Terrorism and Future Issues
Terrorism is a very complicated concept. There are many elements and levels associated with the concept. This book cannot delve deeply into these matters. Instead, the key elements of terrorism will be highlighted and discussed.
As compared to terrorism, the impact of crime is well known. Those in the security industry make their living from the impact of crime, and from the fear generated from it. It is not necessary to “sell” the readers on the relationship between crime and security. The relationship, indeed, is compelling. The same logic holds true for terrorism. In fact, the connection between fear and terrorism is more pronounced than with crime.
TERRORISM ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS
An underlying purpose of terrorism, unlike that of “normal” crime, is to instill fear.1 The impact of terrorism in creating fear, with the resulting desire for security, cannot be ignored. The relationship between terrorism and fear has been widely studied and developed.2 Without getting into the complexities of this relationship, it is clear that one of the principles of terrorism is to foster fear in the targeted society.3 Indeed, one of the basic principles of terrorism is that the “audience” (society) is the true target. Unlike crime, where the victim is the target of the attack, terrorism is designed to attack the larger society, not just actual victims of the attack(s). In this sense, terrorism has been described as being primarily theater.4
The relationship of terrorism to the amount of fear in society is difficult to predict. Studies of crime and fear discussed in Chapter 1 have largely focused on “ordinary crime.” Of course, even ordinary crime creates fear. However, while fear is the inevitable result of crime, terrorism is designed to create fear—and at a much deeper level. The intent is to break the “inertial relationship” which binds the citizen to the government.5 This disorientation is often coupled with the disruption of the stableness of daily life.6
At this level, terrorism upsets the framework of trust and security, on which people depend. This creates more anxiety and uncertainty, due in part to the unpredictability of violence. People may become so paranoid and isolated that they are unable to draw strength and security from their usual social supports, causing them to rely entirely upon their own resources. Ultimately, Greisman contends, the watchword for the stricken masses becomes: “Don’t wait to be hunted to hide.”7 This impact of terrorism is summed up in a pointed assertion by Graham, who states that “terrorism destroys the solidarity, cooperation, and interdependence on which social functioning is based, and substitutes insecurity and distrust.”8 This is echoed by Ganor, who stated “the aim is to isolate the individual from the group, to break up a society into many frightened individuals hiding in their homes and unable to go about their daily lives.”9 Clutterbuck uses the descriptive term “climate of collapse” to refer to the cycle of violence and fear in which the political balance begins to favor the terrorists, instead of the government or the police.10
As this illustrates, the impact of terrorism upon society is substantial. Accordingly crime (and terrorism) may be increasingly based on “environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clashes, and geographic destiny.”11 Kaplan maintains that “as crime continues to grow in our cities, and the ability of government and criminal justice systems to protect their citizens diminishes, urban crime may develop into low-intensity conflict by coalescing along racial, religious, social, and political lines, resulting in a ‘booming private security business.’”12
This description, while admittedly disconcerting, is quite probable in the next few years (see Chapter 14 for additional explanation).
TERRORISM DEFINITIONS
One of the problems in countering terrorism is that there is no single definitive definition of “terrorism.” The statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” has become a frequency cited cliché. It also is one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism. This is so because it makes understanding terrorism a very subjective consideration. Furthermore, some may feel that the definition and conceptualization of terrorism is only a purely theoretical issue—a mechanism for scholars to work out the appropriate set of parameters for the intended research. However, when dealing with terrorism, the implications of defined terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussions. In the struggle against terrorism, Ganor contends “the problem of definition is a crucial element in the attempt to coordinate international collaboration, based on the currently accepted rules of traditional warfare.”13
For these reasons, it is valuable to define terrorism. In its most basic form, terrorism is the “systematic use of violence, terror, and intimidation to achieve an end.”14 The U.S. Department of Defense uses a more pointed definition with a number of critical elements. It states terrorism is “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”15 Similarly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”16
The FBI further breaks down terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. Based on these distinctions, the FBI uses the following definitions of terrorism.
Domestic terrorism refers to “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”17
International terrorism “involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.”18
While these definitions are necessary to understand the concept, they are not widely accepted beyond the United States. Even if the definitions were widely accepted, they do not solve the problems posed by terrorism. The problems and implications are substantial. With such definitions and implications presented, we will now shift the focus to cases and statutes related to terrorism.
NOTES
1. See for example, Poland, James M. (2005). Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies and Responses. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; Ganor, Boaz (2005). Violence and Terrorism. Terror as a Strategy of Psychological Warfare, Thomas J. Badey (ed.), 05/06, McGraw-Hill/Dushkin; and Wardlaw, Grant (1982). Political Terrorism: Theory, Tactics, and Counter Measures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Wardlaw op cit. at 36; Poland op cit. at 17; Ganor op cit. at 16. In addition, see Ezeldin, Ahmed Galal (1987). Terrorism and Political Violence. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago Press; Clutterbuck, Richard (1975). The Police and Urban Terrorism. The Police Journal; Wolf, John B. (1981). Fear of Fear: Survey of Terrorist Operations and Controls in Open Societies. New York: Plenum Publishing; and Davis, James R. (1982). Street Gangs: Youth, Biker & Prison Groups. Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt Publishing.
3. Wolf op cit. at 107; Clutterbuck op cit. at 206; Ganor op cit. at 6; and Poland op cit. at 16–17. For similar assertion see also Greisman, H. C. (1979). Terrorism and the Closure of Society: A Social Impact Projection. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Vol. 14; and Tucker, Jonathan B. (2003). Strategies for Countering Terrorism: Lessons from the Israeli Experience. Journal of Homeland Security, March 26.
4. Wardlaw op cit. at 38; Poland op cit. at 10; and Ganor op cit. at 5–6.
5. Ganor op cit. at 6; Tucker op cit. at 18; Poland op cit. at 209; Ganor op cit. at 5–6; Wardlaw op cit. at 10; and Clutterbuck op cit. at 286. For similar assertion see also Waugh, William L. (1982). International Terrorism. Salisbury. NC: Documentary Publications; and Crenshaw, Martha ed. (1983). Terrorism, Legitimacy and Power: The Consequences of Political Violence. Middleton, CN: Wesleyan University Press.
6. Ganor op cit. at 6; Tucker op cit. at 18; Wolf op cit. at 282; and Greisman op cit. at 138. For similar assertion see also Young, R. (1977). Revolutionary Terrorism, Crime and Morality. Social Theory & Practice, Vol. 4.
7. Greisman op cit. at 41.
8. Graham, Thomas, and Tedd Gurr, eds. (1971). A History of Violence in America, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9. Ganor op cit. at 6.
10. Clutterbuck op cit. at 206.
11. Kaplan, Robert (1994). The Coming Anarchy. The Atlantic Monthly, February.
12. Ibid at 74.
13. Ganor, Boaz (2005). Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter? Taken from http://www.ict.org.il/articles/define.htm on December 16, 2005.
14. Payne, Carroll (2005). World Conflict Quarterly. Taken from http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTDefinition.html on December 16, 2005.
15. See Terrorism 2000/2001 taken from http://www.fbi.gov/publications/ terror/terror2000_2001.htm on December 16, 2005.
16. Ibid. See also 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 in the Code of Federal Regulations.
17. See 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(5).
18. See 18 U.S.C. Section 2331(1).