terrorism an analysis

8/3/2019 Terrorism An Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/terrorism-an-analysis 1/42

POLITICAL SCIENCE PROJECT TERRORISM : AN ANALYSIS

Arun baby StephenMithu Dharan

Mohammed Ziyad r.vPragnya vasishta

Acknowledgement

We extend our sincere gratitude to our teacher Mr. S. Sudheesh for giving us an

opportunity to work upon such an interesting topic. The moral support of our parents and friends endowed us with the zeal to work on this project. We are also thankful to the Librarians of the college library for being extremely supportive.



INTRODUCTION ________________________________________ • Components of terrorismThere are five crucial components of terrorism, an involvement of an act of violence, an audience, the creation of a mood of fear, innocent victims, and political goals or motives. The threat of violence (in which the capacity and the willingness to commit violence) is common to terrorism, where attacks on the undefended are not an unsought side effect, but a premeditated stratagem. Terrorists plan and execute the murder and or maiming of unrelated innocent persons in a calc

ulated and needless fashion. Terrorist groups generally seek maximum publicity from their actions; no terrorist group or organization commits acts randomly or senselessly. They seek to frighten, and through fear, dominate and control. Theywant to impress; they play to and for an audience and solicit their participation. The goal of many terrorist organizations is to attract attention and international sympathy for their cause.The current interest in terrorism focuses on the violence perpetrated by IslamicFundamentalists (Islamists) Terrorism has been used as a tactic for centuries but has become more pervasive since the 1960s. After World War I and II, colonialpowers redrew the maps in many parts of the world and gradually reduced their colonies. This led to a rise in nationalist movements seeking self-determination,or seeking to replace rulers that had been imposed by the colonists. Many of the resulting conflicts have involved revolutionary warfare strategy and guerrilla

tactics.However, traditional guerrilla warfare is often inappropriate in urbanized countries. For instance, rebels cannot gain and hold control over land when opposed by superior forces and cannot employ overt hit-and-run attacks effectively, without large losses. What emerged was a new doctrine of urban guerrilla warfare, which has evolved to include terrorist tactics.Typical Terrorist Objectives Include:1. Attract public attention to the group’s grievances2. Encourage empathy for their unfair/unjust situation and sympathy for the cause3. Demonstrate the inability of the state to provide security4. Demonstrate the illegitimacy of the state’s institutions5. Polarize the public to simplify the debates and arguments6. Coerce the public into pressuring the state into compromise solutions7. Force the state into repressive reactions that discredit the government 8. Force the state into repressive reactions that serve to recruit new members and supporters9. Demonstrate the economic consequences of continued violence10. Highlight the potential political consequences of continued conflict11. Attract international attention and encourage intervention12. Provoke widespread civil uprising to change the government, or form a separate state

• Views of Locke and Hobbes on the need for security in society

Social security is an essential component for leading a peaceful life as a society. Terrorism is a direct threat to this peace and security. The concept of social security can be found in the Social Contract Theory put forth by Locke, Hobbe



s and Rousseau. For the sake of brevity, only the views of Locke and Hobbes arediscussed.Social Contract - denotes an implicit agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals. All memberswithin a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society without violating the contract; such viola

tion would signify a problematic attempt to return to the state of nature. It has been often noted, indeed, that social contract theories relied on a specific anthropological conception of man as either "good" or "evil".Hobbes: Hobbes has a unique state of nature that leads him to a monarchy rule. His state of nature is a state of war of all against all. “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition that is called war; and such a war is of every man, against every man. For war is consisteth not in battle only, or in the act of fighting; but in tract of time: wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficientlyknown.” (Hobbes P119)

Hobbes then argues that when the people start to move out of the state of nature

, they would choose Monarchy- An absolute rule that will insure the safety of the system. If you do as you are told, you have the right not to be killed, and you do not even have the right not to be killed, for no matter what the Sovereigndoes, it does not constitute violation of the contract. The concept of just useof force is meaningless or cannot be known. Just use of force is whatever forceis authorizedLocke: Locke comes with a different “State of Nature” than Hobbes’. He argues that there is a law of nature that governs the state of nature. The law forbids us fromharming each other’s life, health, liberty or property. Those rights are plural rather than singular. He proposes three arguments for the rights in the state of nature. His arguments have a religious premise, however. He says in the first argument that we are God’s property, and because it is wrong to harm someone else’s property, it is wrong to harm each other. We give up our right to ourselves exact r

etribution for crimes in return for impartial justice backed by overwhelming force. We retain the right to life and liberty, and gain the right to just, impartial protection of our property. Authorization is meaningless, except that the authorization gives us reason to believe that the use of force is just. If authorization does not give us such confidence, perhaps because the state itself is a party to the dispute, or because of past lawless acts and abuses by the state, then we are back in a state of nature.• Types of TerrorismThe current interest in terrorism focuses on the violence perpetrated by IslamicFundamentalists (Islamists) Terrorism has been used as a tactic for centuries but has become more pervasive since the 1960s. After World War I and II, colonialpowers redrew the maps in many parts of the world and gradually reduced their colonies. This led to a rise in nationalist movements seeking self-determination,or seeking to replace rulers that had been imposed by the colonists. Many of the resulting conflicts have involved revolutionary warfare strategy and guerrillatactics.However, traditional guerrilla warfare is often inappropriate in urbanized countries. For instance, rebels cannot gain and hold control over land when opposed by superior forces and cannot employ overt hit-and-run attacks effectively, without large losses. What emerged was a new doctrine of urban guerrilla warfare, which has evolved to include terrorist tactics.Until recently, terrorism has been most closely associated with ethnic and minority group struggles for independence and self-determination. The primary area ofconflict could usually be defined, as could the adversaries and their various aspirations. During the 1990s a new form of international terrorism emerged that

appears less rational, less focused, more international and more deadly – IslamistTerrorism.In fact, many of the causes and motivations remain strikingly similar to what co



uld be called traditional modern terrorism. What is different is the religious ideological foundation, the broad definition of adversaries, the evolution in terrorist tactics and the desire and potential for devastating levels of destruction. Islamist extremists appear willing to ignore taboos against killing innocentsand able to rationalize their actions by distorting Islamic teachings. The potential to use chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons of mass destruction has created a new level of terror that demands effective solutions.

Unfortunately, states have had relatively poor results deterring, containing oreliminating political violence. Those that have been successful have used extreme, repressive measures that have threatened the rule of law, personal freedoms and human rights. There must be a better answer.Terrorism doesn’t just happen. Terrorism is an advanced stage of a failed political process that begins with inequities and injustice, and moves from frustrated attempts at reform that breed fear and anger, to political confrontation that erupts in violence, which can be exploited to rationalize the use of any form of violence against any target. It seems that solutions to terrorism could be found at any stage of the evolving, or deteriorating political process. This suggests that we must start by understanding the historical context for today’s conflicts.DEFINITION________________________________________

• Origin of the term terrorismThe root of the word terrorism is taken from a Latin term that literally means "to frighten". It became part of the phrase "terror cimbricus", which was used byancient Romans in 105BC to describe the panic that ensued as they prepared foran attack by a fierce warrior tribe. Many years later that fact was taken into account during the bloody reign of Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution.Terror is a feeling of intense and overwhelming fear, and that is exactly what Robespierre brought to the people of France. Following the execution of Louis XVI, Robespierre was made the de facto leader of the French government. He was a member of the Jacobins political party, and used his new found power to attack hispolitical enemies, the Girondins. Thousands of people were executed at Robespierre

s request, and it became one of the bloodiest times in French history. Most

of the victims were beheaded using the Guillotine, which was often referred to by the title "The National Razor". Any opposition to the power of the Jacobins was immediately squashed, and people lived in fear of retribution.This period of time was referred to as the Reign of Terror, largely in homage to"terror cimbricus". After nearly a year, the Terror came to an end and Robespierre was overthrown and executed. When it was over, people started to use the word terrorist to describe a person who abuses power through the threat of force. Ajournalist in the United Kingdom wrote about the Reign of Terror in The Times newspaper, and created the word terrorism as a way to describe the actions of Robespierre. The word became so popular it was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary three years later.Today the term terrorism has basically the same meaning, although it has becomebetter defined over the years. Whatever the definition becomes, it will still beused to describe intentional acts of violence that are designed to harm or killcitizens in order to intimidate others.• Can terrorism be defined?The word terrorism is still often used interchangeably with the word terror, causing definitional confusion and blurring the boundaries between other types of violent behaviour and terrorism. Many activities, from wars to rampages by youthgangs to writing science fiction, are meant to strike terror into the enemy (orreader). In this context, the scope of potential definitions is limitless. Definitions of terrorism are not immutable; they change over time. More than a hundred definitions of terrorism exist. Proffered by government officials, scholars, the media, and terrorists themselves, the varying definitions present a bewildering array of approaches to defining terrorism. The difficulty of definition is no

t new, however. Cooper notes that “there has never been, since the topic began tocommand serious attention, some golden age in which terrorism was easy to define.” Yet, no matter how difficult the task, defining terrorism is crucial. In some o



ther areas of contemporary life, definitions and conceptualizations may be purely theoretical and of interest primarily to academics.Terrorism is an ideological and political concept. Politics, by its nature, is adversarial, and thus any definition evokes adversarial disagreement. The meaninggiven to terrorism is part of a person’s or nation’s philosophy. Thus, the determination of the “right” definition of terrorism is subjective and not likely to be reached by consensus. Therefore, if you disagree with my position, you are a terrori

st; if you agree with my position, you are not a terrorist. Yet, the cliché that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” provides little help in achievingdefinitional precision.Terrorism is also difficult to define because “there are not one but many different terrorisms”. Separating the tactics of terror from the concept of terrorism is necessary but difficult. The distinction among terrorism, guerrilla warfare, conventional warfare, civil wars, riots, and criminal activity is often blurry. Terrorists are not the only ones who use the tactics of terror. Violent and terrifying acts are common to terrorism, but these tactics are also common elements in rapes, murders, and other violent crimes. Yet, despite the definitional difficulties, distinctions must be made among the different forms of violent behaviour.

• Different authorities on terrorismLeague of Nations: In the late 1930s, the International community made a first attempt at defining terrorism. Article 1.1 of the League of Nations

1937 Convention for the prevention and punishment of Terrorism, which never entered into force, defined "acts of terrorism" as "criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". Article 2 included as terrorist acts, if they were directed against another state and if they constituted acts of terrorism within the meaning of the definition contained in article 1, thefollowing:"1. Any wilful act causing death or grievous bodily harm or loss of liberty to:a) Heads of State, persons exercising the prerogatives of the head of the State,their hereditary or designated successors;

b) The wives or husbands or the above-mentioned persons;c) Persons charged with public functions or holding public positions when the act is directed against them in their public capacity.2. Wilful destruction of, or damage to, public property or property devoted to apublic purpose belonging to or subject to the authority of another High Contracting Party.3. Any wilful act calculated to endanger the lives of members of the public.4. Any attempt to commit an offence falling within the foregoing provisions of the present article.5. The manufacture, obtaining, possession, or supplying of arms, ammunition, explosives or harmful substances with the view to the commission in any country whatsoever of an offence falling within the present article."UN General Assembly Resolutions: On December 17, 1996, the non-binding United Nations Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, annexed to the UN General Assembly Resolution 51/210, condemned terrorist activities in the following terms:"1. The States Members of the United Nations solemnly reaffirm their unequivocalcondemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed, including those that jeopardize friendly relations among States and peoples and threaten the territorial integrity and security of States;2. The States Members of the United Nations reaffirm that acts, methods and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations; they declare that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations;"

3. 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 arein any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, p



hilosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them;"UN Security Council: In 2004, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 condemned terrorist acts as:"criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to causedeath or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particula

r persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature,"European Union: The European Union defines terrorism for legal/official purposesin Article1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002). This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list consisting largely of serious offences against persons and property that;“...given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a popul

ation; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.”United Kingdom: The United Kingdom

s Terrorism Act 2000 defined terrorism as follows:(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where:(a) The action falls within subsection (2),(b) The use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public and(c) The use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.(2) Action falls within this subsection if it:

(a) involves serious violence against a person,(b) involves serious damage to property,(c) endangers a person

s life, other than that of the person committing the action,(d) Creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section ofthe public or(e) Is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.The Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism so as to include not only violent offences against persons and physical damage to property, but also acts "designed seriously to interfere with or to seriously disrupt an electronic system" if thoseacts are (a) designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public ora section of the public, and (b)be done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.Section 34 of the Terrorism Act 2006 amended sections 1(1)(b) and 113(1)(c) of Terrorism Act 2000 to include "international governmental organisations" in addition to "government".United States: United States Code (U.S.C.): Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code (regarding the Department of State) contains a definition of terrorism in its requirement that annual country reports on terrorism be submitted by the Secretary of State to Congress every year. It reads:"Definitions ... the term

terrorism

means premeditated, politically motivatedviolence perpetrated against non-combatants targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents;"Title 18 of the United States Code (regarding criminal acts and criminal procedu

re) defines international terrorism as:"[T]he term

international terrorism

means activities that . . . involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws



of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation ifcommitted within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; [and] appear to be intended . . . to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; . . . to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or . . . toaffect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [which] occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which the

y are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, orthe locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.”USA PATRIOT Act defines terrorism activities as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S.or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidationor coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."FBI definition of terrorism: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, orany segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

U.S. Army Manual definition terrorism is the "calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce orintimidate governments or societies ... [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals." Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat 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.Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism: It was adopted by the Councilof Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justicein Cairo, Egypt in 1998.Terrorism was defined in the convention as:Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in

the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize national resources.• Academic consensus definition on terrorismIn 1988, an Academic Consensus Definition, based on the responses of 50 expertsin the field Terrorism Studies to a questionnaire, was formulated by Alex P. Schmid; twenty-three years later, it has been revised on the basis of another consultation round involving almost one hundred experts.“Terrorism refers on the one hand to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and,on the other hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effectson various audiences and conflict parties.”

