The Impact of Iraq’s Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005 on Freedom of Expression

Abstract

Terrorism has been a persistent phenomenon throughout history, and only a few countries can claim to have been entirely free from terrorist acts over the past centuries. However, the attacks of September 11, 2001—considered the most significant terrorist assault against the United States—marked a critical turning point in the evolution of terrorism. These events represented an unprecedented, devastating, and transformative moment in contemporary history. A prominent French philosopher, emphasizing their global significance, referred to them as the “mother of events.” The targeting of the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon inaugurated a new era of confrontation between the United States and its allies, forming the so-called “anti-terrorism front,” against terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and later ISIS, which constituted the “terrorism front.” This confrontation heightened the sense of global insecurity. Since then, the “war on terror” has assumed multifaceted dimensions, including legal, political, and security aspects, as terrorism has simultaneously been recognized as both an international and a domestic crime. In the context of Iraq, prior to the collapse of the Ba’athist regime in 2003, no comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation existed. Following the intervention of U.S. and coalition forces, Iraq witnessed a surge in violent terrorist activities that gravely threatened national stability and public order. In response, legislative efforts were undertaken to draft laws aimed at combating terrorism and mitigating its consequences. These initiatives culminated in the enactment of Anti-Terrorism Law No. 13 of 2005. Nevertheless, the enforcement of this law—particularly regarding its implications for fundamental rights and freedoms—has generated considerable debate. Critics contend that certain provisions have had adverse effects on civil liberties in general and on freedom of expression in particular, rights that are explicitly guaranteed in the Iraqi Constitution. This tension raises a fundamental legal and political question: To what extent can the necessity of safeguarding national security be reconciled with the commitment to protecting freedom of expression? Scholarly inquiry into this matter typically adopts a multidisciplinary approach. The descriptive method is employed to contextualize and define the issue, the analytical method to examine the text and structure of the legal provisions, and the critical method to interpret the law, identify its strengths and weaknesses, highlight deficiencies and challenges, and ultimately provide a balanced assessment. Such an approach enables a precise understanding of the relationship between anti-terrorism legislation and fundamental freedoms, while also offering potential pathways for achieving a more equitable balance between public security and individual rights.