Samenvatting

This article offers an analysis of the side effects caused by the increased counterterrorism measures adapted in Dutch law and public policy after 9/11. Taking clues from Foucault's thinking on securitisation and Beck's risk society, it is argued that focus, referent subject and object of security measures and deployment of counterterrorism laws have shifted from the concrete individual to society and risk prevention as a whole (1), that this shift induces function creep (2) and a much quicker deployment of measures, resulting in an increasing suspect population (3). Rather than arguing against the legality and legitimacy of these measures, the authors analyse the epistemological shift in reasoning and unpack the various probabilistic arguments (as opposed to evidence-based arguments) behind the wave of securitisation after 9/11 - resulting in a lack of knowledge about, transparency and accountability of the generated side effects.