HISTORY OF TERRORISM________________________________________ • HistoryScholars dispute whether the roots of terrorism date back to the 1st century andthe Sicarii Zealots, to the 11th century and the Al-Hashshashin, to the 19th century and Narodnaya Volya, or to other eras. The Sicarii and Hashshashin are described below, while the Narodnaya Volya is discussed in the 19th Century sub-section. Other pre-Reign of Terror historical events sometimes associated with terrorism are the Gunpowder Plot, an attempt to destroy the English Parliament in 16

05, and the Boston Tea Party, an attack on British property by the Sons of Liberty in 1773, three years prior to the American Revolution.Sicarii: In the 1st century CE, the Jewish Zealots in Judaea Province rebelled,



killing prominent collaborators with Roman rule. In 6 CE, according to contemporary historian Josephus, Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii ("dagger men"). Their efforts also directed against Jewish "collaborators," including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other wealthy elites. According to Josephus, the Sicarii would hide short daggersunder their cloaks, mingle with crowds at large festivals, murder their victims,and then disappear into the panicked crowds. Their most successful assassinatio

n was of the high priest Jonathan.Hashshashin: In the late 11th century CE, the Hashshashin (a.k.a. the Assassins)arose, an offshoot of theIsmā

īlī sect of Shia Muslims. Led by Hassan-i Sabbah and opposed to Fatimid rule, the Hashshashin militia seized Alamut and other fortressstrongholds across Persia. Hashshashin forces were too small to challenge enemies militarily, so they assassinated city governors and military commanders in order to create alliances with militarily powerful neighbours. For example, they killed Janah al-Dawla, ruler of Homs, to please Ridwan of Aleppo, and assassinatedMawdud, Seljuk emir of Mosul, as a favour to the regent of Damascus. The Hashshashin also carried out assassinations as retribution. Under some definitions ofterrorism, such assassinations do not qualify as terrorism, since killing a political leader does not intimidate political enemies or inspire revolt.

Terrorism was associated with the Reign of Terror in France until the mid-19th century, when the term began to be associated with non-governmental groups. Anarchism, often in league with rising nationalism, was the most prominent ideology linked with terrorism. Attacks by various anarchist groups led to the assassination of a Russian Tsar and a U.S. President. The 19th century saw the developmentof powerful, stable, and affordable explosives, and the gap closed between the firepower of the state and dissidents. Dynamite, in particular, inspired Americanand French anarchists and was central to their strategic thinking.Narodnaya Volya: In mid-19th century Russia, many grew impatient with the slow pace of Tsarist reforms, and anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin maintained that progress was impossible without violence. Founded in 1878 and inspired by Bakuninand others, Narodnaya Volya used dynamite-packed bombs to kill Russian state officials, in an effort to incite state retribution and mobilize the populace agai

nst the government. Inspired by Narodnaya Volya, several nationalist groups in the ailing Ottoman Empire began using violence against public figures in the 1890s. These included the Hunchakian Revolutionary Party; an early proponent was theItalian revolutionary Carlo Pisacane (1818–1857), who wrote in his "Political Testament" (1857) that "ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around." Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), in his "Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis" (1870) stated that "we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda.” The phrase itself was popularized by the French anarchist Paul Brousse (1844–1912), who in 1877 cited as examples the 1871 Paris Commune anda workers

demonstration in Berne provocatively using the socialist red flag. Bythe 1880s, the slogan had begun to be used to refer to bombings, regicides andtyrannicides. Reflecting this new understanding of the term, Italian anarchist Errico Malatesta in 1895 described "propaganda by the deed" (which he opposed theuse of) as violent communal insurrections meant to ignite an imminent revolution.Founded in Russia in 1878, Narodnaya Volya (Нодня Воя in Russian; People

s Will in Engvolutionary anarchist group inspired by Sergei Nechayev and "propaganda by the deed" theorist Pisacane. The group developed ideas—such as targeted killing of the

leaders of oppression

—that were to become the hallmark of subsequent violence bysmall non-state groups, and they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age such as the invention of dynamite, which they were the first anarchist group to make widespread use enabled them to strike directly and with discrimination. Individual Europeans also engaged in politically motivated violence.For example, in 1893, Auguste Vaillant, a French anarchist, threw a bomb in the

French Chamber of Deputies in which one person was injured. In reaction to Vaillant

s bombing and other bombings and assassination attempts, the French government passed a set of laws restricting freedom of the press that were pejoratively



known as the lois scélérates ("villainous laws"). From 1894 to 1896, President of France Marie Francois Carnot, Prime Minister of Spain Antonio Cánovas del Castillo,and Austria-Hungary Empress Elisabeth of Bavaria were killed by anarchists.Armenian Revolutionary Federation: Several nationalist groups used violence against an Ottoman Empire in apparent decline. One was the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (in Armenian Dashnaktsuthium, or "The Federation"), a revolutionary movement founded in Tiflis (Russian Transcaucasia) in 1890 by Christopher Mikaelia

n. Many members had been part of Narodnaya Volya or the Hunchakian RevolutionaryParty. The group unsuccessfully demanded the creation of an Armenian state, butbacked down on a threat to blow up the bank. An ensuing security crackdown destroyed the group.Also inspired by Narodnaya Volya, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) was a revolutionary movement founded in 1893 by Hristo Tatarchev inthe Ottoman-controlled Macedonian territories.Political assassinations continued into the 20th century, its first victim Umberto I of Italy, killed in July 1900. Political violence became especially widespread in Imperial Russia, and several ministers were killed in the opening years of the century. The highest ranking was Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, killed in1911 by a leftist radical.

On June 28, 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife, Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg, were shot and killed inSarajevo, capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by Gavrilo Princip, one of a groupof six assassins. The assassinations produced widespread shock across Europe, setting in motion a series of events which led to World War I.Irish Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army : In an action called the Easter Risingor Easter Rebellion, on April 24, 1916, members of the Irish Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army seized the Dublin General Post Office and several other buildings, proclaiming an independent Irish Republic. The rebellion failed militarily butwas a success for physical force Irish republicanism, leaders of the uprising becoming Irish heroes after their eventual execution by the British government. Shortly after the rebellion, Michael Collins and others founded the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which from 1916 to 1923 carried out numerous attacks against sym

bols of British power. IRA tactics were an inspiration to other groups, including the Palestine Mandate

s Zionists, and to British special operations during World War II.Bedouins seized French planes during the 1920s.Haganah: Following the 1929 Hebron massacre of sixty-seven Jewish settlers in the British Mandate of Palestine, the Zionist settlers’ militia Haganah transformeditself into a paramilitary force. In 1931, however, a more militant Irgun brokeaway from Haganah, objecting to Haganah

s policy of restraint toward Arabs fighting Jewish settlers. Founded by Avraham Tehomi, Irgun sought to end British ruleby assassinating police, capturing British government buildings and arms, and sabotaging British railways. Some of the tactics of the guerrilla, partisan, andresistance movements organised and supplied by the Allies during World War II, according to historian M. R. D. Foot, can be considered terrorist. Colin Gubbins,a key leader within the British Special Operations Executive(SOE), made sure the organization drew much of its inspiration from the IRA. On the eve of D-Day, the SOE organised with the French resistance the complete destruction of the railand communication infrastructure of western France perhaps the largest coordinated attack of its kind in history. Allied supreme commander Dwight Eisenhower later wrote that "the disruption of enemy rail communications, the harassing of German road moves and the continual and increasing strain placed on German security services throughout occupied Europe by the organised forces of Resistance, played a very considerable part in our complete and final victory".After World War II, largely successful anti-colonial campaigns were launched against the collapsing European empires, as many World War II resistance groups became militantly anti-colonial. The Viet Minh, for example, which had fought again

st the Japanese, now fought the returning French colonists. In the Middle East,the Muslim Brotherhood used bombings and assassinations against British rule inEgypt. Also during the 1950s, the National Liberation Front (FLN) in French-cont



rolled Algeria and the EOKA in British-controlled Cyprus waged guerrilla and open war against colonial powers.Euskadi Ta Askatasuna : Founded in 1959 and still active, the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (or ETA (Basque for "Basque Homeland and Freedom") is an armed Basque nationalist separatist organization Formed in response to General Francisco Franco

s suppression of the Basque language and culture, ETA evolved from an advocacy group for traditional Basque culture into an armed Marxist group demanding Basque in

dependence. Many ETA victims are government officials, the group

s first known victim a police chief killed in 1968.In the 1960s, inspired by Mao

s Chinese revolution of 1949 and Castro

s Cuban revolution of 1959, national independence movements in formerly colonized countries often fused nationalist and socialist impulses in the 1960s. This was the casewith Spain

s ETA, the Front de libération du Québec, and the Palestine Liberation Organization.Muslim Brotherhood: Founded in 1928 as a nationalist social-welfare and political movement in British-controlled Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood in the late 1940s began to attack British soldiers and police stations. Founded and led by Hassan al-Banna, it also assassinated politicians seen as collaborating with Britishrule, most prominently Egyptian Prime Minister Nuqrashi in 1948. British rule wa

s overthrown in a 1952 military coup, and shortly thereafter the Muslim Brotherhood went underground in the face of a massive crackdown. Though sometimes bannedor otherwise oppressed, the group continues to exist in present-day Egypt.Front de Libération Nationale: The Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) was a nationalist group founded in French-controlled Algeria in 1954. The group was a large-scale resistance movement against French occupation, with alleged terrorism onlypart of its operations. The FLN leadership was inspired by the Viet Minh rebelswho had made French troops withdraw from Vietnam. The FLN was one of the first anti-colonial groups to use large scale compliance violence. The FLN would establish control over a rural village and coerce its peasants to execute any French loyalists among them.Fatah: Fatah was organized as a Palestinian nationalist group in 1954, and exists today as a political party in Palestine. In 1967 it joined the Palestine Liber

ation Organization (PLO), an umbrella organization for secular Palestinian nationalist groups formed in 1964. The PLO began its own armed operations in 1965. The PLO

s membership is made up of separate and possibly contending paramilitary and political factions, the largest of which are Fatah, PFLP, and DFLP. Factionsof the PLO have advocated or carried out acts of terrorism. Abu Iyad organized the Fatah splinter group Black September in 1970; the group is best known for seizing eleven Israeli athletes as hostages at the September 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. All the athletes and five Black September operatives died during a gunbattle with the West German police, in what was later known as the Munich massacre. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was founded in 1967 by George Habash, and on September 6, 1970, the group hijacked three international passenger planes, landing two of them in Jordan and blowing up the third. Fatah leader and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat publicly renounced terrorism in December 1988 on behalf of the PLO, but Israel has stated it has proof that Arafat continued to sponsor terrorism until his death in 2004. The People

s Mujahedin ofIran (PMOI) or Mujahedin-e Khalq, is a socialist islamic group that has fought Iran

s government since the Khomeini revolution. The group was originally foundedto oppose capitalism and what it perceived as western exploitation of Iran under the Shah. The group would go on to play an important role in the Shah

s overthrow but was unable to capitalize on this in the following power vacuum. The group is suspected of having a membership of between 10,000 and 30,000. The group renounced violence in 2001 but remains a proscribed terror organization in Iran and the U.S. The EU, however, has removed the group from its terror list. The PMOIis accused of supporting other groups such as the Jundallah.The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) was founded in 19

75 in Beirut during the Lebanese Civil War by Hagop Tarakchian and Hagop Hagopian with the help of sympathetic Palestinians. At the time, Turkey was in political turmoil, and Hagopian believed that the time was right to avenge the Armenians



who died during the Armenian Genocide and to force the Turkish government to cede the territory of Wilsonian Armenia to establish a nation state also incorporating the Armenian SSR.The "Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" (Kurdistan Workers Party or PKK) was establishedin Turkey in 1978 as a Kurdish nationalist party. Founder Abdullah Ocalan was inspired by the Maoist theory of people

s war, and like Algeria

s FLN he advocatedthe use of compliance terror. The group seeks to create an independent Kurdish

state consisting of parts of south-eastern Turkey, north-eastern Iraq, north-eastern Syria and north-western Iran.Throughout the Cold War, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union made extensive use of violent nationalist organizations to carry on a war by proxy. For example, Soviet and Chinese military advisers provided training and support to the Viet Congduring the Vietnam War, while the U.S. funded groups such as the Contras in Nicaragua. Ironically, many violent Islamic militants of the late 20th and early 21st century had been funded in the 1980s by the US and the UK because they were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.

MODERN TERRORISM________________________________________ Although it is difficult to say where and when ‘new terrorism’ exactly started, many

point to the mid1990s, and the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in1993 as well as the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo underground by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in 1995. It is said, that this terrorism has a different set of new characteristics in comparison to the traditional or ‘old terrorism’ mentioned above.Many supporters of the concept ‘new terrorism’ point to the prominence of religion,mainly radical Islam, as one of its main characteristics. Whereas ‘old terrorism’ was primarily secular in its orientation and inspiration, terrorism linked to religious fanaticism is on the increase. According to Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Coleonly two out of sixty-four international terrorist organisations in 1980 could be classified as religious. This figure has risen sharply to twenty-five out of fifty-eight by 1995. ‘New terrorism’ is often portrayed as a terrorism, which rejectsall other ways and promotes an uncompromising view of the world in accordance with the belief of the religion. Bruce Hoffman believes that this religious motiv

ation is the defining characteristic of ‘new terrorism’, which produces “radically different value systems, mechanisms of legitimisation and justification, concepts of morality and, world view”.Related to the religious motivation, many in the ‘new terrorism’ supporters point out that another of the main features of ‘new terrorism’ is the increasing willingnessto use excessive indiscriminate violence. Laqueur argues that “the new terrorismis different in character, aiming not at clearly defined political demands but at the destruction of society and the elimination of large sections of the population.”Hoffman highlights that these groups have caused 60 per cent of all fatalities while only being responsible for a quarter of the terrorist actions. It has been argued that “[f]or the religious terrorist, violence is a divine duty … executedin direct response to some theological demand … and justified by scripture.”As Audrey Cronin points out, religious terrorists see their struggle as good against evil, therefore dehumanising their victims and considering non-members of their group to be infidels or apostates.As a result indiscriminate violence may not be only morally acceptable, but amount to a righteous and necessary advancement of their religious cause. ‘Old terrorists’ tended to strike only selected targets, while ‘new’ terrorism has become increasingly indiscriminate and tries to produce as many casualties as possible. Religious terrorists are often their own constituency, not concerned about alienating their supporters with their acts of destruction, and holding themselves accountable only to God. For the similar reasons ‘new terrorists’ do not always claim responsibility and sometimes even deny responsibility for their actions. They see the action itself as important and not the claim to it. They are not interested in any sort of negotiation. “Today’s terrorists don’t want a seat at the table, they want t

o destroy the table and everyone sitting at it”. Moreover, Walter Enders and ToddSandler point out that ‘new terrorists’ are a lot more willing to engage in risky and more complex acts. Whereas most actions by ‘old terrorists’ involved an escape pla



n, ‘new terrorists’ seem more willing to give their own life while orchestrating a terrorist act. They believe that ‘new terrorists’ are more prepared to die because martyrdom is seen as a way of reaching heaven.The threat of mass destruction by terrorists is a fundamental part of the concept of ‘new terrorism’. Many theorists believe that due to their motivation to use extreme violence, ‘new terrorists’ are likely to try to obtain and use biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Hoffman warns that “ma

ny of the constraints (both self-imposed and technical) which previously inhibited terrorist use of WMD are eroding.”With the collapse of the Soviet Union acquiring material which could be used for WMDs or even a complete WMD has become easier and does not need the co-operation of a state sponsor anymore.Another of the characteristics of ‘new’ terrorism is precisely this inherent lack ofstate backers. Some believe that the willingness to use extreme violence showsthat new terrorists no not have an organisation or state sponsor to protect, sothey see no reason to limit their violence as they do not fear a backlash. Therefore, the financing of ‘new terrorism’ is not based on money received from state sponsors, but on other illegal sources such as drug trafficking, video piracy and credit card fraud, as well as legal business investments, donations from wealthyindividuals, charities and Diaspora.

