The definitional problems associated with terrorism must first be addressed by looking at the etymology of the terms associated with terrorism—words such as terrorize, terrorist, freedom, guerilla, insurgent, and insurrection—and how often those terms are incorrectly interchanged in the media, causing confusion and misunderstanding. The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) offers the following definitions: Freedom. Exemption or release from slavery or imprisonment; personal liberty. Exemption from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic control; civil liberty. Independence: The state of being able to act without hindrance or restraint; liberty of action; the quality of being free from the control of fate or necessity; the power of self-determination attributed to the will. Guerilla. 1. An irregular war carried on by small bodies of men acting independently. 2. One engaged in such warfare. Insurgent. Rising in active revolt—One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent. Insurrection. The action of rising in arms or open resistance against established authority or government restraint; with plural, an instance of this, an armed rising, a revolt: an incipient or limited rebellion. Terrorist. 1. As a political term applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution (1790-1795), especially to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the ‘Reign of Terror’. . . . 3. b. Anyone who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation; specifically applied to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia. Terrorize. To fill or inspire with terror, reduce to a state of terror; especially to coerce or deter by terror. ”Terrorism” has a pejorative connotation, and its meaning changes within social, political, religious, and historical contexts (White 2003, 4). The use of such words will also depend upon an individual’s perception, whether that of victim or perpetrator. The difficulty of defining terrorism has been acknowledged by many (Poland 2005; Crank and Gregor 2005; White 2003; Combs 2003; Hoffman 1998). A uniform definition of terrorism often will not exist across the various law enforcement agencies of a given country. This is the case in the United States, where a range of definitions is currently applied: U.S. Department of Defense (2003): ”The calculated use of unlawful 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.” Federal Bureau of Investigation (1999): ”[T]he unlawful use of force and 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.” U.S. State Department (2003): ”Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” This document further states that ”For purposes of this definition, the term ‘noncombatant’ is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty.” These definitions identify three interrelated factors: first, the terrorist’s identity, second, the methods employed, and third, motivation. (Other definitions also […]
Criminal Justice System
Domestic Terrorism
Many Americans believe that domestic terrorism is a new crime. However, domestic terrorism has existed since humans first organized themselves into groups or tribes. Individuals and small groups within existing groups engaged in acts of violence against other members of the group with the limited purpose of overthrowing existing leaders, to scare away competing interests, or to frighten opposing groups from lands they wished to occupy. Modern terrorism as we know it began around the 1960s. It is characterized by the use of technology to achieve its mission. Some controversy surrounds the definition of domestic terrorism. The United State Code of Federal Regulations defines it as ”. . . the unlawful use of force and 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” (28 CFR 85). The Federal Bureau of Investigation expands this definition by further classifying terrorism as either domestic or international. The FBI defines domestic terrorism as the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. The FBI further divides domestic terrorism into three separate categories: terrorist incident, suspected terrorist incident, or terrorism prevention. A terrorist incident is a violent act that is dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal codes in the United States that is used to intimate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. A suspected terrorist incident is a potential act of terrorism that cannot be traced to a known or suspected group. Terrorist prevention is a known instance where a violent act by a terrorist group or individual was successfully prevented by means of investigative activities. Terrorist Groups or Organizations Domestic terrorist groups generally fall within one of three orientations: right wing, left wing, or special interest. These groups focus on issues affecting American political or social activities. Their acts are directed at the U.S. government or its agents or the U.S. population or groups of that population. Right-wing terrorist groups often believe in the principles of racial supremacy and denounce government and government regulations. Many right-wing groups engage in activity such as marches and assemblies that are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is when they cross the line between peaceful protests to violent acts that they become terrorist organizations. Formal right-wing hate groups such as the World Church of the Creator and the Aryan Nation represent examples of continuing domestic terrorist organizations. During the late 1990s, patriotic and militia groups came to the nation’s attention with their antigovernment, racial supremacy stance and conspiracy-oriented thinking. These groups reacted to gun control legislation and fears of a United Nations involvement in domestic affairs. These groups represent a serious threat […]
International Terrorism
The term ”terrorism” emerged in the aftermath of the French Revolution and was used to describe aggressive methods (arrests and executions) employed by the Jacobins against opponents and ”enemies of state” in 1793-1794. Yet, the phenomena it is commonly meant to describe are centuries old. Politically motivated violence was not always regarded as negative or undesirable. Political offenders were initially considered as the ”aristocrats of delinquency” by dint of their noble motives, altruism, and self-sacrifice. Tyrannicide (the killing of a tyrant) was not simply excused; it was a duty for classical Athenian citizens in order to protect their democracy, whereas in modern times, the doctrine of political offenders has been the reason for refusing requests for the extradition of wanted persons. In recent years, the previous regime of lenience toward politically motivated offenders gave way to a regime of severity. International agreements and conventions increasingly included clauses doing away with the exception of political offense in matters of mutual legal assistance. The term ”terrorist” is neither scientific nor objective, but polemical. It is a contested label one seeks to attach to an adversary. Consequently, there is no universally accepted definition in law or academic circles. The winner in certain conflicts is a hero, while the loser is branded a terrorist. Definitions are ephemeral because the balance of power may shift. Algerian ”terrorists” fighting French colonialism became legitimate governors. African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela spent decades behind bars before he became a remarkable head of state and Nobel Prize winner, guiding his country from apartheid to a process of reconciliation. In the Middle East, definitional battles between Palestinians and Israelis are ongoing, as they are between the United States and Cuba. The same occurs in areas of conflict in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Most controversies revolve around the legitimacy and identity of