Essay
As referred to in my subsequent post:
Ambiguity in the Definition of Terrorism
Ever since the events of September 11th, we have heard the term “terrorist” become more and more a part of the American vocabulary. We have terror alert levels, suspected terrorists, terrorist cells in the middle east, and even a full fledged “war on terror.” But what does the term terrorist actually mean? Can there ever be a clear, unambiguous definition of the term? Or is it just a label put on certain groups to make them seem more extreme and violent to the American people? While the modern understanding of terrorism isn’t extremely off base, there are enough ambiguities in the definition that the term has become little more than a label for the government to use at its discretion.
Though there has not been any solid definition of terrorism as of yet, that is not to say that people haven’t tried. However, defining terrorism is a difficult task because of the ambiguity that is present in the term. If you asked someone on the street to name the major identifying characteristics of a terrorist attack, it is quite likely they would talk about the killing of innocent civilians. However, if this was used as the defining factor in a definition then the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden would be considered terrorist attacks, while the recent attacks on military targets such as the pentagon and barracks in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon would not (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 7).
Another factor that many people would talk about is the idea that terrorists are not officially part of a nation state. This overlooks the fact that throughout history states have taken terrorist actions on their people. Indeed, the term “terrorism” originally came from the reign of terror in France, where the government used tactics of fear and intimidation to suspend the democratic achievement from the revolution. Terror has also been a central element of most totalitarian regimes, such as the Nazis, the Peronists, and the Stalinist regimes. (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 10)
A third aspect that many people think about is that of the motivation behind the attacks. Most people believe that terrorist activities are an attempt to capture the attention of citizens of a state and the media. As one scholar put it quite aptly, terrorism is “propaganda by the dead.” (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 9) However, even this seemingly central element of terrorism doesn’t hold true in all cases. Several groups that are considered terrorists by many, such as the mafia, terrorize only very specific groups of people. They attack the police and their competitors, but they try to stay out of the public eye.
With all of these considerations it is quite a difficult task to write a definition of terrorism that is acceptable to everyone. Paul Pillar, the former deputy in chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, argues that there are four main points present in every definition of terrorism. He argues that terrorist attacks are premeditated, political, aimed at civilians, and carried out by subnational groups. While his points are all valid, they have yet to give a good, black and white definition of terrorism. In fact, the best definition that I have found for terrorism is the simplest: “Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime” - A.P. Schmid (Schmid, 2004)
History of Terrorism
Even though most people cannot come up with a black and white definition of terrorism, there are clearly some attacks that can be viewed as terrorist attacks, the most famous as of now being the 9/11 attacks on New York. Terrorism has been used as a tool of radical groups throughout history to get their message out.
The earliest recorded suicide terrorist attack is actually found in the bible, with the story of Samson. Samson was a warrior who was betrayed by his lover and then imprisoned by his enemies, the Philistines. The Philistines were celebrating their victory, so they called for Samson to gloat at him over their victory and made sport of him. Samson asked to be taken to the pillars that supported the hall, and when he reached them "He cried out, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' And then he leaned forward with all his strength, and the temple fell on the chiefs and on all the people who were in it. He killed more people at his death than he had killed in his life." (Judges 16:23-31)
In first century Palestine there were roving groups of criminals known as the Thugs. These groups originally committed murder to honor the Hindu goddess of destruction, Kali. However, later the religious significance was lost and the killings were simply robbery. The cult continued to grow over time, and by the 19th century the thugs were strangling 40,000 people a year. While these people are considered terrorists by many, they lacked a political agenda and welcomed their capture and execution as a quick route to paradise (Wilson, 2004).
The history of the Muslims also shows the involvement of terrorist groups. Assassinations were common from the moment that the prophet Muhammad died. Three of his early successors were assassinated. In fact, the term assassin comes from a group founded by Hasan Ibn al-Sabbah. From the 11th-13th centuries these people terrorized the Muslim world (Wilson, 2004).