In addition to this the lack of state sponsorship ‘new terrorists’ are seen to be predominantly amateurs that operate on a part time basis and have not dropped outof society totally. The new amateur terrorists only come together to conduct their action and then disband. They predominantly not receive training or logistical support from state sponsors but rely on the network of supporters and information on the internet. Furthermore, the increasing use of information and communication technologies enables the new terrorists to communicate covertly and to bridge distances more easily. Although new terrorists might be part time amateurs they show a higher degree of technological and operational competence. They use avast range of communication equipment including mobile and satellite phones aswell as email and web-sites to plan their next terrorist acts, communicate withother terrorist groups and spread their message around the world. Furthermore, ‘new terrorism’ also exploits the increase in intercontinental flight connections and

the poor customs and immigration control in many countries to move around the world.Finally, one of the most emphasised aspects of ‘new terrorism’ is its loose networked and less hierarchical organisational structure. Some authors believe that theamateur terrorist is a manifestation of a new network structure that is facilitated by the emergence of new advanced telecommunications technology. Each group within this network becomes relatively autonomous but are still linked by advanced communication and their common purpose. They thereby become a lot more flexible and can adapt and react more easily to different situations.Although members do communicate with their leadership, groups can, to a certainextent, operate self-sufficiently. Simon and Benjamin refer to this as a combination of “a ‘hub and spoke’ structure (where nodes communicate with the centre) with a ‘wheel’ structure (where nodes in the network communicate with each other without reference to the centre).” John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt and Michele Zanini note that terrorist leadership is derived from a “set of principle [that] can set boundaries and provide guidelines for decisions and actions so that members do not haveto resort to a hierarchy – ‘they know what they have to do.’” The authors describe the organizational designs that may “sometimes appear acephalous (headless), and at theother times polycephalous (Hydra-headed).” This type of integrated structure is alot more difficult to identify and penetrate than a more traditional hierarchical structure. It is far more resilient because each cell can still operate evenif they lose the leadership of the organisation.To summarise, the proponents of ‘new terrorism’ believe that there is something inherently new about the terrorism of today. This includes a fanatical religious motivation, excessive indiscriminate violence together with the possible use of WM

Ds, an increasing independence from state sponsors as well as a new network structure helped by communications technology and new amateur terrorists who only come together in ad hoc groupings.



• Cyber terrorismComputer crime has hit mankind with unbelievable severity. Computer viruses, worms, Trojans, denial of service attacks, spoofing attacks and e-frauds have takenthe real and virtual worlds by storm. However, all these pale in the face of the most dreaded threat – that of cyber terrorism. In1998, a 12-year-old boy successfully hacked into the controls for the huge Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River in A

rizona, USA. He might have released floodwaters that would have inundated Mesa and Tempe, endangering at least 1 million people. Two cyber terrorist groups—the Unix Security Guards and the World Fantabulous Defacers—made 111 digital attacks onIndian educational and business sites recently. A pro Islamic cyber-alliance nowoperates across the Internet against U.S., Israeli, and Indian targets. In light of this disturbing scenario, it is prudent to distinguish between cyber crime,a domestic issue that may have international ramifications and cyber terrorism,an international issue that may have domestic ramifications.While a cyber crime can be described simply as an unlawful act wherein the computer is either a tool or a target or both, cyber terrorism merits a more detaileddefinition."cyber terrorism":

Cyber terrorism is the premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threatthereof, in cyber space, with the intention5 to further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives.Cyber terrorism is the convergence of terrorism and cyberspace. It is generallyunderstood to mean unlawful attacks and threats of attack against computers, networks, and the information stored therein when done to intimidate or coerce a government or its people in furtherance of political or social objectives. Further, to qualify as cyber terrorism, an attack should result in violence against persons or property, or at least cause enough harm to generate fear. Attacks thatlead to death or bodily injury, explosions, plane crashes, water contamination,or severe economic loss would be examples. Serious attacks against critical infrastructures could be acts of cyber terrorism, depending on their impact or attacks that disrupt nonessential services.

There is no doubt that cyber technology has dramatically influenced how terrorists may choose to organize, communicate amongst themselves and transmit their messages. Conway argues that there are five core terrorist uses of the Internet: information provision, financing, networking, recruitment, and information gathering. Grabosky and Stohl cite intelligence, communications, propaganda, psychological warfare, fund raising, recruitment and training. In short, terrorist groupsincreasingly use computer technology (as many political, commercial and criminalentities do) to secure many of their organizational goals. It is to be expectedthat organizations will adopt those aspects of digital technology that will enable them to operate and grow with a greater degree of efficiency. In this sense,terrorist groups are simply exploiting modern tools to accomplish the same goals they sought in the past. Terrorist thus might employ digital technologies to enhance ease of operations; information acquisition and distribution; and increase the ease of anonymous communication. None of these activities are easily detected or countered (but as we shall see below, they do lead to other interesting counterterrorism and information gathering possibilities) and therefore terroristgroups may use digital technology to great advantage in furthering their tactical and strategic goals on a more global as well as local basis.The Web thus enables sometimes previously anonymous groups to establish a presence and perhaps exploit their activities far beyond the impact of previous terrorist organizations with far less danger. Thomas argues that the Web thus empowerssmall groups and makes them appear much more capable than they might actually be, even turning bluster into a type of virtual fear. The net allows terrorists to amplify the consequences of their activities with follow-on messages and threats directly to the population at large, even though the terrorist group may be t

otally impotent. In effect, the Internet allows a person or group to appear to be larger or more important or threatening than they really are.” When mainstream news then incorporates the reporting of events via these web sites, they also oft



en then repeat the major themes of their campaigns and thus increase the propaganda message’s reach. Organizations employing terrorism have also brought materialswhich in the past could only be distributed clandestinely and often with much danger to the attention of not only current members but future recruits and anyone else who might “benefit” from the destructive capabilities which are taught. Thus,training videos featuring instructions on how to build explosive devices and prepare gunpowder have recently appeared on several Web sites regularly used by mi

litant Islamic groups. These sites also feature tips on money laundering and many other organizational needs.Terrorist use of computers as a facilitator of their activities, whether for propaganda, recruitment, data mining, communication, or other purposes, is simply not cyber terrorism.” Focusing upon the types of activities that the cited authorsabove would argue fall under the rubric of cyber terrorism, such as attacks on critical infrastructure it is important to investigate the conditions under whichterrorists would choose to employ digital means to advance their cause over conventional methods. Denning suggests that to understand the potential threat of cyber terrorism, two factors must be considered: first, whether there are targetsthat are vulnerable to attack that could lead to violence or severe harm, and second, whether there are actors with the capability and motivation to carry them

out. To determine motivation we have to ask not simply if they desire to causeharm and exploit fear but also if the investments needed to create the event aremore or less “costly” than traditional means of terror.An expected utility approach provides useful insights into the process of understanding why oppositional organizations might choose not only terrorism as a tactic or strategy and which groups are more likely to do so as well as the conditions under which it would make sense (from their perspective) to employ digital rather than conventional tools to accomplish their ends. Duvall and Stohl argued that that an expected utility model is useful for understanding the choice of terrorism as a tactic or strategy in domestic affairs and Stohl argued that it could be applied to behaviours in the international realm as well.Such an approach calculates the benefit thought possible from the desired outcome, they believed probability with which the action will bring about the desired

state of affairs and they believed probable cost of engaging in the action. Twokinds of costs, response costs and productions costs can be distinguished. Response costs are those costs which might be imposed by the target group and/or sympathetic or offended bystanders. Cyber terrorism also has its drawbacks. Systemsare complex, so it may be harder to control an attack and achieve a desired level of damage than using physical weapons. Unless people are injured, there is also less drama and emotional appeal. Thus we must ask what else might be inhibiting terrorist groups from doing so beyond the simple cost benefit analysis. Partof the answer lies in their understanding of audience reactions. Many of these groups, such as Al Qaeda, are quite sophisticated in terms of their understandingof audience reactions and use their resources with great calculation.

• Media and TerrorismIn order to spread fear and thus advance its political goals, a terrorist organization needs the media. In most cases, terrorist attacks are very localized, andaffect only a few people. The goal, however, is to spread the message to more people than just those who were directly hit in the attack. The media play an important role in achieving this by spreading the news of the attacks or even by directly transferring the message of terrorist organizations. Bruce Hoffman argueson terrorist attacks that “without the media’s coverage the act’s impact is arguablywasted, remaining narrowly confined to the immediate victim(s) of the attack, rather than reaching the wider ‘target audience’ at whom the terrorists’ violence is actually aimed.”Brigitte Nacos agrees: Without massive news coverage the terrorist act would resemble the proverbial tree falling in the forest: if no one learned ofan incident, it would be as if it had not occurred.

Boaz Ganor states it even stronger: Terrorists are not necessarily interested inthe deaths of three, or thirty - or even of three thousand - people. Rather, they allow the imagination of the target population to do their work for them. In



fact, it is conceivable that the terrorists could attain their aims without carrying out a single attack; the desired panic could be produced by the continuousbroadcast of threats and declarations – by radio and TV interviews, videos and allthe familiar methods of psychological warfare. The media are very well suited for the purposes of terrorists. Several theories concerning characteristics – or capabilities – of the media explain part of this phenomenon. Agenda setting is the theory that the more attention a media outlet pays to a certain phenomenon, the m

ore importance the public attributes to such an issue. The theory of framing states that the way a news item is presented can have an influence on how it is interpreted or understood by the audience. Obviously, terrorists like to be on their audiences’ minds, and preferably in a way that is as positive as possible. Someexamples in which these media characteristics can be useful for terrorists willbe discussed throughout this section. First, however, it is instructive to discuss some objectives that terrorists may have in using the media. Yonah Alexanderargues that terrorist groups have three purposes to interact with the media, namely attention, recognition and legitimacy.Robin Gerrits focuses more on the psychological interaction between terroristsand the media. According to him, Brigitte Nacos combines these aspects into onecomprehensive framework, stating that terrorists have four general media-depende

nt objectives when they strike or threaten to commit violence. The first is to gain attention and awareness of the audience, and thus to condition the target population (and government) for intimidation: create fear. The second goal is recognition of the organization’s motives. They want people to think about why they are carrying out attacks. The third objective is to gain the respect and sympathyof those in whose name they claim to attack. The last objective is to gain a quasi-legitimate status and a media treatment similar to that of legitimate political actors.For each terrorist organization the objectives in using the media may be different. In some cases, one objective is more important than the other. For some organizations, one of the objectives may not be an issue at all, or another objective should be added. An added caveat is that the first objective is not necessarily the most important one. Nevertheless, most of the perceived important objectiv

es fall under Nacos’ division. Gaining attention is strongly linked to agenda setting. Terrorists are trying to be in the media as often and as long as possible,in order to become well known to the public. They attempt to influence media outlets so that they, in turn, will influence the audience by spreading the word onthe existence of the organization: the terrorists get attention, and people will be aware of the existence, methods, and targets of the group.In fact terrorists are thus carrying out propaganda by proxy. A major factor ofthis objective is to creating fear among the target population. In fact, it is an essential factor in any terrorist’s agenda that the whole tactic of terrorism isbased upon, and that is visible in all parts of terrorist activity. This is notdifferent for terrorist use of the media. The strategy to gain attention is meant, to an important extent, to intimidate the audience and the target government – so that even the threat of possibly becoming victim of terrorist violence is enough to create fear, and thus to affect the policy making process. As Hoffman writes: “Only by spreading the terror and outrage to a much larger audience can theterrorists gain the maximum potential leverage that they need to effect fundamental political change.” The second objective is related both to agenda setting andframing. Not only do terrorists want to be known to the audience, they also want to try to get their message across through the media.Sometimes this can be achieved merely by carrying out attacks: the audience mayask itself why people would do such things, especially, for example, if suicidebombers are involved. For many it is all but unfathomable that people would killthemselves in order to kill civilian bystanders. To get to know the cause theydo this for would be a logical next step for them. The effects of this media strategy can be increased by trying to make the media frame the issues in a certain

way. In some cases, the media can even give a positive spin to the cause, or compare the means terrorists use to means that are used by others who are considered more legitimate than terrorists, thus lending some recognition to the terrori



sts. By regularly appearing in the media, terrorists are trying to become a legitimate representative of their own cause. Whether or not the audience agrees, for this objective, is of less importance.The audience of terrorist attacks does not only include potential victims that have to be frightened, but potential supporters as well. These potential supporters– the people in whose name the terrorists claim to act – have to be impressed. This is a third objective of terrorists using the media: they want to show potentia

l supporters that they can “deliver”. When people who are perhaps mildly interestedin the activities or ideas of a particular group see that that organization is actually able to have an impact on the legitimate political establishment, thesepeople may become more respectful or sympathetic toward the terrorist cause or organization. Of course, this, again, requires agenda setting. Much like for theprevious objective, if an organization succeeds in having the media frame its message in a certain way, it may succeed in getting even more respect and sympathythan if it fails to do so.• War on terrorCriticism of the War on Terror addresses the issues, morals, ethics, efficiency,economics, and other questions surrounding the War on Terror. Arguments are also made against the phrase itself, calling it a misnomer. The notion of a "war" a

gainst "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that ithas been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights. Some argue that the term war is not appropriate in this context (as in War on Drugs), since they believe there is no identifiable enemy, and that it is unlikely international terrorism can be brought to an end by military means. Other critics, such as Francis Fukuyama, note that "terrorism" is not an enemy, but a tactic; calling ita "war on terror", obscures differences between conflicts, for example, anti occupation insurgents and international mujahedeen.The billionaire activist investor George Soros has called "War on Terror" a "false metaphor." Linguist George Lakoff of the Rockridge Institute has argued thatthere cannot literally be a war on terror, since terror is an abstract noun. "Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror h

as no end.” Jason Burke, a journalist who writes about radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the terms "terrorism" and "war against terrorism":There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as an act that seeks to

use or threat of serious violence

to advance some kind of

cause

. Some state clearly the kinds of group (

sub-national

,

non-state

) or cause (political, ideological, and religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems withthe use of the term persist.Terrorism is after all, a tactic. The term

war on terrorism

is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficultdebate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less

militancy

. This loaded term is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way. The justification given for the invasion of Iraq (prior to its happening)was to prevent terrorist or other attacks by Iraq on the United States or othernations. This can be viewed as a conventional warfare realization of the war onterror.A major criticism levelled at this justification is that, according to war opponents, it does not fulfil one of the requirements of a just war and that in waging a war preventively, the United States has undermined international law and theauthority of the United Nations, particularly the United Nations Security Council. Some critics claim that the war on terror is truly a war on Islam itself. After his release from Guantanamo in 2005, ex-detainee Moazzam Begg appeared in the Islamist propaganda video 21st Century CrUSAders and claimed the U.S. is engag

ing in a new crusade:I think that history is definitely repeating itself and for the Muslim world, and I think even a great part of the non-Muslim world now, are beginning to recogn



ize that there are ambitions that the United States has on the lands and wealthof nations of Islam.Ex-United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark has described the war on terror as a war against Islam. Some critics argue that some politicians supporting the "war on terror" are motivated by reasons other than those they publicly state, and critics accuse those politicians of cynically misleading the public to achievetheir own ends.

