Amman – The Jordanian state recognizes the nature of the terrorist threats facing the Kingdom and the tools used to carry them out. These threats are extremely serious, making a package of amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Law necessary. The government is seeking to refer the amendments to Parliament for urgent consideration and approval. They begin with a review of legislation related to counterterrorism and move toward tougher penalties.
These amendments, however, are not simply a response to security developments witnessed in the Kingdom recently. Rather, they reflect a shift in the state’s understanding of the serious nature of terrorist threats and the means required to confront them. They also reveal an official determination to rebuild a more comprehensive system—one that does not stop at punishing those who commit crimes, but extends to dismantling the environments and networks that enable extremism to emerge, persist and reproduce itself.
The proposed changes go beyond extending prison sentences and increasing penalties. They seek to redefine the philosophy of dealing with terrorism, based on the understanding that its danger lies not only in the criminal act itself, but also in its organizational, ideological and financial dimensions, as well as its ability to exploit regional changes and surrounding instability to expand its influence and threaten the stability of states and societies.
This legislative review, which began with Cabinet decisions and is set to continue through amendments to counterterrorism laws, carries particular importance for Jordan. The Kingdom faces security challenges shaped by a highly volatile regional geography, where armed conflicts overlap with the activities of extremist groups and opportunities for recruitment and incitement continue to expand through digital platforms. These developments make the terrorist threat too complex to be addressed through traditional tools alone.
From Punishing Crimes to Dismantling Terrorist Networks
One of the most prominent features of the new legislative approach is raising the minimum penalties for terrorism-related crimes and doubling sentences in certain cases, potentially up to the death penalty. Yet the deeper significance of this decision lies in the message it conveys about criminal responsibility for such offenses and the need for penalties to reflect their seriousness and their impact on national security and social peace.
Terrorism is not an ordinary crime whose consequences are limited to direct victims or specific material damage. It is an assault on the foundations of security and stability, an attempt to undermine public confidence in the state and its institutions, and an effort to spread fear and division within society. Addressing it therefore requires penalties proportionate to the harm these acts can cause and capable of reducing the likelihood of their recurrence.
The decision to combine sentences for multiple terrorist offenses also carries important legislative significance. It shifts the approach to multiple criminal acts away from imposing only the harshest single sentence and toward recognizing each offense separately. This prevents a series of crimes and terrorist activities from being reduced to a single ruling and reinforces the principle that the scale of punishment should correspond to the number of offenses and the extent of the resulting responsibility.
Following the incidents at the Hamoud Church, the martyrdom of Corporal Jawad Al-Salaytah, and the attack on a security officer outside the Sri Lankan Embassy, the state’s message is that such incidents will not be treated lightly and that existing legislation requires further review.
The message goes beyond deterring individuals. It serves as a clear warning to anyone considering involvement in terrorist activities or participation in planning them: carrying out multiple roles or committing several offenses will not reduce accountability, and the state intends to narrow the legal opportunities that perpetrators might otherwise exploit.
Punishment Does Not End When a Sentence Is Served
Among the most significant aspects of the proposed amendments is the reconsideration of how prison terms are calculated for individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses. Under the proposed approach, a prison year would count as 12 months instead of nine, while those convicted would no longer benefit from sentence reductions linked to good conduct under the mechanism announced by the government.
This approach reflects the belief that the exceptional nature and seriousness of terrorist crimes require standards different from those applied to other offenses. Their consequences may extend beyond the period of imprisonment, and an individual’s release does not necessarily mean that the risks associated with that person have disappeared.
The measure takes on added significance following the government’s announcement that it will also apply to individuals currently serving sentences. This is an important step that goes beyond considerations related to constitutional and legal principles governing the execution of sentences and the non-retroactive application of harsher criminal rules.
The most significant shift, however, is the intention to impose precautionary measures on convicted individuals after they complete their sentences. These measures could include electronic monitoring, tracking and house arrest, as determined by the court.