perpetrators (state and nonstate actors), the means employed (violence, threats, psychological, economic, military, or other), the victims (civilians, military, state representatives), how direct or indirect the involvement is, the ultimate objective, and the wider context (war, civil war, foreign occupation, peacetime hostilities). It is often difficult to distinguish terrorism from related concepts, such as low-intensity warfare, genocide, banditry, subversion, insurgency, guerilla, paramilitarism, rebellion, aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, resistance, liberation war. Not coincidentally, adversaries occasionally use the metaphors of war and armies in support of claims to legitimacy: Irish Republican Army, Japanese Red Army, Red Army Faction, Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Places, Albanian National Army, Army of the Righteous and Pure (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, Pakistan), People’s Liberation Army (EPL, Peru), United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), Sudan People’s Liberation Army, and so forth. The following definitions illustrate the range of approaches at the U.S. and international legal levels as well as from scholarly perspectives. According to Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d), ”The term ”terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. The term ‘international terrorism’ means terrorism involving the territory or […]
Terrorism Overview
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, though the understanding and categorization of it is relatively new. ”Terrorism” is a controversial term with multiple definitions. A simple definition is that it is a premeditated threat of violence or an act of violence against an influential individual or a group in order to influence that group to initiate change. The U.S. State Department has defined terrorism as ”premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience ….” (U.S. State Department 2002). The FBI has defined it 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” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d.). The United Nations observed that the organization “strongly condemns all acts, methods, and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed” and “reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons, or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature that may be invoked to justify them” (United Nations 1996). The terrorists’ actions are orchestrated to challenge the status quo and to initiate change, and those actions will be underpinned by acts of violence that include bombings, hijackings, and assassination. Such acts are not random, spontaneous, or blind but are deliberately orchestrated for maximum effect (Kingshott 2003). Historical Review The origins of the word ”terrorism” can be traced back to the French Revolution (1789-1799), a period in the history of France in which an absolute monarchy was overthrown and the Roman Catholic Church was forced to undergo radical restructuring. This was achieved through the ”Constitution Civile du Clerge” (Civil Constitution of the Clergy, passed July 12, 1790), which subordinated the Roman Catholic Church in France to the French government. The clergy became employees of the state, requiring them to take an oath of loyalty to the nation. September 1793 through July 1794 marked what was known as the Reign of Terror, a period characterized by brutal repression and violence in the pursuit of political aims. In this short time span a highly centralized political regime, led by Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre, suspended most of the democratic achievements gained by the revolution, and intended to pursue the revolution on social matters. Its stated aim was to destroy internal enemies and conspirators and to oust external enemies from French territory. Robespierre believed that terror was justified in order to root out those opposed to his rule. During the course of the reign, an estimated forty thousand people were executed using the guillotine. Categorizing Violent Acts as ”Terrorism” Acts of violence that fit the modern construct parameters of terrorism can be traced back to early recorded history and include, but are not limited to, those committed by individuals or groups of […]
Police Functions Associated With Terrorism
Terrorism has quickly emerged as a primary problem for law enforcement administrators and personnel working at both the federal and local levels. The frightening reality of homegrown terror became clear after the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The subsequent and stunningly successful attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, demonstrated that America had become a primary target of international terrorists as well. The law enforcement industry has attempted to quickly respond to these emerging threats by expanding the traditional roles of investigators and officers on the street and by using a broad range of strategies designed to mitigate both domestic and international terror threats. These antiterrorism strategies include (1) the expansion of federal law enforcement counterintelligence structures, (2) the targeting of terrorist funding sources, and (3) the development of antiterror and collaborative strategies at the state and local law enforcement levels (Swanson et al. 2005). The existence of large-scale threats from terrorist groups has highlighted the importance of federal law enforcement counter-intelligence structures, primarily involved in terrorism prevention and investigation, intelligence gathering, and foreign counterintelligence. Important federal law enforcement counterintelligence structures include the Department of Homeland Security, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Counterterrorism Center, and the National Domestic Preparedness Office. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established by President George W. Bush as an immediate response to the 9/11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. DHS has a significant role in intelligence gathering and analysis and has administered the development of Homeland Security Operations Centers across the United States. These centers are charged with gathering information and intelligence analysis, primarily as it relates to protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure. Operating under the DHS banner, the U.S. Secret Service also continues to play a prominent role through its Threat Analysis Center. Beyond these strategies, the creation of DHS from numerous previously established federal law enforcement agencies is an attempt to implement a more comprehensive national strategy to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist acts occurring within the United States (Swanson et al. 2005). The National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) was founded in 1998, and the organization operates within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). NIPC was created on the recommendation of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (1998), which highlighted the role of federal agencies in protecting critical computer systems against terrorist activities. The federal government owns and operates many critical infrastructure systems, including transportation, energy, and government operations. Thus, federal agencies would be the primary responders in the event of a national crisis. NIPC’s InfraGard, a pilot project designed to facilitate the exchange of information among academic institutions, the government, and the business community, serves as a prime example of the push toward interagency and business collaboration in the fight against terrorism (Taylor et al. 2005). The FBI’s Counterterrorism Center has also expanded since its inception in 1996 in order to respond to international terror operations emanating from both […]