|
THE CRIMINOLOGY OF TERRORISM: HISTORY, LAW, DEFINITIONS, TYPOLOGIES Dr. Tom
O'Connor, http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/429/429lect01.htm North Carolina Wesleyan College "One man willing to throw his life away is enough to terrorize thousands." (Wu Ch'i) Terrorism has been around as a major nuisance to governments as long as recorded history. The Bible advocates terror, assassination, and annihilation in several places (see the book of Numbers and book of Joshua). Regicide, or the killing of kings by rivals, and the brutal suppression of loyalists afterwards, has been an established pattern of political ascent since Julius Caesar (44 B.C.). The Zealots in Israel (100 A.D.) fought Roman occupation with hit-and-run tactics in public places. The Assassins in Iraq (1100 A.D.) fought the Christian Crusaders with suicide tactics. The Thuggees in India (1300 A.D.) kidnapped travelers for sacrifice to their Goddess of Terror, Kali. The Spanish Inquisition (1469-1600) dealt with Heretics by systematized torture, and the whole medieval era was based on terrorizing a countryside. The Luddites (1811-1816) destroyed machinery and any symbol of modern technology. A Serb terrorist (1914) started World War I. Hitler's rise to power (1932) involved plans for genocide. Nations like Ireland, Cyprus, Algeria, Tunisia, and Israel probably would have never become republics if not for revolutionary terrorism, and more than a few people would say the United States was founded on terrorism. However defined, it is clear that terrorism has helped shape world history in a variety of ways, and it has long meant different things to different people. The academic field of what Ross (2006) calls terrorism studies has grown substantially in recent years. Two scholarly journals focus almost exclusively on the subject -- Terrorism and Political Violence and Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. More and better empirical studies have been conducted, and in some ways, despite setbacks such as the U.N. failure to define terrorism (no internationally accepted definition of terrorism exists), better definitions of terrorism have been established. Certain areas of interest are of growing importance, such as the role of the media in terrorism (need for more research on this), and whether 9/11 produced a paradigm shift or whether terrorism is nothing new, among other issues. There is a need to be cautious in tossing the terrorist label around, as most experts (e.g., Hoffman & Claridge 1998) suggest it is better to define terrorism by the nature of the act rather than by the identity or socio-demographics of the perpetrators. Nevertheless, reproduced below (noting there is no "one, best" definition) is the field's so-called "consensus" definition, devised in the early 1980s and probably adhered to by (it can be estimated) about 75% of experts in the field, despite reservations about its failure to distinguish supporters of terrorism as well as terrorism-like criminal behaviors such as drug trafficking:
THE HISTORY OF TERRORISM One cannot avoid long-standing debates, going back as far as Aristotle, over when it is politically and morally acceptable to use unconventional tactics such as violence and fear to bring about political and social change. History is replete with the ideas of great thinkers who believed that, under the right circumstances, unconventional tactics were not only smart, but a moral or civic duty. Religious leaders over the centuries have contributed thoughts about when unjust warfare is just, when "holy terror" is justified, and military thinkers have advocated less-than-honorable tactics. Most terrorism throughout history has been directed against governments (what is called political or revolutionary terrorism), but terrorism can also be global or take the forms of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism. These latter types occur when governments turn on their own citizens, or try to stir up trouble among the citizenry of another nation. In fact, it was state terrorism that put modern use of the term "terrorism" in the English vocabulary.