For instance, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and members of his administration indicated that they possessed information whichdemonstrated a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Published reports of the links began in late December, 1998. In January 1999, Newsweek magazine published a story about Saddam and al-Qaeda joining forces to attack U.S. interests inthe Gulf Region. ABC News broadcast a story of the link between the two soon after. Polls suggested that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was linked to the attacks of September 11, 2001. However, despite popular belief,the Bush Administration believed that there was the possibility of a potentialcollaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein

s Bath regime following the U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan.Amnesty International Irene Khan criticized the use of pro-humanitarian argument

s by Coalition countries prior to its 2003 invasion of Iraq, writing in an openletter: "This selective attention to human rights is nothing but a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists. Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International

s reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf War.” In 2002, strongmajorities supported the U.S.-led War on Terror in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, India, and Russia, according to a sample survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. By 2006, supporters of the effort were in the minority in Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%). Although a majority of Russians still supported the War on Terror, that majority had decreased by 21%. Whereas63% of the Spanish population supported the War on Terror in 2003, only 19% ofthe population indicated support in 2006. 19% of the Chinese population supportsthe War on Terror, and less than a fifth of the populations of Turkey, Egypt, a

nd Jordan support the effort. The report also indicates that Indian public support for the War on Terror has been stable.Andrew Kohut, speaking to the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, noted that, and according to the Pew Research Center polls conducted in 2004, "the ongoing conflict in Iraq continues to fuel anti-American sentiments. America’s global popularity plummeted at the start of military action in Iraq, and the U.S. presence there remains widely unpopular.TERRORISM IN INDIA________________________________________ • Overview of past Terrorist attacks in IndiaIn Mumbai include:1. 12 March 1993 - Series of 13 bombs go off, killing 2572. 6 December 2002 - Bomb goes off in a bus in Ghatkopar, killing 23. 27 January 2003 - Bomb goes off on a bicycle in Vile Parle, killing 14. 14 March 2003 - Bomb goes off in a train in Mulund, killing 105. 28 July 2003 - Bomb goes off in a bus in Ghatkopar, killing 46. 25 August 2003 - Two Bombs go off in cars near the Gateway of India andZaveri Bazaar, killing 507. 11 July 2006 - Series of seven bombs go off in trains, killing 2098. 26 November 2008 to 29 November 2008 - Coordinated series of attacks, killing at least 172.9. 13 July 2011 - 13 July 2011 Mumbai bombingsTerrorist attacks elsewhere in Maharashtra:1. 13 February 2010 - a bomb explosion at the German Bakery in Pune killedfourteen people, and injured at least 60 moreo Terrorism in Delhi

2. Three explosions went off in the Indian capital of New Delhi on 29 October 2005, which killed more than 60 people and injured at least 200 others. The high number of casualties made the bombings the deadliest attack in India in 2005



. It was followed by 5 bomb blasts on 13 September 20083. Attack on Indian parliamento Terrorists on 13 December 2001 attacked the Parliament of India, resulting in a 45-minute gun battle in which 9 policemen and parliament staff were killed. All five terrorists were also killed by the security forces and were identified as Pakistani nationals. The attack took place around 11:40 am (IST), minutesafter both Houses of Parliament had adjourned for the day. The suspected terror

ists dressed in commando fatigues entered Parliament in a car through the VIP gate of the building. Displaying Parliament and Home Ministry security stickers, the vehicle entered the Parliament premises. The terrorists set off massive blasts and used AK-47 rifles, explosives, and grenades for the attack. Senior Ministers and over 200 Members of Parliament were inside the Central Hall of Parliamentwhen the attack took place. Security personnel sealed the entire premises, which saved many lives.4. A series of blasts occurred across the Hindu holy city of Varanasi on 7March 2006. Fifteen people are reported to have been killed and as many as 101 others were injured. No one has accepted responsibility for the attacks, but it is speculated that the bombings were carried out in retaliation of the arrest ofa Lashkar-e-Toiba agent in Varanasi earlier in February 2006.

5. On 5 April 2006 the Indian police arrested six Islamic militants, including a cleric who helped plan bomb blasts. The cleric is believed to be a commander of a banned Bangladeshi Islamic militant group, Harkatul Jihad-al Islami, andis linked to the Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani spy agency.6. On 7 December 2010, another blast occurred in Varanasi (that killed immediately a toddler) set off a stampede in which 20 people, including four foreigners, were injured. The responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Islamistmilitant group Indian Mujahideen.Karnataka: Karnataka is considerably less affected by terrorism, despite havingmany places of historical importance and the IT hub of India, Bengaluru. However, recently Naxal activity has been increasing in the Western Ghats. Also, a fewattacks have occurred, major ones including an attack on IISc on 28 December 2005 and serial blasts in Bengaluru on 26 July 2008.

Also, one of the major terrorist attacks was the 25 August 2007 Hyderabad Bombing.Chief Justice of India Y.K. Sabharwal has said the country

s approach to tackling terrorism was laudable. "India has tried to follow a path wherein the rule oflaw continues to be the fundamental benchmark, and the basic rights are ensuredeven to those who are suspected of involvement in terrorist crimes," he said ata recent Indo-British Legal Forum in Edinburgh."Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. It is known to have existed, in one form orthe other, at several stages in recorded history. It is only that in recent times, it has turned into a critical issue of utmost importance, the issue of the very survival of human civilisation. Terrorism, now it is universally accepted, has cross-border fingerprints."Mr. Justice Sabharwal said, "India does not subscribe to the radical view in certain quarters that torture should be available in extreme situation of terroristacts. No civil society would concede such powers of torture (even limited ones)unto the police forces. This would be in total derogation of basic human rightsguaranteed not only by the municipal laws but also under international treaty obligations."Tamil Nadu also faced terrorist attacks orchestrated by Muslim fundamentalists.For more information, see 1998 Coimbatore bombings.

• Legislations on terrorism and its effectThe Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: While AFSPA dealt with a targeted, troubled region within India, The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987 [hereinafter TADA] was an antiterrorist legisl

ation that was meant to apply throughout India. TADA allowed for the admission of confessions of detainees, in police custody, in legal proceedings against them. While the Criminal Procedure Code required identification to be made at a test



identification parade, TADA allowed identification to be based on a witness having picked out the detainee

s photograph. Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of TADA had defined Abetment as the passing on of "any information likely to assist . . . terrorists."The Supreme Court struck down this broad definition as it had criminalized an association with a terrorist even in situations where there was no criminal intent. Furthermore, TADA proscribed various "disruptive activities," which included n

ot only acts that disrupt the sovereignty or territorial integrity of India, butalso acts which "question" such sovereignty or territorial integrity, or "support any claim... directly or indirectly... for the cession of and part of India,or secession of any part of India from the Union." Any of these advocacy crimeswere punishable by up to life imprisonment. TADA also provided for the creationof "Designated Courts" which had the exclusive jurisdiction to try violations ofits provisions. These Courts were closed to the public, and provided significantly diminished procedural protections for suspected terrorists. For example, where the potential punishment was not more than three years, the Court was authorized to conduct a "summary trial," though it was free to recall witnesses or rehear a case where circumstances warranted.Finally, TADA created a presumption of guilt in situations where arms or explosi

ves were found, in the possession of the accused, which were similar to those used in the terrorist act or in cases where the accused

s fingerprints were foundat the scene or vehicles used in the terrorist act, or where the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person accused of or reasonably suspected of a terrorist act. Of the 52,998 people detained under TADA at the end of 1992, a mere 434, or 0.81%, had been convicted. It is submitted that, the shadow of TADA continues to loom as, even though TADA is no longer in effect, as the State retains the power to charge suspected persons retroactively for crimes committed during its enactment.The Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002: On the 13th of December 2001, five Pakistani Terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament, killing seven people and placingthe country into a heightened State of alert. In response to the domestic pressures for the failure to crack down on terrorism, like its American counterpart, t

he Indian central government in March 2002 passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act, through a joint session of parliament, to enhance India

s ability to crack down on possible terrorist threats. The criminalization of "abetting" a terrorist,which had been struck down in TADA by the Indian Supreme Court, was revived under POTA.It criminalizes the membership of an organization labelled "terrorist" by the Central Government, regardless of criminal intent or activity. The statute, however, was silent as to how the State must prove that a person indeed is part of such a terrorist organization. Section 20 of POTA presumes that an individual charged with being a member of a terrorist organization is a terrorist unless that person can show that he or she has not participated in terrorist activities and that the organization itself was not declared illegal by the State at the time when the person joined. Hence by placing this type of onus on the individual, the State inevitably inhibits those peaceful persons who might wish to join a non-mainstream association but fear that doing so could subject them to potential arrest, or at the very least to the hassle of having to prove their innocence.Furthermore, Section 57 of the Act gives governmental authorities immunity fromprosecution under POTA, as long as the actions taken to combat terrorism are done in good faith. POTA had also retained the admissibility of confessions, a provision that many had pointed to as one of the sources of the high incidences of torture and brutality during TADA interrogations. Terrorist acts were placed outside the parameters of the criminal procedure code, which has been established tobalance the rights of criminal defendants with the interests of the State. Moreover, POTA had established special Courts to handle cases of terrorism. These special Courts were vested with the discretion to hold trials in non-public places

such as prisons and would have the power to withhold trial records from the public. Under section 49(2), of POTA the police may place a suspected terroristin jail for up to ninety days without any Court proceedings. The abovementioned



period may be extended by another three months if the prosecution submits a report to the Court explaining the State

s need for additional time. When an individual is charged under POTA, section 49(7) permits the denial of bail to the accused for up to one year, as long as the prosecution

s opposition to the bail request satisfies the Court.Section 52(4) States that the accused is not entitled to have a lawyer "presentthroughout the period of the police interrogation." Section 14 additionally Stat

es that "any individual" (not excluding defence lawyers) is obligated to provideto the State information of anyone who may be in violation of POTA. These limitations contravene the spirit of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Roleof Lawyers in two major ways. Firstly, Article 1 of the BPRL mandates that clients should have access to their lawyers during an entire police interrogation.Secondly, Article 22 of the BPRL emphasizes that the confidentiality between a lawyer and a client must be respected by the State; any effort to undermine thisrelationship is incompatible with international norms on the rights of the detained.On the 11th of July, 2002, in the State of Tamil Nadu, Vaiko, a leader of the opposition political party, was arrested and charged for the violation of section21 of POTA which prohibits the promotion of any terrorist group explicitly banne

d by the statute. Viko had made remarks in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, an organization deemed terrorist by the central government. According to the State government, on the 29th of June, 2002, Vaiko in a speech allegedly stated, "I was, I am, and I will continue to be a supporter of the LTTE. Two weeks later, P. Nedumaran, another opposition leader in Tamil Nadu, was arrestedunder POTA for similar charges. In April 2003, Vaiko petitioned the Supreme Court to declare section 21 of POTA as unconstitutional. In December 2003, a two-judge bench of the Court refused to grant his release and upheld the validity of section 21; however it opined that the Special Courts could not find an individualguilty of violating this section for expressing only a "moral support" to a banned terrorist group.A Special POTA Court in Delhi hearing the parliament attack case found Shaukat Hussain Guru, Geelani and Mohammad Afzal guilty of violating section 3(2) of POTA

read along with section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death. The Court also ruled that Afsan Guru was guilty of concealing knowledge of the conspiracy and sentenced her to five years in prison and a fine of 10,000 rupees. The Delhi High Court sustained the verdicts against Shaukat Hussain Guru andMohammad Afzal, although in January 2004, the Supreme Court issued a temporarystay of the execution orders until it could more fully review the matter. The convictions of Professor Geelani and Afsan Guru, however, were set aside by the Delhi High Court.The Supreme Court reversed the Madras High Court

s ruling that bail should be granted to journalist R.R. Gopal, who was arrested in April 2003, for possessing terrorist weapons and other materials prohibited by POTA. Gopal had contended that the State retaliated against him as he published stories critical and embarrassing about the members of the Tamil Nadu government. In overturning the Madras High Court

s ruling, the Supreme Court deferred to POTA

s provisions on bail: that when the prosecution opposes a bail request, a Court may grant bail only whenthere has been an abuse of discretion on the part of the government. It is reverently submitted that the Supreme Court

s ruling, that a prima facie case had indeed existed, and that the Madras High Court should not have allowed its sympathyfor the defendant

s argument to cloud what was an obviously an easy call to deny bail is erroneous.In Uttar Pradesh, twenty-five Dalits were arrested under POTA between April andJuly 2002. Tribals in the area claim that POTA has been used to characterize their struggle for worker

s rights as membership in the banned, extreme leftist Maoist-Leninist groups known collectively as Naxalites. In one district, "nine outof twelve people arrested were bonded labourers who refused to return to work be

cause of the physical abuse of their employer." POTA has been used in a similarway in the State of Jharkhand. On the 19th of February 2003, almost 200 people were arrested under POTA, including "a twelve-year-old boy and an eighty-one-year



-old man."After the Gujarat communal riots, the Gujarat police arrested hundreds of Muslims and charged them with violating POTA, not a single Hindu has been charged under POTA. Article 14 of the Constitution of India reads, "The State shall not denyto any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws." Furthermore, Article 15 reiterates this tenet more specifically by prohibiting theState from discriminating against any citizen on the basis of "religion, race, c

aste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Although much of the litigation involving these two Articles has predominantly dealt with promoting affirmative action-type policies on behalf of lower castes and women, the preeminent Indian constitutional law scholar, S.P. Sathe, has noted that the Indian Supreme Court has explicitly held that the right to equal protection extends to all State policies.• History of anti-terrorism laws in India

Terrorism has immensely affected India. The reasons for terrorism in India may vary vastly from religious to geographical to caste to history. The Indian Supreme Court took a note of it in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab , where it observedthat the country has been in the firm grip of spiralling terrorist violence andis caught between deadly pangs of disruptive activities. Apart from many skirmi

shes in various parts of the country, there were countless serious and horrendous events engulfing many cities with blood-bath, firing, looting, mad killing even without sparing women and children and reducing those areas into a graveyard,which brutal atrocities have rocked and shocked the whole nation Deplorably, determined youths lured by hard-core criminals and underground extremists and attracted by the ideology of terrorism are indulging in committing serious crimes against the humanity.Anti-terrorism laws in India have always been a subject of much controversy. Oneof the arguments is that these laws stand in the way of fundamental rights of citizens guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The anti-terrorist laws havebeen enacted before by the legislature and upheld by the judiciary though not without reluctance. The intention was to enact these statutes and bring them in force till the situation improves. The intention was not to make these drastic me

asures a permanent feature of law of the land. But because of continuing terrorist activities, the statutes have been reintroduced with requisite modifications.At present, the legislations in force to check terrorism in India are the National Security Act, 1980 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Therehave been other anti-terrorism laws in force in this country a different pointsin time. Earlier, the following laws had been in force to counter and curb terrorism. The first law made in independent India to deal with terrorism and terrorist activities that came into force on 30 Dec 1967 was Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004It would however be simplistic to suggest, as some critics did, that the new lawhas retained all the operational teeth of POTA or it has made only cosmetic changes. The difference between POTA and UAPA is substantial even as a lot of provisions are in common.A brief outline of the amended act: The Act does not define the word terroristin its definition clause but defines a terrorist act. The word terrorist is to be construed according the definition of the terrorist act. Terrorist act is defined in the Act as - Whoever, with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section ofthe people in India or in any foreign country, does any act by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any othersubstances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature, in such a manner as to cause, or likely to cause, death of, or injuries to any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any

supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country or causes damage or destruction of any property or equipment usedor intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other



purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in orderto compel the Government in India or the Government of a foreign country or anyother person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act (Section 15).The above definition did not exist in the 1967 Act. The previous Act only defined and dealt with unlawful activity. An unlawful activity includes an activity wh

ich intends to bring about cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites anyindividual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; orwhich disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereigntyand territorial integrity of India, or which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India Section 2(o).Whether an association is unlawful is to be declared by the Central government by giving the grounds for such a declaration. Section 3 Thereafter; it is referred to the Tribunal Section 4. A notice is issued by the Tribunal to the association concerned to show-cause why it should not be declared unlawful. To ascertainwhether there is sufficient cause for declaring the association unlawful.For taking cognizance of any offence under this Act prior sanction of the Centra

l or the State government, as the case may be, is necessary. Criminal ProcedureCode, 1973, is made applicable in matters of arrest, bail, confessions and burden of proof. Those arrested are to be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours, confessions are no longer admissible before police officers and bail need notbe denied for the first three months. The presumption of innocence leaving the burden of proof on the prosecution has also been restored.The evidence collected through interception of wireless, electronic or oral communication under the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act or the Information Technology Act or any law being in force has been made admissible as evidence against the accused in the court Section 46.The amended Act provides for following penalties: Offence Includes Penalty Being a member of an unlawful association Aperson who is and continues to be a member of such association, takes part in meetings, contributes to, or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose

s of the association or in any way assists the operations of such association. If such person is in possession of unlicensed firearms, ammunition, explosive, etc, capable of causing mass destruction and commits any act resulting in loss ofhuman life or grievous injury to any person or causes significant damage to anyproperty, and if such act has resulted in the death of any person. In any othercase Imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and fine.The National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008: The salient features of the Act are as follows-The legislation will be applicable to the whole of India, citizens of India, outside India, in service of the Government, wherever they may beand for persons on ships and aircrafts registered in India. The officers of theNIA will have all the powers, privileges and liabilities which the police officers have in connection with the investigation of any offence. The superintendence of the NIA shall vest in the Government of India and the administration will vest in the officer designated on this behalf by it. The police officer in chargeof the police station on receipt of the report of the offence shall forward itto the state government which in turn will forward the same to the Central Government. If the Central Government is of the opinion that the offence is a Scheduled Offence, it shall direct the agency for investigation of such offence. The NIA may also investigate other offences connected with the Scheduled OffenceThe Government of India shall constitute Special Courts for the trial of Scheduled Offences. The Special Courts shall try the offences committed within its local Jurisdiction. For the purpose of having a fair or speedy trial or in the interest of justice, the Supreme Court of India may transfer any case pending with the Special Court to another Special Court in the same state or any other state and the High Court may transfer such cases to any other Special Court within the s

tate. Clause 16 of the NIA Bill seeks to provide for procedure to be adopted andpowers to be exercised by the Special Court for trial of the Scheduled Offences. It seeks to provide that offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not



s. For instance, bombing the local trains in Mumbai which are called as the lifeline of the city and crowded commercial market places in Delhi have shown that the terrorists do their home work well and know where the maximum damage could beuncured.It has been unfortunate for a country like India, where the principle of ‘Non-violence’ emerged, to witness emergence of five kinds of terrorism or terrorism on five fronts in the last two decades. The most important and strategically significa

nt terrorism is of course the cross border infiltration in the Jammu and Kashmirstate from Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir or directly from Pakistan. Another front where fortunately we have been able to be successful was in Punjab in the 1980’s. But, still India is being tried to be crippled on the remaining three fronts which include the problems in the North-East involving insurgency primarily in Assamand Manipur states and the threat to the territorial integrity in Arunachal Pradesh from China. The latest to join these terrorism activities is the rise of Naxalites and Maoists in the very heart of the country having their influence in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and AndhraPradesh. However, we can say that the LTTE conflict in Sri Lanka may have to a larger extend been resolved.The Government of India has spent around Rs. 45,000 crores on relief and rehabil

itation and para-military forces, which do not include the military and the army, since independence. Still, the no. of civilians killed in the terror attacks has been far more than the total number of deaths of the security personnel in the four conventional wars we have fought, including the Kargil War. It is not thecost that hurts, but the lack of funds to be spent on rural development and problems involving electricity, education, sanity and infrastructure.Section 2(d) defines as the right relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the constitution or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by the courts in India. Since there has been an increase in number of cases of terrorist activities, communal riots, activities ofnaxalism the role of security forces have become paramount and necessary. Theseforces although play an important role in protecting the borders their requirement is even more necessary in controlling civil unrest, enhancing the security a

t the important places and also control and maintain law and order whenever required.The United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution on December 17, 1979 that all security personnel shall respect and protect human dignity and uphold thehuman rights of all persons as well it applies to the armed forces, they have to abide by the international conventions against torture and other cruel punishments, principles of international cooperation in the detention, arrest, extraditions and punishment against humanity.Implementation of security legislations led to a gross violation of human rightsin several states. Widespread abuses of Armed Forces Special Power Act in the North East states drew a lot of criticism for ignoring impunity issues and recommending use of the Unlawful Activity Prevention Act. At least 400 people remainedin jails under the repealed POTA and several continued to face special trials of proceedings of which failed to meet fair trial standards. The project deems tocover various issues relating to the violation of the Human rights by the security forces whether armed or unarmed. In the Guise of security cover violations are taking place.The painful issue of how to protect human rights in times of terrorism and insurgency confronted the National Human Rights Commission within days of its establishment with the tragic death of civilians in Bijbehara, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, in the course of a firing by the Para - military force. The commission took suo - muto cognizance of the incident and after examining the reports, for which it had asked, concluded that excessive force had been used. There has been a strict vigilance by the commission on such kinds of violations. To cover more on the violations by the security forces and the kinds of complaints the NHRC

has been receiving and also the measures taken by the commissions on such complaints we will make a brief study of the NHRC reports.Our political thinkers, academics, and the media have to girdle them to examine



rationally all the steps being taken to see how far they impinge on the Human Rights of the people. How far in the name of challenging terrorism from across theborders we are fanning communalism at home. How far are we creating an environment of intolerance by exhorting the people against one religion or the other andcalling upon the people to be vigilant against one minority or the other are aquestion that merits serious consideration.The socio-economic and cultural emancipation of the people at the grass root lev

el achieved through well-planned developmental planning process through democratic norms and principles would remove the local support base of the terrorists and it is a proven fact that terrorists cannot function without a local base and also without a misguided support from the locals.• Vienna world conference on human rightsOn 25 June 1993, representatives of 171 States adopted by consensus the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights, thussuccessfully closing the two-week World conference and presenting to the international community a common plan for the strengthening of human rights work around the world.The conference was marked by an unprecedented degree of participation by government delegates and the international human rights community. Some 7,000 participa

nts, including academics, treaty bodies, national institutions and representatives of more than 800 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) -- two thirds of themat the grass-roots level -- gathered in Vienna to review and profit from their shared experiences.United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, in a message to the Conference, told the delegates that by adopting the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action they had renewed the international community

s commitment to the promotionand protection of human rights. He saluted the meeting for having forged "a newvision for global action for human rights into the next century".The Vienna Declaration and Program of Action mark the culmination of a long process of review and debate over the current status of human rights machinery in the world. It also marks the beginning of a renewed effort to strengthen and further implement the body of human rights instruments that have been painstakingly c

onstructed on the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights since1948.In his presentation of the document to the final plenary session, Mr. Ibrahima Fall, the Secretary-General of the Conference, said that the Vienna Declaration provides the international community with a new "framework of planning, dialogueand cooperation" that will enable a holistic approach to promoting human rightsand involve actors at all levels -- international, national and local.In 1989 the General Assembly called for the convening of a world meeting that would review and assess progress made in the field of human rights since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and identify obstacles and ways in which they might be overcome. The first global meeting on human rights hadtaken place in Teheran in 1968.The Conference agenda, as set by the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly in 1992, also included the examination of the link between development, democracy and economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of United Nations methods an mechanisms with the aim ofrecommending ways to ensure adequate financial and other resources for United Nations human rights activities.From the first of four Preparatory Committee meetings in Geneva in September 1991, it was clear that these were tasks that raised many difficult, sometimes divisive, issues regarding national sovereignty, universality, the role of non-governmental organizations and questions concerning the feasibility, viability and impartiality of new or strengthened human rights instruments.The search for common ground on these and many other issues was characterized byintense dialogue among governments and dozens of United Nations bodies, special

ized agencies and other intergovernmental organizations and thousands of human rights and development NGOs from around the world.The preparatory process included three key regional meetings, -- in Tunis, San J



osé and Bangkok -- which produced declarations outlining particular concerns and perspectives of the African, the Latin American and Caribbean and the Asian and Pacific regions. In addition, informal meetings in Europe and North America and the scores of satellite meetings throughout the world involved broad spectrums ofsociety made extremely valuable contributions. At the final meeting in May, which ended after an extended session, the Preparatory Committee prepared a draft final document with which the conference, hosted by the Austrian Government in Vi

enna, began its work and final negotiations.The final document agreed to in Vienna, which was endorsed by the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly (resolution 48/121, of 1993), reaffirms the principles that have evolved during the past 45 years and further strengthens the foundation for additional progress in the area of human rights. The recognition ofinterdependence between democracy, development and human rights, for example, prepares the way for future cooperation by international organizations and national agencies in the promotion of all human rights, including the right to development.Similarly, the Conference took historic new steps to promote and protect the rights of women, children and indigenous peoples by, respectively, support the creation of a new mechanism, a Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women; calling

for the universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child bythe year 1995; and recommending the proclamation by the General Assembly of an international decade of the world

s indigenous peoples. Subsequently, the GeneralAssembly carried out that recommendation.The Vienna Declaration also makes concrete recommendations for strengthening andharmonizing the monitoring capacity of the United Nations system. In this regard, it called for the establishment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights by the General Assembly, which subsequently created the post on 20 December 1993 (resolution 48/141). Mr. José Ayala Lasso was nominated by the Secretary-General as the first High Commissioner and assumed office on 5 April 1994.The Vienna Declaration further emphasizes the need for speedy ratification of other human rights instruments and for additional resources for the Centre for Human Rights, which served as the secretariat of the World Conference.

"In adopting this Declaration", Mr. Fall concluded in his final address to the conference, "the Member States of the United Nations have solemnly pledged to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to undertake individually and collectively actions and programmes to make the enjoyment of human rights a realityfor every human being."COUNTER TERRORISM________________________________________ Counter-terrorism is the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, militaries, police departments and corporations adopt to prevent or inresponse to terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed.The tactic of terrorism (used by terrorists) is available to insurgents and governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing.If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counter-insurgency doctrine, but political, economic, and other measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror. Foreign internal defence (FID) is a term used by several countries for programs eitherto suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency could develop.Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts and the responseto related events.• Anti terrorismThe concept of anti-terrorism emerges from a thorough examining of the concept of terrorism as well as an attempt to understand and articulate what constitutes

terrorism in Western terms. In military contexts, terrorism is a tactic, not anideology. Terrorism may be a tactic in a war between nation-states, in a civil war, or in an insurgency.



Counter-terrorism refers to offensive strategies intended to prevent a belligerent, in a broader conflict, from successfully using the tactic of terrorism. TheUS military definition, compatible with the definitions used by NATO and many other militaries, is "Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, pre-empt, and respond to terrorism." In other words, counter-terrorism is a set of techniques for denying an opponent the use of terrorism-based tactics, just as counter-air is a set of techniques for denying the opponent the us

e of attack aircraft.Anti-terrorism is defensive, intended to reduce the chance of an attack using terrorist tactics at specific points, or to reduce the vulnerability of possible targets to such tactics. "Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability ofindividuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military and civilian forces."United States Customs and Border Protection officers fully armed and armoured for a counter-terrorism operation. To continue the analogy between air and terrorist capability, offensive anti-air missions attack the airfields of the opponent,while defensive anti-air uses anti-aircraft missiles to protect a point on one

s own territory. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Sri Lankan Civil War,and Colombian Civil War are examples of conflicts where terrorism is present, a

long with other tactics, so that participants use counter- and anti-terrorism tolimit the opponent

s use of terror tactics. The only unit

s that are counter-terrorism are the Us Navy Seals and Delta force they work alongside with NATO.MisreportingLord Justice Campbell spoke on the relationship between the judiciary and media. "The speed with which a piece of misreporting can spread is alarming, and once the damage occurs, little can be done to dislodge the initial version from the mind of the listener or the reader."Chief Justice of the Madras High Court A.P. Shah, who spoke on

¡

Judges and mediainter-relationship,

said, "Trial by media has created a problem because it involves a tug-of-war between two conflicting principles — free press and free trial,in both of which the public are vitally interested."

