The book is an inspiring contribution to critical terrorism studies scholarship, both in its depth of analysis and in the diversity of country cases presented. It critically analyses the premise of national security as a blanket concept for excusing human rights infringement and argues a compelling case that many governments worldwide, both democratic and authoritarian, often go too far in their attempt to engage with pre-emptive security. The book vividly shows that counterterrorism, despite being conceptualised and used differently by various regimes, has remarkable similarities when used for achieving alternative political goals, such as silencing political opponents and activists, limiting the regime’s exposure to public accountability, and limiting people’s right and freedoms for national security. Counter-terrorism Law and Freedom of Expression argues that civil rights and liberties are not to be sacrificed in the name of preserving the status quo of national security or pursuing uncertain goals of pre-emptive security. Such an approach, as the authors consistently argue, brings us to the brink of no longer being able to discern the difference between counterterrorism and terrorism itself.
You can find the full review here