The word "terrorism" took on a slightly different meaning after German philosopher, Immanuel Kant wrote about it in 1798 to describe a pessimistic view of the destiny of mankind. This idea of terror as the abandonment of all hope for a collective solution to life's problems, and the scary, yet liberating experience of only being able to count on yourself became the genesis of two mid-1800 ideas known as anarchism and communism. Anarchism was invented in 1840 by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and expanded upon by Mikhail Bakunin in 1848 and Karl Heinzen in 1849. Anarchism supported terrorism with statements such as "if you have to blow up half a continent to destroy the enemy, do so with no scruples or conscience." Communism was invented in 1844 by Karl Marx contemplating the theses of Feuerbach, which were essentially Kantian ideas about the liberating potential of self-reliance and mass movements. Lenin expanded on communist theory by condemning individual acts of terrorism, yet supporting mass acts of terrorism. It was Lenin in 1908 who invented modern state-sponsored terrorism (or stirring up trouble among the citizenry of other nations) when he said "We cannot reject terror, as it is the one form of military action which may be perfectly suitable or even essential at a definite juncture in battle." The battle that Lenin and Stalin fought for many years was the Cold War (1922-1993), which sought to defeat capitalism and establish a world-wide communist regime. This Cold War contained many proxy "Dirty Wars" between the United States and Russia (proxy meaning fought on soil other than American or Russian), and helped establish the international meaning and nature of terrorism. Meanwhile, Lenin and Trotsky started up a Red Terror inside Russia from 1918-1923 with a vast gulag of concentration camps, which was carried on by Stalin's purges in the mid-1930s with the Great Terror. The United States, for its part, engaged in a "Red Scare" roundup of suspected anarchists and communists. Terrorism sponsored abroad and at home went hand in hand during the Cold War. The next phase in the history of terrorism involved nationalism and the desire to rid a country of colonial rule. The Macedonian insurgency (1893-1903) against the Turkish Ottoman Empire became the first anti-colonial group in modern history to systematically wage guerilla warfare, avoid conventional battle, occupy towns and villages, engage in propaganda, and use terrorism to gain control. Nationalist terrorism provided the notion that "there are no innocent non-combatants" since it was typical with this type of terrorism for many more non-combatants to be killed than combatants. Perhaps the most well-known figure in the history of nationalist terrorism is Colonel T.E. Lawrence ("of Arabia"), who organized the 1916-1918 insurgency by Arab irregulars against Ottoman Turks. Undoubtedly, another major figure was Mao Zedong, whose peasant army brought down what was left of imperial Manchu China in 1949 at the start of the Cultural Revolution. Mao's victory and guerrilla warfare tactics inspired revolutionaries and terrorists throughout the Third World, as did Fidel Castro and Che Guevara during the Cuban Revolution of 1959. In fact, it was in Latin America where terrorism became most closely tied to anti-colonialism. Carlos Marighella (1930-1971) wrote the Latin American handbook on terrorism (The Minimanual of Urban Guerrilla Warfare), claiming it required adherence to a "higher morality", that one man's terrorist is another man's liberator. (The phrase "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" has unknown origins.) In other parts of the world, different anti-colonial patterns emerged, such as those associated with the non-terrorist and non-violent tactics of Mahatma Gandhi. However, in Africa, terrorist tactics were successfully used to achieve the independence of states such as Kenya and Algeria. It was nationalist terrorism which popularized the phrase "freedom fighter." Another period of time that brought a different meaning to terrorism was the World War II period with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Here, the word "terrorism" became to be associated with totalitarian regimes and police states. For example, when Hitler's minister of the Interior, Hermann Goering said in 1933 that "I will not be crippled by judicial thinking. I don't have to worry about justice. I shall use the power of the police to the utmost," this is pretty much an announcement of a police state that engages in terrorism against its own citizens. Words used to describe this kind of terrorism include state terrorism, state-imposed terrorism, or state-directed terrorism. It became typical of dictatorships in many places without Fascist or Nazi influence, places like Argentina, Chile, Greece, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, and Peru, because "death squads" or "terror squads" (usually off-duty policemen) roamed about the countryside intimidating and killing political opponents, human rights workers, student and labor leaders, journalists, and others. The year 1968 marked a radical shift in Middle East politics when Palestinian groups accomplished a streak of notable skyjackings. It could easily be argued that terrorism in the Middle East had earlier