Trial by the press, electronic media or public agitation was "the very antithesis of the rule of law and could lead to miscarriage of justice."He said: "The freedom of the press and the independence of the judiciary are twoof the most important indices of democracy and it is essential to preserve both. A pliable press and a subservient judiciary are the first steps in the processof extinguishment of democratic rights."Myths in the perception of terrorismThere are certain myths about terrorism that have existed for quite some time an d before any argument can be made in favour of the enactment of such a law itis imperative to explode those myths.The First myth is that there is no definition for terrorism or terrorist activity. The adage now discarded by serious analysts, is still paraded in forums i.e."One man

s terrorist is another man

s freedom fighter". That this no longer stands up as an argument is obvious. The ideological terrorists who targeted the symbols of oppressive regimes or authorities who were contrary to their belief systems have been replaced by terrorists who target innocent civilian population for a nebulous cause: the bomb in the market place, kidnapping busloads of schoolchildren, killing families in theatres, shopping malls and amusement parks. Howanyone can even for a moment label them as freedom fighters confounds the logical mind. Any discussion on terrorism is not a matter of semantics but a grave concern of the safety of civilians and the security of society which is the duty of a state to protect. Over and over again one has to listen to persons smugly state that terrorism defies definition; therefore, what cannot be defined cannot be identified. It is imperative to understand that even though an all –encompassing definition for terrorism does not exist there are a number of working definiti

ons that underline what terrorism is and how an act of terrorism can be identified. What entails a terrorist activity may defy specific definition but it certainly is possible for anyone to recognise such a violent act against society. Any



act that deliberately and systematically aims the murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent civilians to inspire fear for political, religious or any other ideological end is an act of terrorism. The lack of discrimination in choosing the target by the terrorist organisations spreads fear: if no one is a target thenno one can be safe.The Second myth is that terrorism is the result of marginalisation of certain sections of society by the state and its machinery which has lead to great dissati

sfaction resulting in the group turning to violence to address their grievances.Therefore, addressing their problems and removing these causes will eliminate terrorism. This argument advocates a soft approach to counter terrorism. Good governance is identified as the panacea of all ills. Therefore the argument is: any law formulated to curb terrorism will only exacerbate the existing problems. Good governance and addressing the ills of marginalisation is a welcome social conversion but it does not deal with the menace of terrorist violence against citizens. There is also no doubt that terrorist organisations seek to their recruits from those who have economic disadvantage. They use them as foot soldiers to carry out their orders and commit the final violent act but those who run these organisations or master mind the terror campaigns are educated, urbanised intellectuals as well as those motivated by their own brand of warped ideology. Those w

ho preach violence are different from those who put it into practice. Therefore,laws are required to deal with the main organisations suspected of spreading and spearheading the terrorist activities and not just the perpetrators of the acts.The Third myth is when an incident occurs the state and the intelligence have failed miserably ( as the cub reporter on the scene of every by-the-hour news channel often surmises) .The media immediately faults the intelligence agencies and state machinery for not anticipating the attack yet balks at any attempt to enact a law to deal which would ensure otherwise . It is not possible for the state machinery anywhere to recognise and identify the every lowly recruit of the organisation who may have been entrusted with a specific act to be committed at aspecific time on a given date. A pragmatic approach needs to be adopted insteadof emotional reaction. If a law were to permit the state to monitor constantly

an organisation suspected to be capable of subversive activity and to enquire into its activities, it is possible to pre-empt such occurrences. It is not sufficient to seek the suspects of the violence after it has resulted in the deaths of the innocent; laws are required to ferret out the leaders of such organisations capable of suspicious activities before the incidents occur. The strategist and the fund raisers of such organisation should be dealt with severely under thelaw before the occurrence of an act of violence. Identifying these organisations would not be a major task as these organisations are known to preach and publish their intentions. Organisations and outfits that espouse causes seek media attention to justify their existence and often advertise their intentions throughpublic statements to the media or at rallies and meetings.The success of an organisation lies often in the inability of the authorities topay heed to them and take suitable action against these organisations. The AumShinrokyo movement in Japan began its public campaign of terror in 1994 with the release of sarin gas in a residential neighbourhood .It had published pamphlets and openly stated their intention of using sarin gas and had moved truckloads of chemical agents into their compounds. These apparent signs went unheeded.Had their movements been sufficiently monitored , such large consignment of chemicals moving into their compound would not have passed unnoticed and the 1995Tokyo attack on the subway system would not have occurred. The police and intelligence, therefore, need to be further empowered under law to maintain a constant vigil concerning all organisations with a capability of turning into terrorist organisations. Communications, recruitment of members and movements of consignments have to be monitored to prevent stocking of chemicals, explosives and arms and ammunitions.

The Fourth myth is that it is not possible to judge at what point of time a political, social or religious organisation becomes a terrorist organisation. Therefore monitoring organisations would impinge on their rights to carry out lawful a



ctivities. This of course is an extension of the first myth that an organisationmay be genuinely fighting a repressive regime and therefore has had to resort to violence to achieve its end. This again a conceptual misinterpretation – no organisation or person belonging to them can justify violence against the innocent civilian population. The moment violence is directed at society at large , therecan be no doubt that the persons committing such acts are terrorists and the organisation that logistically supports, trains or provides funds for them or acc

epts and endorses their acts as being part of their greater cause is a terrorist organisation. Several organisations acting with impunity in India would fallwithin the ambit of the new law.Counter terrorist laws should be viewed as safeguards for collective safety andthere should have no partisan or parochial considerations. It should be understood that measured infringement of individual freedom is not violation of fundamental right. No longer do we question additional security measures at airports, public places and other sensitive areas as violating privacy being well aware thatsafety supersedes discomfort. It is the duty of the state to prevent the existence of destructive forces within its territorial jurisdiction which endanger thelife and liberty of its citizens and the safety and security of other states.Terrorism is not a passing phenomenon and a new counter terrorism law is urgentl

y required to deal with it effectively. The new laws must, however, incorporatecertain features that ensure that there can be no misuse by the enforcement machinery.

I. The primary concern is the rule of law. Laws are not to beenacted that in any manner operate outside the realm of rule of law.

II. The definition of terrorism has to be sufficiently narrowedto exclude criminal activities: if intention to terrorise is missing, mere criminal activity should not fall within the purview of the special law. Similarly, an act that would not be criminal but would be permissible under freedom of speech and expression should be deemed an act supporting terrorism if the intention is to garner support or is supportive of a proscribed organisation.

III. Witness protection would have to be incorporated under the new law to ensure greater co operation from fringe elements and sections of societ

y aware of such organisations and their activities.IV. Another important aspect to be considered would be the uniform

and consistent application of such law by the enforcement authority throughout India.

V. Transparency and review procedures would have to be clearly set out in the newly enacted law.

VI. There should be a centralised system to prevent inconsistent application and interpretation of the law throughout the territory. Establishmentof a central judicial agency for even application and uniform interpretation should be set up.

VII. Special agencies should be set up so that the overburdened enforcement agency in the state is not required to handle the activities under the special law. Such agencies should also be sufficiently trained and sensitised about the application of the law.

VIII. Specific fund allocation by the government for the agencies that apply the law has to be made as part of the states serious intention to cub terrorism. No agency can function without proper infrastructure, manpower or technology.This will address the fears that any law dealing with terrorism will abrogate human rights and will place all organisations with genuine concern for addressingsocial issues under the purview of the state agencies who will then use the lawsto curb opponents and settle political scores.There are no minor forms of terrorism and if there has been concrete evidence ofearlier abuse of counter terrorism laws, it is the implementation of the law that should be scrutinised and rectified; the need for counter terrorism law shoul

d not be questioned.Anti-terrorism legislation designs various types of laws passed in the aim of fighting terrorism. They usually, if not always, follow specific bombings or assas



sinations. Anti-terrorism legislation usually includes specific amendments allowing the state to bypass its own legislation when fighting terrorism-related crimes, under the grounds of necessity.Because of this suspension of regular procedure, such legislation is sometimes criticized as a form of lois scélérates which may unjustly repress all kinds of popular protests. Critics often allege that anti-terrorism legislation endangers democracy by creating a state of exception that allows authoritarian style of govern

ment. Governments often state that they are necessary temporary measures that will be dispelled when the danger finally vanish.However, most anti-terrorist legislation remains in activity even after the initial target of it has been eliminated. A good example of this is the "War on Terror" which officially was to end in 2003, however it persists to this day. With no clear end in sight it violates the laws of reason, facilitating its own brandof circular reasoning and a pseudo straw man ("Terror" as the straw man). Perpetuating its own existence as it were this presents an unusual case as a logical fallacy Measures which may be included by anti-terrorism legislation include preventive detention (that is, detention without trial), control orders in the UK and Australia, warrantless searches in the United States.Radicalization is the process in which an individual changes from passiveness or

activism to become more revolutionary, militant or extremist. Radicalization isoften associated with youth, adversity, alienation, social exclusion, poverty,or the perception of injustice to self or others.The NYPD and NCTC experienceThe U.S. Violent Radicalization and Home-grown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007defines "Violent Radicalization" as the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violenceto advance political, religious, or social change.The term is used in the context of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, but the term can, and has, been used to refer to radicalization within the context of a wide number of militant movements with a wide variety of ideologies.Radicalization is an important factor in the development of militant movements,including those involved in terrorism. According to the U.S. National Counterter

rorism Center, The grievances that fuel radicalization are diverse and vary across locations and groups. Radicalization frequently is driven by personal concerns at the local level in addition tofrustration with international events.According to the NCTC, the association between radicalization and poverty is a myth. Many terrorists come from middle-class backgrounds and have university-level educations, particularly in the technical sciences and engineering. There is no statistical association between poverty and militant radicalization.The NCTC also states that there are no visible outward signs of radicalization.Changes in appearance during different stages of radicalization often are the same changes seen in individualswho are not being radicalized, making it difficultto identify visible markers.In 2007 The New York Police Department Intelligence Division released a documentthat focused on the radicalization process entitled, Radicalization in the West: the Homegrown Threat. The report was co-authored by Mitchell D. Sibler and Arvin Bhatt, who are both Senior Intelligence Analysts for the NYPD. The report researched and analyzed several famous case studies from abroad as well as from theUnited States to collect the needed data to create their step by step explanation of radicalization. The cases examined included: the London, England 7/7 attack, 2004 Madrid, Spain terrorist attack, the Toronto 18 case, Herald Square BombPlot, the Lackawana Six plot, and the Al Muhajiroun Two plot. The NYPD report breaks down the radicalization process into four steps with each step including its’ own key indicators and triggers. The four steps to radicalization are their keyindicators are:• Pre-radicalization: Individuals ordinary life prior to radicalizationo Key indicators: Individuals background and current environment. Other in

dicators from the study included being a 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant to theU.S., having a college or even advanced degree, and being a recent convert to Islam



• Self-identification: The individual comes to identify with radical movementso Key indicators: 1) A crisis event occurs progressing the individual towards Salafi Islam. 2) Regular attendance at a Salafi mosque 3) Change in personalbehavior that may include: giving up vices such as gambling, drinking alcoholicbeverages, and smoking, as well as becoming involved in social activism pertaining to Islam• Indoctrination: Individual intensify and focus their beliefs

o Key indicators: 1) Individual takes on political worldview and relatingall things back to Salafi Islam and its teachings 2) Withdrawal from mosque andmovement towards a small group or “cluster” where radical ideas are espoused and shared 3) Politicalization of new Salafi beliefs• Jihadization: Individual start to take actions based on their beliefso Key indicators: 1) Decision to travel abroad to countries involved in conflict for training 2) Preparation for an “act of furtherance” by way of internet research, physical surveillance of possible targets, and visiting jihadi websitesfor words of encouragement prior to an attack 3) Acquiring materials needed forexplosives or other means of attack i.e. guns, vehicles, bomb componentsSimilar to other radicalization reports that have been created the NYPD report also includes several key assumptions:

• There is no single pathway to extremism. All cases take very different paths ofradicalization• If an individual goes through all or even some of the steps of radicalization that does not mean that they will commit an act of terrorism. Several cases existwhere an individual radicalized (wholly or partially) and never committed any acts of terrorism• The NYPD report also cites that the Internet as a key driver of radicalization and includes it in several sections of the report.An MI5 report, Understanding Radicalisation and Violent Extremism in the UK, made public by The Guardian newspaper, emphasized the diverse possible routes thatcan lead to an individual being radicalized. The MI5 report is dated June 12, 2008 and drew its analysis from case studies and input of those who were closely associated with the counterterrorism mission in the UK. They key findings of the

report are:• There is no single pathway to extremism. All cases take very different paths ofradicalization• The timeframe of the radicalization process can take months or even years but isalways driven by contact with others who share extremism views• Individuals who seem to be the most receptive to extremist ideologies were:1. those who had recently migrated to Britain2. individuals who had faced marginalization and racism from their peers3. persons who had achieved little in their professional career despite owning a university level degree4. individuals with a serious criminal past5. persons who had traveled abroad for more than 6 months and come in contact with extremists networks overseas6. those who would be considered religiously naive and vulnerable to proselytization• Extremist groups often act as "fictive kin" for dislocated individuals who havelost ties to their family or community• Not enough substantial research exist on disengagement from Islamist terrorist organization but using other historical records from other terrorist organizationMI5 believes that disengagement does occur in Islamic terrorist organizations for varying reasons such as the birth of a son or daughter, a new job offer, or new personal relationship• Strong religious faith can protect individuals from the effects of extremismThe MI5 report closes by saying that no single measure will reduce radicalization in the UK and that the only way to combat it is by targeting at risk vulnerabl

e groups and trying to assimilate them into society. This may include helping young people find jobs, better integrating immigrant populations into the local culture, and effectively reintegrating ex-prisoners into society.



