|
Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc. Terrorism is a crime in many countries and is defined by statute (see below for particular definitions). Common principles amongst legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions, several do not recognize the possibility of the legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country, and would thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence''See''. Russia for example includes in their terrorist list only those organizations which represent the greatest threat to their own security.• Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment. It has also been argued that the political use of violent force and weapons that deliberately target or involve civilians, and do not focus mainly on military or government targets, is a common militant, terrorist, or guerilla tactic, and a main defining feature of these kinds of criminals. Most governments and "legitimate" military leaders do not openly attempt to use civilians as shields or aim at them during times of political conflict. Whereas the definition of a terrorist can specify that a militant or a militant group has the criminal intent, planning, and actions to violently use civilian targets and civilian shields for political and economic ends. As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest".
Reasons for controversy The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. Some such definitions are so broad, like the Terrorism Act 2000, as to include disruption of a computer system where no violence is intended or results. The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. For terrorist groups and their government sponsored supporters, it is crucial that they not be labeled a terrorist group; so as not to be labeled "terrorists" and by association as "terrorist nations". Groups that have described themselves as terrorists are therefore unknown. It is equally important for a group's opponents that the label "terrorist" be applied. The appellation "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others. Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim. In addition, there is an increase in a common opinion that most terrorists are somehow connected to Muslims in general, or of some specific sect of Islam, or of some specific interpretation of the Koran. This opinion is reinforced by the many recent newsworthy acts of terrorism which have Muslim claimants of responsibility which are also paralleled by the silence of the vast majority of the Muslim population concerning those acts of terrorism. There may be fewer terrorists connected in some way to the other major religions, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, and so on, but terrorists from any group, or even as an individual, are no less dangerous in an era of nuclear weapons. The legitimate governments of nations, and their police and military forces, need to investigate any potential planning of major criminal activity. This is true no matter the religion, creed, belief, background, self-label or political connection of the criminals. Terrorism might be best defined as the greatest possible degrees of criminal actions, other than war between internationally recognized nations, where the largest amounts of population are affected, and the greatest degree of economic activity is disrupted. A clear and distinct definition does continue to be a logical problem that requires debate without Fear Mongering, racial profiling, or unjust law enforcement procedures. Legitimate policing organizations do need the powers and procedures to investigate certain groups and individuals based on reasonable suspicions and evidence. Large degrees of criminal acts do need to be prevented by some reasonable means within any national boundary. This does require some notion of "terrorist" organizations and activities. Lawyers, judges, police, politicians, law makers, NGO's, and the general public all need some basic definition of "terrorism" to proceed with fair prosecutions and court trials under the rule of law. Dictionaries Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. United Nations Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). * Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. According to Antonio Cassese that provision "sets out an acceptable definition of terrorism". European Union The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002) *. This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which, "given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; 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 States The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism*. In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as: "..activities that involve violent... Edward Peck. Former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania expressed the following opinion, “In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us -- this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group -- they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. . . . After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says -- one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” . . . Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.” * Laws and government agencies Individuals Other Criticisms of the term Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the word "terrorism": "There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the 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, 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 with the 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 difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22) Other arguments include that:
Footnotes | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |