{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01486988847583643, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007434944237918215, 'mean_word_length': 5.565853658536585, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Politics of Targeted and Untargeted Counterterrorist Regulations

ABSTRACT Civil liberties came under pressure after Al Qaeda’s attacks in the U.S. and Europe. Governments in many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries started questioning the effectiveness of counterterrorist policies and regulations. Incumbents responded to terrorism not only by introducing ex novo (or re-adapting) laws and regulations affecting a large set of civil rights; they also responded to international terrorism by choosing between an untargeted and a targeted legislative response. Some governments reduced the liberties of foreign foes more than the freedoms of citizens, while others preferred burdening all individuals within their borders, immigrants and citizens alike. This article analyzes the determinants of targeted and untargeted antiterrorist responses to Al Qaeda terrorism in a sample of 20 Western democracies from 2000 to 2008. The findings suggest that patterns of targeted legislation were more pronounced in countries governed by right-wing incumbents and those where the decisional power in the cabinet is divided among a few number of political parties. In addition, a larger share of Muslims and the degree of ethnic fractionalization played a relevant role in determining governments’ choices of prime targets.