In 2010, the British government launched a controversial anti-radicalization campaign called Prevent, led by the Home Office, that seeks among other things to identify persons that would be the most vulnerable to recruitment by al Qaeda-aligned groups, to wean them away from an extremist path.Social desirability bias is the tendency of respondents to answer questions in amanner that will be viewed favourably by others. It can take the form of over-reporting good behaviour or under-reporting bad behaviour. The tendency poses a s

erious problem with conducting research with self-reports, especially questionnaires. This bias interferes with the interpretation of interpreting average tendencies as well as individual differences.Topics where SDR is of special concern are self-reports of abilities, personality, sexual behaviour, and drug use. Respondents may be pressured by the societaltaboo, and either under-report the frequency or avoid answering the question. When confronted with the question, the respondent may be influenced by the fact that controlled substances, including the more commonly-used marijuana, are generally illegal. Respondents may feel pressured to deny any drug use or rationalizeit. The bias can also influence reports of number of sexual partners. In fact, the bias may operate in opposite directions for different subgroups: Whereas mentend to inflate the numbers, women tend to underestimate theirs. In either case,

the mean reports from both groups are likely to be distorted by social desirability bias.Other topics that is sensitive to social desirability bias:• Personal income and earnings often inflated when low and deflated when high.• Feelings of low self-worth and/or powerlessness, often denied.• Excretory functions often approached uncomfortably, if discussed at all.• Compliance with medicinal dosing schedules, often inflated.• Religion, often either avoided or uncomfortably approached.• Patriotism, either overstated or, if denied, done so with a fear of other party

s judgement.• Bigotry and intolerance, often denied, even if it exists within the responder.• Intellectual achievements, often inflated.• Physical appearance, either inflated or played down

• Acts of real or imagined physical violence, often denied.• Indicators of charity or "benevolence," often exaggerated.• Illegal acts, often denied.Racial profilingRacial profiling refers to the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement(e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest). The practice is controversial and is illegal in some nations.The concept of racial profiling has been defined in many ways, including:• "Any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than the behaviour of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being, or having been,engaged in criminal activity." -Deborah Ramirez, Jack McDevitt, Amy Farrell forUS D-o-J.• "Racially-biased policing occurs when law enforcement inappropriately considersrace or ethnicity in deciding with whom and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity."-Lorie Fridell, Robert Lunney, Drew Diamond and Bruce Kubu.• "Using race as a key factor in deciding whether to make a traffic stop." -General Accounting Office.• "In the literature to date, there appear to be at least two clearly distinguishable definitions of the term

racial profiling

: a narrow definition and a broaddefinition... Under the narrow definition, racial profiling occurs when a policeofficer stops, questions, arrests, and/or searches someone solely on the basisof the person

s race or ethnicity... Under the broader definition, racial profiling occurs whenever police routinely use race as a factor that, along with an ac

cumulation of other factors, causes an officer to react with suspicion and takeaction."-Jim Clear.• "Use by law enforcement personnel of an individual’s race or ethnicity as a factor



in articulating reasonable suspicion to stop, question or arrest an individual,unless race or ethnicity is part of an identifying description of a specific suspect for a specific crime." -Office of the Arizona Attorney General.In the United StatesLegalityAt a Federal level, racial profiling is challenged by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to be safe from unreasonable sear

ch and seizure without probable cause and the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all citizens be treated equally under the law.In his February 27, 2001, address to a Joint Session of Congress, President George W. Bush declared, Racial Profiling is "wrong, and we will end it in America.In so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nation

s brave police officers.They protect us every day -- often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses ofa few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve."On February 28, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft said "This administration... has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history. The President said it’s wrong and we’ll end it in America,and I subscribe to that. Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behaviour

is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement."In June 2003, the Department of Justice issued its Guidance Regarding the Use ofRace by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies forbidding racial profiling by federallaw enforcement officials.In June 2001, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, awarded the North-eastern research team a grant to create this web-based Racial Profiling Data Collection Resource Center. It now maintains a website designed to be a central clearinghousefor police agencies, legislators, community leaders, social scientists, legal researchers, and journalists to access information about current data collectionefforts, legislation and model policies, police-community initiatives, and methodological tools that can be used to collect and analyze racial profiling data. T

he website contains information on the background of data collection, jurisdictions currently collecting data, community groups, legislation that is pending andenacted in states across the country, and has information on planning and implementing data collection procedures, training officers in to implement these systems, and analyzing and reporting the data and results.Several U.S. states now have reporting requirements. Texas, for example requiresall agencies to provide annual reports to its Law Enforcement Commission. The requirement began on September 1, 2001, when the State of Texas passed a law to require all law enforcement agencies in the State to begin collecting certain data in connection to traffic or pedestrian stops beginning on January 1, 2002. Based on that data, the law mandated law enforcement agencies to submit a report tothe law enforcement agencies

governing body beginning March 1, 2003 and each year thereafter no later than March 1. The law is found in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure beginning with Article 2.131. Additionally, on January 1, 2011, all law enforcement agencies began submitting annual reports to the Texas State Law Enforcement Officers Standards and Education Commission. The submitted reports can be accessed on the Commission

s website for public review.SupportMany in the law enforcement community argue that although unfortunate, the use of ethnic and racial profiling is both effective and necessary. The argument is made that due to socio-economic and demographic factors as unfortunate and undesirable as it might be, crime is simply higher in some communities that have a large minority population and that to ignore that fact due to a sense of moral integrity would be both morally and professionally wrong. As an example, an airportinterdiction task force at Los Angeles International Airport compiled a report o

f those arrested based solely on officer observations, and when that report wascompared to one of those arrested based on alerts driven by the airline passenger alert computer system the percentages were almost identical. Examples such as



these support the conclusion that although factors such as race may be taken into account, it does not necessarily indicate that a prejudicial bias is present.If the success of law enforcement is defined as identifying and taking action against violators, then racial profiling would allow officers to be more effective.CriticismCritics of racial profiling argue that the individual rights of a suspect are vi

olated if race is used as a factor in that suspicion. Notably, civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have stated thatracial profiling is a form of discrimination, stating, "Discrimination based onrace, ethnicity, religion, nationality or on any other particular identity undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled."Critics argue that individuals should not be more or less likely to encounter law enforcement officers or other government agents based on racial or ethnic traits.Responding to such criticisms are local community groups who seek to collect data, analyze trends and how they might correspond to public perceptions of profiling, and solicit ideas aimed at diminishing cultural and racial biases.In practice

• Despite promises to the contrary before the September 11 attacks in 2001, racialprofiling surged during the presidency of George W. Bush, coinciding with the initiation of the War on Terror. Claims of profiling have been particularly focused on Naturalization, Customs, and Border Patrol agents accused of making Muslims

entry or re-entry into the United States more difficult and pressure-laden than that of their peers. According to a 2011 report from Brown University, this sort of profiling has been encouraged in public discourse by political TV personalities like Bill O

Reilly.• The airline ticketing agent who checked in Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 attacks, and a companion, would afterwards say that looking at the pairhis first reaction was to think, "If this doesn

t look like two Arab terrorists,I

ve never seen two Arab terrorists." But he immediately felt guilty, and had no legal grounds to search on the basis of their suspicious appearance had he wis

hed to.• In December 2001, an American citizen of Middle Eastern descent named Assem Bayaa cleared all the security checks at Los Angeles airport and attempted to boarda flight to New York. Upon boarding, he was told that he made the passengers uncomfortable by being on board the plane and was asked to leave. Once off the plane, he wasn

t searched or questioned any further and the only consolation he wasgiven was a boarding pass for the next flight. He filed a lawsuit on the basis of discrimination against United Airlines. United Airlines filed a counter motionwhich was dismissed by a district judge on October 11, 2002. In June 2005, theACLU announced a settlement between Bayaa and United Airlines who still disputedBayaa

s allegations, but noted that the settlement "was in the best interest ofall".Empirical evidenceFor motor vehicle searches academic research showed that the probability of a successful search is very similar across races. This suggests that police officersare not motivated by racial preferences but by the desire to maximize the probability of a successful search. Similar evidence has been found for pedestrian stops, with identical ratios of stops to arrests for different races.In other countriesCanadaAccusations of racial profiling of visible minorities who accuse police of targeting them due to their ethnic background is a growing concern in Canada. In 2005, the Kingston Police Service released the first study ever in Canada which pertains to racial profiling. The study focused on in the city of Kingston, a smallcity where most of the inhabitants are white. The study showed that black skinne

d people were 3.7 times more likely to be pulled over by police than white skinned people, while Asian people were less likely to be pulled over than whites orblacks. Several police organizations condemned this study and suggested more stu



dies like this would make them hesitant to pull over visible minorities.Although aboriginal persons make up 3.6% of Canada

s population, they account for 20% of Canada

s prison population. This may show how racial profiling increases effectiveness of police, or be a result of racial profiling, as they are watched more intensely than others.In February 2010, an investigation of the Toronto Star daily newspaper found that black people across Toronto were three times more likely to be stopped and doc

umented by police than white people. To a lesser extent, the same seemed true for people described by police as having "brown" skin. This was the result of an analysis of 1.7 million contact cards filled out by Toronto police officers in the period 2003 – 2008.

TERRORISM: CAUSE, EFFECT AND SOLUTIONIntroductionFollowing the tragedy of 9/11, history’s most deadly terrorist attacks, the U.S. declared War on Terror. As a result, terrorism has become a source of pervasive fear and loathing across America. On September 12th the nation awakened to a reality already known throughout much of the world and the first question Americansasked was, “Why do they hate us?” But few waited to hear the answers. Perhaps some t

hought it was a rhetorical question, while others waited for the government andmedia to provide answers.The first rule of war is to know your enemy. Terrorists are not a simple enemy to know. They have a myriad of complex motivations as individuals and as groups.In fact, few people can even agree on a definition of terrorism. Many people agree that terrorism is a despicable crime, but others argue that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.This series of Issue Briefings attempts to present some alternative viewpoints,not to justify or condone terrorism (mandatory disclaimer), but to shed some light on what motivates people to kill and die for a political purpose and to suggest some different perspectives and ways to approach the problem of political violence.In 2001, the U.S. State Department had officially designated 22 foreign terroris

t organizations. By 2003 the list had grown to 36 organizations with dozens moregroups listed as unofficial terrorist organizations. Either terrorism is a tremendous growth industry, or the definition of terrorism has become increasingly liberal in its designations.Terrorism is not a mysterious phenomena; it’s simply a form of political violence.It’s a tactic, not a movement. Terrorism represents the final escalation in the process of political violence. Arguably, terrorism or less deadly forms of political violence would not exist if other non-violent methods of reform and conflictresolution were available to the dissidents.View on Terrorism by the US State DepartmentVirtually every book on terrorism begins with a discussion of the problem in agreeing on a definition and no single definition has universal acceptance. For thepurposes of this report, however, we have chosen the definition of terrorism used by the U.S. State Department, contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f (d). That statute contains the following definitions:“The term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.The term ‘international terrorism’ means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country. The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.”Non-combatant is interpreted to include civilians and military personnel who atthe time of the incident are unarmed and/or not on duty (a point of dispute). Attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site (such as bombings against US base

s in the Persian Gulf, Europe, or elsewhere) are also considered terrorism. TheU.S. also recognizes that, “terrorist acts are part of a larger phenomenon of politically inspired violence, and at times the line between the two can become diff



icult to draw.”This definition, like most others, raises more questions than it answers. Is airline hijacking, or kidnapping violence? Is a government building a non-combatant? If innocent civilians are casualties of violence directed against a legitimatetarget (collateral damage) is the act terrorism, or a tragic mistake? If violence against non-combatants is perpetrated by a state, is that not terrorism? If not, what is? And, why does it matter?

Applying the “terrorist” label to an organization immediately demonizes that group,invalidates their objectives and disqualifies its followers from any voice in the political process. Ironically, such consequences reinforce the situation thatmotivated the group to resort to violence in the first place. Many states assertthat they will make no deals with, or concessions to terrorists. It is standardpractice to also deny dissidents access to the public media and airwaves to explain or advance their causes. Governments that refuse to talk to, or negotiate with terrorists foreclose opportunities for early resolution. Meanwhile some countries have been considerably more willing to negotiate, often paying ransoms, arranging prisoner releases, or agreeing to other demands.Terrorism TodaySome of the reactions to terrorism play into the hands of the perpetrators and h

elp further their goals and objectives. For example: A fundamental goal of any opposition movement is publicity, denying access to media, or censoring news canforce extremists to blast their way into the news. Before reacting to politicalviolence, it’s important to identify the dissident’s goals and objectives. The following list identifies a number of possible objectives, not all of which may applyto any specific group.Publicity has traditionally been a major dissident objective, as Brian Jenkins of the Rand Corp. has commented that, “terrorist don’t want a lot of people dead; they want a lot of people watching.” Jenkins has also described terrorism as a form of political theater. This may be true of national liberation movements, but today’s Islamist extremists now want a lot of people dead.Terrorism has been described, correctly, as a tactic of the weak. It’s adopted bygroups of dissenters who lack the resources to attack the state and its forces.

Clearly a rebel force that had the capacity to attack and defeat the government’sforces would do so to achieve their goals as quickly as possible. Such opportunities rarely, if ever, exist in strong states. The alternative is to wage a war of attrition, gradually wearing down the state’s and public’s resolve. Terrorists seek to instill a climate of fear that erodes the public psyche, and to impose escalating economic costs, draining the state’s financial resources and the collectivewill.Many of these objectives could be pursued without resorting to terrorism againstinnocent civilians. However, States recognize that their forces and facilitiesare the primary targets of political violence and they adopt security and forceprotection measures that deny insurgents the ability to strike at these prioritytargets. By hardening priority targets, states encourage insurgents to attack softer targets in the civil sector. When the insurgents comply, the inevitable consequence is civilian casualties, whether intentional, or accidental. Insurgentshave now become terrorists for perpetrating violence against non-combatant targets. In fact, the “targets” may not have been non-combatants, but such distinctionsare rarely considered.Once dissidents have crossed the threshold to terrorism the rules change the costs and risks escalate and the challenge to maintain and build public support increases. For dissidents terrorism is the tactic of last resort, when all else hasfailed.One can argue that for weak regimes, lacking broad public support and legitimacystate terrorism is also a tactic of the weak, but the tactic of first resort.

The international community has often demonstrated a willingness to tolerate pol

itical violence against civilians perpetrated by states – state terrorism. Repressive states have been responsible for far greater terrorism than any so-called terrorist organization, yet they are allowed to continue their participation in th



e world’s political and economic community. Only in the most enduring and grievouscases does the international community sanction, or exclude a repressive state.In addition, countries and arms merchants sell arms, provide military trainingand economic support to repressive, even terrorist regimes, seemingly obliviousto the fact that state repression breeds international terrorism and that terrorists will target those who lend support to their adversaries. It’s little wonder that terrorism has emerged as a major threat to world security and peace.

One aspect of political violence and terrorism that’s rarely discussed in depth isthe economic impacts, both negative and positive. The direct costs incurred todefend against and counter terrorism is enormous, worse still are the incalculable social and human costs. But terrorism has its upside too, creating an economic boom for defence-related industries and private contractors. Repairing and rebuilding cities like Beirut, or London’s financial district and Lower Manhattan area windfall for those who profit from the efforts. Constructing forts and security installations, or erecting Berlin-style peace walls and security fences through Belfast, or around Israel’s Occupied Territories, shift limited state funds from more socially useful services, but create business opportunity and profits. The unspoken issue is that these expenditures create a new constituency that benefits from continued violence. The beneficiaries can become influential, if confli

cted, advocates of hard line policies that suit their business objectives.