benchmarks, and indeed certain religious aspects of it do, but 1968 was a turning point. In the words of the PLO representative to the United Nations that year, "The first several hijackings accomplished more for our cause than twenty years of pleading" which illustrates this turning point that made all the world a stage for international terrorism. Dershowitz (2002) documents other twists and turns in Palestinian tactics, but another important date is 1974 when PLO Chairman Yassir Araft eloquently argued before the U.N. that his people were "freedom fighters" not terrorists (although see Ahmad 2001 for an account of the year 1944 being significant when sympathy for the Holocaust caused people to start referring to Jewish terrorist groups like Irgun, the Stern Gang, and Hagannah as "freedom fighters"). The 1960s and 1970s also saw the emergence of a new type of nationalism called separatism. This describes indigenous ethnic groups who have long lived in a province, but want to separate from their host nation and start their own country. Examples include Quebec, the Basque Homeland, and portions of Indonesia. Like their anti-colonial predecessors, separatists sought to use terrorism to attract international sympathy and a perception of them as freedom fighters. In the 1980s, the War on Drugs was launched by the United States, and the word "narco-terrorism" came into the vocabulary (Ehrenfeld 1990). The word meant that drug trafficking was being used to propagate the objectives of certain governments and terrorist organizations. Narco-terrorism was seen as a Communist plot at first. Eventually, it became seen as an economic threat. However, the War on Drugs forced the United States into building a military-police apparatus for intervening in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. The U.S. also started paying attention to how elections were held in foreign countries. As we entered the 1990s, America and the Western powers also became aware of exactly how many "hot spots" (also called "trouble spots", low intensity conflicts, or the gray area phenomenon) there were in the world. Places like the Balkans, Kashmir, Somalia, and the Congo had been sitting as powder kegs for years. Places like Syria, Iran, and Iraq were secretly sponsoring global terrorism. Places like China, North Korea, and Pakistan were developing weapons of mass destruction. And, then there was the problem of all the broken-up former Soviet states. With overwhelming challenges abroad and a tendency to be easily distracted by domestic affairs, the United States suffered a major attack by terrorism on September 11, 2001 (Dudley 2002). Two planes were hijacked and flown into New York's World Trade Center, a second plane flew into the Pentagon, and a third plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. It was the worst terrorist attack on American soil, and like Pearl Harbor, snapped America out of a false sense of security. Those responsible were identified as belonging to al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, headquartered in Afghanistan, and supported by a regime known as the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is only one of numerous Islamic militant groups, and some experts have argued we need to classify al-Qaeda as Islamo-fascist for its extreme fundamentalist beliefs, but al-Qaeda prefers to think of itself as mujihadeen (holy warriors). In response to 9/11, the President announced a War on Terrorism in front of Congress on September 20th. The speech was very similar to Winston Churchill's famous 1940 "total war" speech before the House of Commons as Prime Minister regarding victory at all costs.
A declared War on Terrorism, sometimes abbreviated WOT (or GWOT, for Global) is probably not the best way to put it, although it doesn't matter if the armed forces engaged in such a struggle like the acronym GWOT, and it wins the war and/or gets it over with. From an intellectual standpoint, however, and to be conceptually rigorous, one would NOT normally declare war on a tactic (i.e., terrorism), but would instead declare war on the root causes (e.g., extremism, fanaticism) of a problem. Definitional problems remain, since goals are still nebulous (e.g., like a war on injustice). Wars are usually fought against nationalities (e.g., war with the Germans), and to be brutally honest, against religions, or at least radical elements of it (e.g., war with radical Islam). War is the top gun in the specrum of conflict any power can launch against another power, and GWOT calls for full-spectrum conflict. Spectrum of conflict is the term used to describe a graduation of conflicts on continuums of intensity and scope. Full spectrum wars can be fought absolutely or pragmatically. War itself is a word with forensic dimensions and legal implications. THE LAW OF TERRORISM In contrast to other countries, the United States has no legal definition of terrorism. There is no organized body of legislation one might call the law of terrorism, and there is no inherent crime of terrorism (terrorists are charged with other offenses). There is a long-standing legal code called Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 which is entitled "Terrorism" and attempts to define it, but it is essentially all about international terrorism and represents