This establishes a new phase in security risk management, moving the state from a concept of punishment tied to a fixed period of time toward continuous prevention of risks that may remain even after convicted individuals are released.
The importance of this measure stems from the possibility that some individuals may leave correctional facilities without necessarily abandoning their extremist beliefs or organizational ties. Subsequent judicial and security monitoring could therefore serve as an important tool in reducing the risk of a return to terrorist activity.
Pursuing Inciters and Accomplices
Another significant element of the Cabinet’s new legislative package is the doubling of penalties for individuals who cooperate in, incite or assist terrorist crimes. This approach reflects an understanding of the structures on which extremist groups rely: they are not built solely around those who carry out attacks, but also depend on networks of supporting roles that provide funding, facilitation, recruitment, logistical assistance and ideological backing.
Terrorist organizations cannot survive or implement their plans by relying only on armed members. They also need an environment that provides resources, cover, freedom of movement, communication channels and opportunities to recruit new members.
For this reason, cutting off sources of support and pursuing those involved in creating the conditions for terrorist crimes are essential components of any counterterrorism strategy, no less important than pursuing those who carry out the attacks.
Tougher penalties for hate speech and conduct associated with terrorism are also particularly important amid the changes brought about by the digital sphere. Incitement, mobilization and recruitment no longer require a physical presence or a visible organizational structure. Instead, they can reach and influence individuals through social media platforms.
Legislation Alone Cannot Defeat Extremism
Despite the considerable importance of these amendments, their success cannot depend solely on harsher penalties or expanded security surveillance. Terrorism is a complex phenomenon shaped by overlapping ideological, social, economic and psychological factors. Confronting it therefore requires an integrated system that extends beyond legislation and punishment.
The amendments must be accompanied by specialized intellectual and psychological rehabilitation programs for convicted individuals, as well as measures to strengthen their ability to reintegrate into society after serving their sentences. These efforts should also include improving early detection of signs of radicalization and recruitment, and expanding the role of educational, religious and media institutions in promoting moderation and a sense of national belonging.
The changing nature of the threats also requires stronger intelligence and technical capabilities, closer coordination between security and judicial institutions, and intensified efforts to monitor extremist activity online. Such measures would help authorities detect plots before they move from incitement and planning to execution.
Sustainable security is achieved not merely through the ability to respond to crimes after they occur, but by building a system capable of identifying threats early, dismantling the conditions that give rise to them and closing the channels through which extremist organizations could infiltrate society.
A State’s Message Amid Regional Instability
Ultimately, these amendments cannot be separated from the regional context in which Jordan operates. Instability and conflicts continue across the Kingdom’s surrounding region, creating security risks linked to the spread of armed groups, the convergence of smuggling and extremist networks, and the possibility of threats crossing borders.
Against this backdrop, reviewing legislation appears to be part of a broader institutional and legal repositioning aimed at strengthening the state’s ability to protect national security, expanding the tools available to confront threats in their various forms, and closing potential gaps that terrorist groups or their collaborators might exploit.
The government’s decisions also carry a clear domestic message: the security and stability of citizens are a national priority that cannot be compromised. The state is determined to continue developing its legislative and security tools in line with the changing nature of the challenges it faces.
The government’s decision to refer the amendments to the House of Representatives under an urgent procedure is intended to place Parliament before an important national and legal responsibility. This involves subjecting the proposed measures to thorough debate that balances national security requirements with constitutional safeguards and ensures that the resulting legislation is clear and enforceable—achieving deterrence without undermining the foundations of justice and the rule of law.
Ultimately, the significance of this legislative package does not lie in the number of years added to prison sentences. It lies in the transformation it seeks to bring about in the philosophy of counterterrorism: moving from pursuing perpetrators to dismantling networks, from punishing crimes to preventing their recurrence, and from responding to threats after they occur to building institutional capacity to anticipate and thwart them.