These Assassins were the worlds first terrorists, in a modern sense. They sought not only to change the rulers of a country through assassination, but also to change the entire social system present from a Suuni to a Shiite regime. The assassins had no fear of giving their lives in completing a killing. Some have suggested that “surviving such a mission was often viewed as shameful. (Wilson, 2004)”
If you look at these early terrorist attacks, and even more modern groups, you will see that they have one thing in common: Religion. While there are terrorist activities that are not religiously motivated (Tamil Tigers, etc), religion drives many groups to terrorism (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 8). While we have witnessed much Muslim fanaticism recently, this fanaticism is present in all religions. Blaise Pascal remarked that “men never do evil so openly and contentedly as when they do it from religious conviction.” (Wilson, 2004)
Even though there are terrorists from all religions, recently there has been a large wave of suicide bombers due to radical interpretations of Muslim religion. Normally suicide is seen as a sin, in a sense. The Koran says that followers should not "kill or destroy yourselves" (Surah 4:29). The leader of Uzbekistan’s Muslim Board, mufti Abdurashid Bahromov, said in an address at the end of Ramadan that "The Koran says help and support each other in the implementation of good deeds. Allah warns against helping each other to carry out such evil deeds which create enmity and hatred among people. Such things as shedding innocent people's blood, committing suicide, and blowing oneself up absolutely do not exist in our sacred religion of Islam. Islam is against such unacceptable things. (Bahromov, 2004)"
However, some have taken a much more radical interpretation of the Koran to show that Allah not only thinks that suicide attacks are OK, but that they are a quick and easy way into paradise. These groups reason that while suicide is not ok, if you die while killing the enemy in a jihad (holy war) it is seen as an act of martyrdom, which is such a sacrifice to Allah that all of your previous sins will be renounced and you will go straight to paradise (Brundrett, 2003).
Modern Terrorism
In the past terrorists basically had to take down single people. The most common instruments of the time were the dagger and the vial of poison, and one terrorist was usually able to kill one, or maybe two people before they were subdued. With the advent of the machine gun, the hand grenade, and plastic explosives terrorism has become far more deadly. Now a suicide bomber can routinely kill 10 or 20 people and injure many others (Moore, 2002). This has led to an overall shift in tactics. While terrorists still have the same goals that they have always had (to get their message seen) the targets have shifted from more prominent figures in society to regular civilians. Killing one civilian might not cause someone to raise an eyebrow, but images of people being blown up in shopping malls and getting gassed in subways sends a much more direct message to a society. (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 14)
In the past few generations there have been many attacks that are clearly terrorist attacks, such as the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in Tokyo and, of course, the 9/11 attacks. These attacks have been pretty much universally condemned by those in the western world. However, one of the difficulties of getting a definition ratified is the number of attacks that fall in some definitions of terrorism but have the backing of some large states, such as the US. Groups such as the Mujahaideen in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation and the Nicaraguan Contras have not only escaped condemnation, but have actually been supported by the US.
The Aum Shinrikyo gas attacks occurred on March 20th, 1995. Five members of the cult released poisonous Sarin gas into the subways during rush hour. Twelve were killed and thousands of others were injured. (Rwamo, 2004) This attack is undeniably a terrorist attack. The gas was released to kill innocent civilians, and the attack was planned to get plenty of media exposure. The only reason that these people died was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The same is true of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which in many ways are the epitome of what terrorist attacks are.
While these cases are quite clear-cut, there are many more cases that fall more in the grey area. The most widely known of these is the Israel - Palestine conflict. While this topic is broad enough for an essay of its own, the basic premise in the conflict is that the Israelis and the Palestinians both feel entitled to the same lands, and they have both engaged in terrorist activities. In this case you can look at it in two ways: that the Israelis are being killed by the Palestinian terrorists, or that the Palestinians are brave freedom fighters willing to give their lives to regain their land. Both of these are describing the same events, but one paints the Palestinians as the evil aggressors while the other shows them as being brave patriots fighting for their country (Moore, 2002).