America's version of outlawing internecine conflict on its soil. Internecine conflict is when someone else's battle spills over on your land, which might not seem important, but terrorists often disregard any respected areas of combat or demarcated battlefields. Constitutionally (at least for now), it is not illegal to claim you are a terrorist, belong to a terrorist group, or be suspected of being a terrorist. Ninety percent of the time, suspected terrorists do nothing wrong until they commit an indictable act. Indicted terrorists are charged with other crimes -- planning for violence, raising funds illegally, and carrying out a violent act. The most common criminal charges against terrorists include bombing, arson, hijacking, assault, kidnapping, murder, theft, and sabotage. For terrorists who are captured before completing an act, the most common charges are illegal possession of explosives and weapons, illegal raising of funds, and conspiracy. International law only recognizes the criminal corollaries of terrorism, such as conspiracy, kidnapping, murder, and arson. State criminal laws do recognize certain specific intent crimes, such as telephone harassment for terrorist purposes, along with other stalking and domestic violence offenses, but these are not really referring to terrorism but forms of personal intimidation. In short, there are an assortment of terrorism-related laws, none of which alone or in combination, make any sense in terms of understanding terrorism or getting a legal perspective on it. With few exceptions (Henderson 2001; Combs 2003), authors don't even attempt a chapter on law in their terrorism books. Let's try to cover terrorism law, relying upon resources such as a website the U.S. State Department calls current anti-terrorism laws, and one at the University of Pittsburgh that does a good job of tracking recent and pending anti-terrorism laws. Basically, the following alphabetical list of items make up what might be called the codified law of terrorism:
Codified laws, like the above, have stood the test of time, and in addition have received the approval of various jurist associations. There is little chance of misunderstanding a codified law. Next in order of importance, are the court cases which have established precedent as binding and guiding forces of law. The following selected cases make up what might be called the case law of terrorism:
In addition to codes and cases, there is what is called "public law" which consist of legislation signed into law. Often, these have not yet passed constitutional muster, but they represent what the legislative branch of government thinks ought to be done quickly. The following acts are a select list of what makes up the public law of terrorism:
Then, following codes, cases, and legislation, there are pronouncements made by the executive branch of government, called Executive Orders, Decisions, Declarations, or Directives. The most well-known of these is probably the Presidential Decision Directive, or PDD, which has a long history of use going back to creation of the NSA and the launching of various secret missions during the Vietnam War. Many documents in this category are classified, but others are easily found on the White House web site. They are considered binding "administratively" upon government employees who work for an executive branch agency. The most common type of administrative law is made up of regulations passed by the heads of various agencies, but with terrorism, many executive decisions are made, so the following documents would make up the administrative law of terrorism:
Finally, there are Agreements, Treaties, Declarations, Resolutions, Conventions and Protocols entered into by the United States and other nations, or by all nations as a whole via the United Nations (which is not the world's legislative authority). There is considerable difference of opinion about whether such documents are legally binding on non-cooperating entities or groups at the sub-national level, but they do, to some extent, represent the international community's consensus on terrorism, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The following categories make up the international law of terrorism:
DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM There is no one, good definition of terrorism. In fact, it might be impossible to define because it is intangible and fluctuates according to historical and geographical contexts. Some forms of it are indistinguishable from crime, revolution, and war. Other forms of it are easily distinguishable. Each and every person knows that they would in some way, some day, under some back-against-the-wall condition, support some form of terrorism (as a tactic of last resort) in the name of some deeply cherished cause or value. You may already be a supporter of terrorism, or you may live under a government that practices terrorism, and not know it. There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism (Long 1990). The Christian Science Monitor's special report, Exactly What is Terrorism? draws the user into a quiz over what they think qualifies as terrorism, and what does not. Here are some excerpts (think about how strongly you feel that each case is terrorism or not, and the answers will be hidden in the following paragraph).
The nature of terrorism is always changing. What is called terrorism one year may be called something else next year. Terrorism is an emotionally charged word that is frequently used to politically and socially denigrate one's opponents. It seems, if you sympathize or side with the perpetrator, then it is not terrorism, but if you sympathize or side with the victim, then it is terrorism. A lot of people think they know terrorism when they see it. Now, for the answers from the earlier quiz - Case #1 is an example of inadvertent terrorism, at best, and if you think it's clearly terrorism, then all that's important to you is the harming of innocents, and motives don't matter. You're also confusing assassination, accident, and manslaughter with terrorism. Case #2 is an example of reckless terrorism, at best, and you'll probably recognize it as Sherman's march to the sea. If you thought it was a clear-cut case of terrorism, then you're confusing war with terrorism. War is hell, but terrorism is less than war. However, if you thought it was clearly not a case of terrorism, then you're too focused too much on body counts, and have neglected to consider that property sabotage may be the most common form terrorism, especially with insurgency and counter-insurgency operations. Case #3 probably comes closest to a clear-cut example of terrorism because the hostages were originally put in harm's way by the revolutionaries; that is, unless the embassy employees did something to cause the revolutionary reprisal against them. If the employees are totally innocent (say an embassy from Sweden), then it is the case that noncombatants were deliberately targeted. If the employees were involved in espionage or something that had to do with the political prisoners, then it's a different matter. With terrorism as a criminal justice topic, you've really got to stretch the legal concepts of causation and intent (see this Lecture on the Advanced Topic of Intent if interested in this topic). Don't worry if you're confused on the whole good/bad, motive/act thing. Philosophers have debated it for years, and there are experts in criminal justice who say the act, not the motivation, should define terrorism (Jenkins 1985), and then there are experts who say the motivation, not the act, should define terrorism (Hoffman 1999). Those who write encyclopedias of terrorism state that an adequate working definition ought to have three parts: method, target, and purpose (Kushner 2003). You'll also note that three different branches of the U.S. government use three different definitions, as follows:
The State and Defense Departments conceive of terrorism as war -- "the premeditated" or “the calculated use of violence" (see Department of Defense Directive 2000.12, “DoD Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP) Program,” April 1999). On the other hand, the Justice Department conceives of terrorism as crime -- “the unlawful use of force or violence" (see "Organization of the Department of Justice,” Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28—Judicial Administration, 2001). The State Dept. definition is the one used to officially count terrorism, and it is important to note that a "significant" terrorist event is one which meets the requirements of being "politically motivated" and "intended to influence an audience." This means that an "official" act of terrorism must be directed toward a symbolic target that is important to the political interests of a government somewhere. By contrast, the FBI definition (which is most often used in law enforcement training because it treats terrorism as crime) would classify random acts of violence and acts for personal gain as terrorism. The State Dept. definition comes closest to the FBI definition by the inclusion of an economic cost estimate, the threshold for economic harm being $10,000. Let's look at an example of how the State and FBI definitions differ:
Simonsen and Spinlove (2000) do a good job of comparing and contrasting the different constructs, and note that the State approach emphasizes motives, the DOD approach emphasizes goals, and the FBI approach emphasizes methods. Combining the three would produce some overly complex definition like "Terrorism is the clandestine, criminal resort to violence or threat of violence on the part of a group toward innocent bystanders which seeks to accomplish some purpose against some recognized authority. The purpose is usually political and the target is usually civilian." Alex Schmid (1988) has attempted to analyze the frequency of different emphases in at least 109 definitions of terrorism, and finds that, in rank order, most definitions emphasize goals (political), purposes (fear), targets (victim reactions), and methods (combat strategy or tactic). Only a small number of definitions emphasize the publicity aspect, covert nature, or criminal character of terrorism. It is undoubtedly that case that political motivation ranks as the leading element in most definitions of terrorism. In fact, some years ago, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1976) recommended calling any crime that is politically motivated an act of terrorism. However, the problem with making something political into criminal goes beyond motivation (endless debates can be had over the presence or absence of instrumental or expressive motives in terrorism) as well as methods (Historical note: assassination was common in the 19th Century; bombing in the 20th; and techno-exotic forms such as cyber-, narco-, and eco- in the 21st). The idea of terrorism as crime rests upon having an adequate legal framework (which doesn't exist) as well as an understanding of the costs or impact of terrorism. Yet, that doesn't stop agencies from trying. The FBI has primary responsibility for the criminal investigation of terrorism. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 authorizes them to (1) oversee detention and deportation of aliens suspected of terrorist activities; and (2) search and seize any fund-raising activities by foreign groups suspected of engaging in terrorist activity. Other countries have stronger criminal laws. In France and Great Britain, for example, suspected terrorists can be held for indefinite amounts of time. U.S. police are severely restricted in how they can interrogate and use electronic surveillance, and in addition, the U.S. Bill of Rights, to a certain degree, protects extremism (strongly held political beliefs) and fanaticism (strongly held religious beliefs) -- two underlying causes of terrorism. The U.S.A. Patriot Act (October 26, 2001) allows for longer detention of suspects, expanded surveillance and intelligence gathering powers by federal authorities. Congress passed additional anti-terrorism laws in the wake of September 11, and at least three states (Michigan, New Jersey, and New York) have passed their own anti-terrorism statutes. The CIA has primary responsibility to preempt, disrupt, and defeat terrorism. Presidential Directives signed in 1995 and 1998 authorize them to treat terrorism as a crime, use all-source information, apprehend offenders, and bring them to justice wherever they can worldwide. The head of the CIA (DCI) coordinates the Intelligence Community (IC), and the National Security Council coordinates the nation's counterterrorism efforts. The CIA maintains a War on Terrorism website. The Department of State has primary responsibility to use its diplomatic efforts with foreign governments to thwart terrorism. It also helps to develop, coordinate, and implement counterterrorism policy. On the State Department's website, one can find the Top Ten List of Most Wanted Terrorists as well as other lists, data, and resources, such as the List of Entities which constitute terrorist groups. The newly-formed Department Homeland Security is charged with coordinating protection strategies against terrorism. A Nationwide Threat Level Warning (five level color coded) System is maintained at the Office of Homeland Security, and state variations exist (e.g. Virginia) which tell citizens what to do. DHS is made up of units from 22 pre-existing agencies comprising four divisions: (1) Border, transportation and security -- the Customs Service, Transportation Security Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Border Patrol, the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the U.S. Coast Guard; (2) Emergency preparedness -- the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services; (3) Weapons of mass destruction -- research laboratories, such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, would coordinate research, develop vaccines, and plan for other countermeasures; (4) Information analysis -- the CIA, the National Security Agency, the FBI, INS and other organizations with responsibility for evaluating the country's critical infrastructure and its vulnerabilities, including food and water systems, energy, transportation and national monuments. The Department of Defense has unmatched resources for dealing with dangerous, unstructured situations, and they also have their own extensive intelligence apparatus. Yet the military is severely limited by what they can do legally. For one thing, the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. 1385) prohibits the use of soldiers to enforce criminal laws against American citizens. Other Executive Orders and Presidential Directives (some secret; some not) similarly limit the use of military intelligence, such as Executive Order 12333 and PDD 39 (Presidential Decision Directive 39 - "US Policy on Counterterrorism"). One of the basic tenets of the law of war is established in the doctrine of jus ad bellum which defines whether the conflict has a legal basis to happen in the first place, and jus in bello which outlines what actions in war are legal in and of themselves. The thing that most clearly distinguishes military from law enforcement action is that the military has mostly a free hand at preemption (preemptive first strike) while the best that the criminal justice system can do is harass and thwart (given exclusionary rule and entrapment constraints). One cannot overemphasize the importance of the rules of war since they have been around beginning in the early 17th Century when they were first proposed by Hugo Grotius and subsequently codified in the Geneva and Hague Conventions of 1860, 1899, 1907, and 1949. They consist of five (5) basic rules: civilians cannot be taken as hostages; POWs cannot be treated inhumanely; reprisals cannot be launched against innocents; and diplomats and ambassadors are off-limits. When the rules of war are broken, the term "war crime" is used to describe the act, and steps are taken to hold the perpetrators accountable by an international tribunal. If there is to be some kind of enforcement mechanism, it will most likely be an outgrowth of military tribunals. Distinctions are easier to make than definitions. Jonathan White's (2002) approach in placing terrorism on a continuum of conflict is keenly illustrative. It sees terrorism as between rioting and guerilla warfare, and his model is adapted/modified below:
Gus Martin (2003) also approaches the definition of terrorism by making distinctions. He accepts the inevitability of political motivation as a common element of most definitions, and then distinguishes between the elements of method (force) and target, as follows:
Another approach might be to distinguish terrorists from others of their kind or how they perceive themselves. No group has openly admitted they were terrorists since the 1940s, and the most commonly preferred self-terminology includes guerrilla, fighter, or warrior. What follows is an alphabetical listing of the many terms terrorists use to call themselves (with the proviso that any errors or mistakes in definition are my own):
There are, of course, many other terms that one would encounter in studying terrorism. What is left out from the list would be terms such as: Liberationists; Pirates; Resisters; Propagandists; and Mercenaries. These may be terms that have some special meaning, but the process quickly gets redundant after awhile. Redundancy is evident in the phrase Freedom Fighter, because no side to every clash fights for anything but freedom. As an aside, it's often argued that parts of the American Revolution, like the Boston Tea Party, involved terrorist acts, and that this illustrates "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." However, this argument misses the fact that the groundwork for the American Revolution was already underway in a variety of directions, and "legitimate" freedom fighting always contains advance warning, follows a warrior code, obeys the rules of war, prohibits certain kinds of weapons, does not use outlaw tactics, and takes steps to select targets that harm the least number of innocents. Critiques of definitions are also easier than making them. An illustrative example here is William Dyson's (2001) approach to dissecting terrorism. He starts by criticizing dictionary definitions of "terror," and most certainly, some of the worst definitions of terrorism confuse it with fear, fright, alarm, being shocked, or scared. It is also easily distinguishable from acts of civil disobedience, marches, demonstrations, leafleting, picketing, protesting, and rioting. It is less distinguishable from guerilla warfare or revolutionary wars (which can be restricted or unrestricted, as Martin calls it). In fact, terrorism often escalates into war, a phenomenon that experts call the Sarajevo Effect (Lacquer 1999) in which the 1914 assassination led to World War I. Dyson (2001) adds that terrorism can evolve into insurrection (which is the same as civil war), and he speculates that a terrorist situation becomes revolutionary whenever 25% of the population is engaged in the violence. The most widely used definitions in criminal justice are simple ones created by Brian Jenkins (1985), Bruce Hoffman (1999), and Walter Laqueur (1999), all resting upon the idea of illegitimate force to achieve political ends by targeting innocent people. These simple definitions suffice for understanding complex social factors, but it should also be realized that we may never be able to define terrorism. It is important to note that the means used by terrorists are always illegitimate, even though their ends may be sometimes legitimate. Most of the terms similar to terrorism like freedom fighter and revolutionary often make use of the argument that the End Justifies the Means. To a terrorist, there's no such thing as innocent bystanders. One of the main objectives of terrorism is usually to gain publicity for some cause, and public fear, roused thru the media, may contain a key to understanding the psychology of terrorism. It may also be important in producing a criminological definition of terrorism. The threat of harm to innocent bystanders is what makes terrorism powerful. In this sense, it is the same as what makes military operations powerful - striking terror in the hearts of the enemy. Terrorists are particularly concerned with invoking fear in those who identify with the victims of their action. In this fashion, terrorism is always symbolic, and "media-motivated", so targets likely to be reported on by prominent media organizations are especially vulnerable. Terrorism should be distinguished from guerilla warfare since the latter is an acceptable form of combat. A terrorist should be distinguished from a guerilla (a term meaning "little war") because terrorists tend to have an urban focus and operate in small bands. An active terrorist organization is usually made up of "cadres" or "teams" of 3-5 members (the 9/11 attackers were organized in five-man teams) which themselves consist of "cells" of 1-2 members (who live and travel together). Guerillas are organized differently, and generally have quite larger cadres and cells. Terrorism is generally a short-lived affair, while guerilla warfare is a long, drawn-out process. In addition (although this is debatable), terrorists tend to come from upper- rather than lower class backgrounds, as in the vigilante groups that make up right-wing, pro-government "death squads" in Latin America and Asia. Terrorists also tend (arguably) to be the products of over-permissive, wealthy families with whom they were in conflict, had inconsistent mothering, or were isolated from their parents in some way (Martin and Romano 1992). Terrorists also tend to use religion as a context or cover for their activities, a characteristics they share with extremists. Fanatics believe they must purify the world, destroy others in the name of righteousness, or advance a religious cause of some sort. Even environmental terrorists have some kind of pseudo-religious belief system. Terrorism should also be distinguished from crime, at least in the sense that a war on terrorism is different from a war on crime or war on drugs. There are at least five good reasons for this, but the obvious one is that no law enforcement or criminal justice system needs to be nudged in the direction of becoming more like the military. There is also a long-standing tradition in the field of legal studies which only considers certain criminological aspects of terrorism (e.g., those aspects of terrorism which hold that the phenomenon is a sociological manifestation of societal structures and processes and not some "essentialist" phenomenon of "real" terrorism beyond the definitional powers of authorities). On the crime-terrorism distinction, Geraghty (2002) is a good guide, as is Deflem (2005). Fuller (2006) outlines the primary differences between a war on terrorism versus a war on crime or other social problems:
Deflem (2005) makes some good points about the current status of criminology on terrorism. He says that criminologists should not be embarrassed to learn from other research disciplines, but they must also seek to provide a distinctive contribution to the scholarship. Some issues, such as terrorism and the media and terrorism and foreign policy have already been well-explored by social scientists other than criminologists. But the relations between terrorism and counterterrorism in connection with criminal activity as well as with crime control remain at present underexplored and form a field rich with potential for criminological research and theory. It is the specific province of criminology to study the patterns and dynamics of crime and social control from a social-scientific viewpoint in relation to their conditions and implications at a societal level. Terrorism is often connected with political, legal and military issues, often with deep-seated moral resonance. Counterterrorism is likewise a complex constellation much broader than police activities alone. However, issues of crime and social control are always and inevitably present in the reality and discourse on terrorism. The fact that the connection between terrorism and crime, on the one hand, and counterterrorism and social control, on the other, is not always neatly drawn nor evident does not mean that criminologists have no legitimate stake in their study. On the contrary, by bridging criminological scholarship with the existing literature on terrorism and counter-terrorism, a criminology of terrorism-related phenomena can be meaningfully connected to what is known from other social sciences and, at the same time, reveal the merits of its unique scientific focus and orientation. TYPOLOGIES OF TERRORISM Just as there is no one good definition of terrorism, typologies do not account for all forms of terrorism. Prof. Eskridge's Terrorism Page, from his course on terrorism out in Nebraska has some graphic examples of typologies, but it should be noted that typologies of terrorism are usually NEITHER motive-based NOR behavior-based, like they are in other areas of criminological study, such as the areas of profiling and street crime (the exception being Hacker's typology of terrorists by traits, included below). This is evident from the following examples commonly found in textbooks and/or in the strangely confused way the media reports what is going on in times of terrorist-related crisis or war (Hess & Kalb 2003). In the following typologies, notice in the headings how the types are classified in different ways.
What most typologies are attempting to get at are tactics unique to the modes of attack. There are five (5) tactics that terrorist use and four (4) modes of attack, or types of weapons used. The tactics can be either basic or advanced, depending upon how well-trained the terrorists are at guerilla warfare. The basic tactics are: (1) rolling, in which the terrorists drive a vehicle by in what amounts to a hit-and-run maneuver; (2) ambush, which is a standard platoon-level military maneuver drawing the enemy into a line of fire; (3) standoff, which is a back-against-the-wall maneuver, usually with an escape plan; and the advanced tactics are (4) boutique, which usually involve a combination of modes of attack, but are intended primarily to have a large impact; and (5) revenge, which also usually has a large impact, at least symbolically. The modes of attack, or weapon systems, are (1) traditional -- when makeshift or ordinary weapons are used; (2) technological -- when weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, or biological, are used; (3) cyber -- when viruses, computer attacks, or destruction of information infrastructure occur; and (4) narco -- when flooding a market with drugs is used. In addition, certain other factors are known as "force multipliers" which allow small groups to operate on a higher level. The four (4) force multipliers are: (1) technology; (2) transnational support; (3) media; and (4) religion. Furthermore, terrorists often rely upon crime instead of military force, as the six most common terrorism-related crimes are: (1) bombing; (2) hijacking; (3) arson; (4) assault; (5) kidnapping; and (6) hostage taking. While there may be certain connections between the force multipliers and types of crimes chosen (for example, bombing might be related to media coverage), typology development, in itself, seems to represent the cutting edge of criminology and criminal justice scholarship, perhaps for the ease of teaching. As a final note, it is always important to remember that there is a long, historical legacy of sponsored terrorism, and there are many "rogue states" out there, for example: Libya, South Yemen, Syria, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. There are also well-established nineteenth- and twentieth-century patterns and traditions of using terror to accomplish political and business ends. Some of these traditions have been totally foreign to Western nations, and others we have spawned ourselves. Domestic and international terrorism spawned by a democratic regime is always more episodic than the systematic and enduring terrorism spawned by rogue regimes.
INTERNET RESOURCES PRINTED RESOURCES Last Updated: 05/06/06
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||