terrorism will be played out between powerful governments and international courts (Beck, 2002), domestically, the use of the discourses of terrorism has become not only politicized, but also anchored in existing and expanding domestic policies and programmes. Post‐9/11, in the USA, a conservative political agenda has fuelled attempts to blur the boundaries between dissent or even crimes of property and what the state defines as acts of terrorism, particularly when these involve progressive movements. Although media accounts often focused on 9/11 as an abrupt departure or turning point, less attention has been paid to the continuities with political divisions and power relations that existed prior to the fall of the Twin Towers. This paper examines how interests across the political spectrum have sought to discursively frame terrorist threats to the city and to redefine what it means to have security in the city. We further explore the contradictions that arise when a conservative state, right‐wing and progressive movements seek to re‐position themselves domestically within a drastically altered geopolitics. Specifically, we outline the ways in which were repression of progressive movements were normalized by the anti‐terrorist frame.