Motivations for Political ViolenceKarl von Clausewitz described “war as politics by other means.” One might describe terrorism in the same way, or as “war by other means.” There are two types of terrorism: rational and irrational. Rational terrorism has a political goal and a purpose. Irrational terror might be described as mindless violence that serves some dark psychological imbalance and is as difficult to understand as the motives ofserial killers. As such this is the realm of psychologists and psychiatrists, not political scientists, politicians, statesmen, and security specialists. This briefing deals only with “rational terrorism.”Rational terrorism is an outgrowth of public dissatisfaction and political dissent and a form of revolt against the established order, or regime. Few, if any, d

issident movements willingly adopt terror as a conscious tactic, namely becausesuch tactics provoke public revulsion and condemnation. Dissident movements willusually begin as reform movements that fail to achieve their demands and proceed through stages of escalating fear, frustration, anger and hardening attitudes:• Identifying inequities• Frustrated Attempts at Reform• Organized Dissent• Civil Disobedience• Reactionary Counter Attack• Political Violence• TerrorismViolent political conflict can be categorized in terms of the motivation and aspirations of the combatants.1. Political – In some cases the dissidents have what may best described as political motivations. It’s said that war is diplomacy by other means; violent politicalconflict could be described as politics by other means. The motivation may be to affect a political reform, or overthrow a regime perceived as illegitimate orlacking public trust and support. Terrorism may be used as to demonstrate the weakness and vulnerability of the regime, to reveal its inability to provide security, to provoke government repression to help recruit followers, and ultimatelyto force leaders from power. This motivation has been most common in Latin America, and would be typical where there is an oppressed majority population that isdenied political influence.2. Cultural – This motivation is most common in situations where an ethnic or religious group fears extermination, or loss of their common identity, language or c

ulture. It may also be combined with political motives, where the rulers discriminate against the ethnic group in terms of jobs, economic opportunity or accessto the political process. In the case of oppressed minorities, opposed by a stro



ng, entrenched regime, terrorism may be seen as the only available option. Thisis especially true where demands for political reform are ignored, where there are few, if any, external allies, and where the regime resorts to collective punishment for what are seen as reasonable and justified demands.3. Psychological – A surprising number of pro-government analysts favour this explanation, which asserts that some terrorists are unbalanced, violent individualssuffering some form of psychosis. Others may be egomaniacs driven to achieve rec

ognition through violence, and who attract a following of other dysfunctional individuals. This characterization may be accurate in cases where terrorist appearto have no logical goal, or motivation, or a purpose that makes little sense tonormal people. This can include cases where the goal is the psychological benefit achieved by vengeance (Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing). Psychologically motivated terrorism is simply a criminal act, like serial killing, anddoesn’t qualify for analysis as political violence.Cultural motivations can be further classified into three broad, but non-exclusive categories.Separatism – (let’s separate) In situation where the ruling group is seen to be unfair and unjust in its government administration, dissident groups fight to form aseparate state. Example would include the aspirations of Tamils in Sri Lanka, o

r Basques in Spain to establish a separate state for their people.Cohesion – (aka Irredentism – let’s get back together) The objective is to re-unite anethno-political group that has been divided and separated by an arbitrary stateborder. An example is the conflict in Northern Ireland where Irish Republicans(typically Catholics) aspire to unify the 6 northern counties with the Republicof Ireland.Nationalism – (let’s organize ourselves) The aspiration of a national group (peoplerelated by ethnicity, religion, language or culture) to create a formal state for their nation. An example is the aspiration to establish Kurdistan as a homeland for the Kurdish people. This entails elements of both separatism and irredentism of Kurds living in Turkey, Iraq and Iran.In today’s world there are any number of intractable conflicts, some active, others dormant but unresolved. Some of the most enduring are the divisions in Ireland

, Korea and Cyprus, each one dividing people by artificial borders. Many are described in Flashpoints Country Briefings. Most of these can be classified as traditional forms of political violence, including terrorism.Many analysts and scholars draw distinctions between traditional terrorism and the new international terrorism, represented by al-Qaeda and the militant Islamist movement. But is this really new, or just a different manifestation of political unrest, with a violent twist and more deadly potential?Up until 2001, the number of terrorist incidents had been declining, but the attacks were becoming more deadly, culminating with 9/11. Since invading Afghanistan and Iraq that trend has clearly been reversed. Day in and day out, the news reports attacks against occupying coalition forces (as insurgency) and escalatingattacks against civilian targets to deter collaborators.

Conclusion________________________________________ Conventional WisdomMuch of the conventional wisdom is highly politicized and may be better characterized as propaganda, myth and misperception.One current theme is that terrorism is not the result of poverty and economic deprivation. "Research shows that terrorists are never poor and uneducated. “While some on the left urge policymakers to address the root causes of terrorism, Laqueur says that such an approach won

t yield the desired results, since the commonly identified wellsprings of terrorism -- poverty and political oppression -- fai

l to account for the terrorism that most threatens the United States. Accordingto Laqueur:1. Almost no terrorism occurs in the world

s poorest 49 countries, and of course



the Sept. 11 terrorists all came from middle- and upper-middle-class families.2. Similarly, the 20th century

s most repressive regimes (Stalin

s Soviet Unionand Hitler

s Germany) were free of terrorism, while in South America in the 1970s terrorism first broke out not in the harshest dictatorships, but in Uruguay, the most democratic state.3. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, then, terrorism flourishes in countriesthat are "democratic in character, or alternatively, in a wholly inefficient dic

tatorship," Lacquer writes.”Lacqueur

s tortured logic implies that harsh repressive measures, such as thoseused by Russia and Germany will eliminate terrorism. Between them Stalin and Hitler are responsible for killing as many as 30 million people. The obvious counter argument is that with state terror at such a level, there’s little opportunity for dissent and citizen

s terrorism. It begs two questions; would people resisting such regimes have been labeled as terrorists or freedom fighters? And, is extreme state repression the kind of solution appropriate for modern Western democracies?If terrorists are not poor, the unspoken idea is that their grievances are unfounded and they don’t deserve consideration. Hence their mindless violence justifiesthe harshest responses.

Although it seems obvious that the “might is right” approach is ethically wrong, impractical and counterproductive, many security analysts and policy makers advocate this approach. Arguably, the strongest advocates are hard line Israelis, likeNetanyahu and Sharon. Their strategy is simply to crush terrorists in any way possible.Since 9/11, this strategy has found new advocates in the U.S. Richard Pearl, a member of the Bush administration’s Defense Policy Board co-authored a new book suggesting the “kill ‘em all, and let God sort it out” strategy. When asked about the useof a carrot and a stick, Pearl responded that, “the carrot is that we won’t use thestick.”Other analysts take a different view. According to Alan Krueger, “No other factorbesides a lack of civil liberties -- including the literacy rate, infant mortality rate, terrain, ethnic divisions and religious fractionalization -- could pred

ict whether people from that country were more or less likely to take part in international terrorism.Thus economically well off countries that lack civil liberties have spawned relatively many terrorists. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil liberties are unlikely to spawn terrorists.”Another common theme is that terrorist organizations are Marxist in ideology. This view is more a remnant of the cold war perspective than a reality. Virtuallyevery dissident group seeks to define an ideological foundation for their cause.Since most repressed and disadvantaged people seek to share in their countrieswealth, the inevitable call is for redistribution of that wealth through land reform, private ownership or expropriation of foreign-owned business. To their adversaries this sounds like, and can be condemned as communism.History shows that few revolutionary movements result in communist governments (China and Cuba being exceptions) Today, with communism discredited, it’s even lessrealistic to fear the onset of Marxist, or communist states.Different PerspectivesIt’s doubtful that terrorism is any sane person’s first choice. Most disgruntled people would start with a petition stating their grievances and setting forth theirdemands for reform. If denied, they might organize to demonstrate, or protest and might engage in civil disobedience – all design to attract public attention andbroaden their support. If denied again, they might attempt legal action, if such avenues are open to them. And what if the denial involves being attacked and beaten by authorities, or being arrested and imprisoned? The reactions of the state government can directly influence the course of future events.Oftentimes, counter-demonstrators who fear that the government will give in to d

issident’s demands confront demonstrators. These clashes can lead to violence anddestroy hope for resolution of the problems. A classic example comes from Northern Ireland.



Northern IrelandIn 1969, disadvantaged Irish Catholics demanding reforms in housing, employment,civil rights staged a protest march. Counter demonstrators attacked them, whilethe police first stood by, and then joined in the attack. Later, the governmentappeared willing to address the Catholic grievances, so Protestants mobs attacked Catholic homes with firebombs, forcing terrorized residents to flee as entirestreets were burned, while police failed to protect the Catholic communities an

d/or joined in the attacks. Thus emerged the Irish Republican Army with the aimto protect catholic communities under attack.The Catholic communities were unarmed and unprotected by the police, yet Protestant attacks continued and escalated, including a series of bombings, until Catholics were killed. The purpose of these “loyalist” attacks was to convince the government to ignore catholic demands. Unable to quell the inter-community violence the government brought in British troops. This was a temporary improvement until the soldiers also took sides against Catholics.The IRA was weak, essentially unarmed and out-gunned by the police and British army, while the citizens remained under threat from loyalist bombs, firebombs andpersonal attacks. But Ireland is an agricultural country with plenty of fertilizer and diesel fuel and the IRA soon developed skills at bomb making and soon su

rpassed the skills of their loyalist adversaries. Although the IRA’s initial targets were the security forces, it wasn’t long before plans went awry and civilians were killed – once that happened the terrorist label was applied, never to be removed. And once a person is condemned and vilified as a terrorist, the response becomes “I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb,” and violence escalates.Israel & PalestineThe conflict between Israel and the Palestinians had a very different beginning(See: Israel-Palestine Country Briefing). The U.N. voted to create the state ofIsrael on the land where the Palestinians lived, under British authority, but without self-government. The Jews attacked immediately to claim their land. As theBritish exited, neighbouring Arab states also claimed the land. The fledgling UN never did intervene to establish two governments as decreed in the UN resolution. Palestinians lost out, but never accepted defeat. Once Egypt and Jordan reno

unced their claims to Palestine, the Palestinians opted to fight for their own future. By this time Israel was a substantial military power with American warplanes, attack helicopters, tanks and their dreaded bulldozers, used to demolish Palestinian homes and orchards.The out-gunned PLO had two choices, ignore the injustice and surrender their aspirations, or continue the struggle by whatever means possible. They chose the latter and defined a new form of high-profile international terrorism: high-jacking airliners, kidnappings, bombings and hostage taking. Their goal was to shock the world, attract attention to their cause and encourage international intervention.Perhaps, as a result of their high-visibility terrorism, states, namely U.S. presidents, accepted the need to negotiate a solution to the Middle East conflict.From the Palestinian perspective, however, the result has been to isolate Palestine, subverting their Arab allies and providing little action to address the most enduring grievances.An essential part of Israel’s grand nation-building plan is to encourage immigration of Jews from other countries to Israel. As millions of Jews move to Israel, the state must provide jobs and housing settlements. With over 300,000 settlers now living in the Occupied Territories, claimed by Palestine, it’s difficult to accept that Israel will ever withdraw. But Palestinian extremists have a plan.The current rash of terrorist suicide bombings are intended to exacerbate the climate of fear and increase security costs for a nation that is financially vulnerable. The terrorist’s goals are to discourage Jewish immigration, motivates others to leave Israel, and thereby force the government to ultimately agree to Palestinian demands. The violence may be unconscionable, but it is not mindless. Sure

ly, there are also extreme factions that somehow envision the destruction of Israel, but the radical fringe exists in every conflict and it is counter-productive to act as if the extremists speak for all the people, or to allow them to scut



tle solutions.Fundamentalist IslamIt’s essential to note that Islam is a worldwide religion, not just an Arab religion. The foundations of Islam lie in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, but Muslims number inthe hundreds of millions around the globe. Recent public opinion polls indicatethat only 15 percent of Indonesians, 7 percent of Saudis and 15 percent of Turks have a favourable image of America. The fact that the governments of these sta

tes have friendly relations with Washington suggests the different perspectivesof those who benefit and those who suffer from US policy. It is those who continue to languish without prosperity and hope that are the targets of the Islamistdissidents.Like secular revolutionaries, Islamic Fundamentalists (Islamists) seek to establish an ideological foundation for their struggles. To do so, they distort the teachings of Islam to define a common enemy. That enemy is portrayed as the Western culture of democracy (scorned as un-Islamic by ideologues of Islamic terrorism), capitalism (decried as Imperialist exploitation), and individualism (opposedby Islamists who believe in a new Caliphate to lead the community of Muslims worldwide.Again, there are conflicting viewpoints. Michael Radu writes, “We are told, the Is

lamic states are poor and undemocratic, which justifies rebellion against theirtyrannical rulers. Why is that so, and what can be done about it by Muslims andothers? Perhaps most Muslim countries are undemocratic because they are Muslim.When given an electoral choice in 1992 in the first and last democratic elections in the Arab world, most Algerians preferred the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS)over the secular (and corrupt) ruling socialist party — although perfectly aware that FIS

s ideology meant not just "one man, one vote" but "one man, one vote, one time." Which raises a very uncomfortable question for both conservatives in the U.S., who routinely blast the lack of democracy in the Arab world, and the human rights fundamentalists such as Amnesty International on the left, who supportabsolute democracy and at the same time condemn the Islamist disregard of all freedoms, as in Iran.This line of thought suggests that Islam is inherently defective and leads to th

e clash of civilizations viewpoint that is then twisted to argue for holy war against Islam. In his report “Islam and Democracy” published by the U.S. Institute ofPeace, David Smock writes that, “The explanation of why so many Muslim countries are not democratic has more to do with historical, political, cultural and economic factors than with religious ones.”There is much to support this view. Democracy is a Western concept, barely 200 years old. It has been slow to take root not only in the Muslim world, but also in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Each of these regions is home to ancient civilizations, cultures and traditions. Like Islam that embraces shura, or “consultative decision-making,” other religions and cultures have accepted methods of governance. Is democracy the answer?Democracy is inherently unfair; it provides for majority rule. If the majority is unfair and unjust, the minority will eventually rebel, as they so often do. Throughout the colonial era, democratic Western powers often granted power to ruleto minorities, as a means to divide and conquer large masses of people. Given the inconsistencies associated with Western democratic principles and the way they’ve been applied, it’s not surprising that democracy is not always seen as the solution to life’s political problems.As Western powers continue attempts to establish democracies in Muslim countries, or in states like Haiti, Cuba, North Korea or Rwanda and Angola, one predictable consequence will be a continuation of political violence and terrorism.



Bibliography________________________________________

1. Books• Richard Ashby Wilson, Human Rights in the War on Terror, Cambridge University Press, 2008• Arvinder Sambei, Anton Du Plessis, Martin Polaine, Counter Terrorism Law & Practise: An International Handbook, Oxford University Press, 2009• Michael I. Gnatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terrorism, Oxford University Press, 2007• The 9/11 Commission Report• Human Rights-II : Cases and Materials2. Online sources• www.wikipedia.org• www.legalservicesindia.com

• www.legalsutra.org

terrorism an analysis

Documents