Another grey area is that of the conflict in Northern Ireland. In 1916 the Irish nationalist Michael Collins led an uprising against Britain, which ruled Ireland as a colony. Following this Britain decided to split Ireland into the Republic of Ireland, the Catholic southern part of the island, and the Ulster counties in the north, which were mainly protestant. The Catholics in Northern Ireland feel that the Protestant majority is unfairly discriminating them against, and they wish to join Northern Ireland with the Republic. Fighting over this has been going on since the 60’s, and nearly 3,500 people have died so far (Ireland, 2004)
The fighting in this conflict has been between two groups: The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the loyalist parliamentary groups such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defense Association. Both the IRA and the UVF and UDA have engaged in what could be defined as terrorist activity, with attacks on civilians being common. The difficulty comes when some try to draw the line between being a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Depending on your own point of view you can see one group as a bunch of vicious terrorists while the others are valiant freedom fighters. Nation states engage in this kind of labeling as much as ordinary citizens do. Since there is no clear definition of what a terrorist is, and there is certainly no clear distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, states will continue to use the two terms as they see fit (Ireland, 2004).
A good example of terrorist activity that is viewed throughout the world as freedom fighting is that of Nelson Mandela and the fight against Apartheid in South Africa. In 1961 Mandela became the head of the armed wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation). He coordinated plans to sabotage military and governmental targets, and planned for a guerilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. (Mandela, 2004) By all the definitions we have looked at, Mandela was a terrorist. When he was interviewed in 2000 on Larry King, he was asked if he engaged in terrorist activities and he replied, “I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one. (King, 2000)”
These double standards have even led to the US supporting terrorist organizations. By now most people have heard of the US support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. At first under president Carter, and later with Reagan, the US “launched a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters (East, 1995).” Ironically, these same weapons that were given to the Afghans were turned on the US during its invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th.
Another example of the US supporting terrorist regimes is that of the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were the opponents of the Nicaraguan government after the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1979. They were considered terrorists by many Nicaraguans, and often attacked civilians. Even so, on November 23rd, 1981, Reagan signed a directive allowing the CIA to give the Contras 19 million in military aid. Even when the World Court found the US guilty of attacking Nicaragua through its support and training of the Contras they didn’t change their position, instead dismissing its jurisdiction and escalating the war. (Contras, 2004)
Consequences
There are many consequences to the lack of a specific legal definition of terrorism, but perhaps the best example is that of Guantanamo Bay.
Guantanamo Bay is a US military base based in Cuba. In January of 2002 it began to be used to house small numbers of prisoners from the war on terror. One of the factors that made Guantanamo such an ideal place for the holding of these prisoners was its strange legal status. (Guantanamo, 2004)
Officially, Guantanamo is Cuban territory on perpetual lease to the US. The US government argued that because of this detainees at Guantanamo were not entitled to the constitutional rights afforded those imprisoned in the US. For more than 2 years these prisoners were held without being allowed to talk to lawyers or see the charges against them. Fortunately this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the case Rasul v. Bush. The court ruled that because Guantanamo Bay was under the complete control of America its detainees were to be allowed access to American courts (Guantanamo, 2004).
The only reason that the American public was complacent with the idea of holding these people was that the government had labeled them terrorists. While that wouldn’t have been as bad if there was a specific legal definition for terrorism, the ambiguities in the term allows the government to label pretty much anyone a terrorist.
As you can see, terrorism comes in many different forms and for every rule about it there are many, many exceptions. Even so, that doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to form a definition. Without a clear definition of terrorism there will be no way to prevent these abuses from happening again in the future.
Ambiguity in the Definition of Terrorism
Ever since the events of September 11th, we have heard the term “terrorist” become more and more a part of the American vocabulary. We have terror alert levels, suspected terrorists, terrorist cells in the middle east, and even a full fledged “war on terror.” But what does the term terrorist actually mean? Can there ever be a clear, unambiguous definition of the term? Or is it just a label put on certain groups to make them seem more extreme and violent to the American people? While the modern understanding of terrorism isn’t extremely off base, there are enough ambiguities in the definition that the term has become little more than a label for the government to use at its discretion.
Though there has not been any solid definition of terrorism as of yet, that is not to say that people haven’t tried. However, defining terrorism is a difficult task because of the ambiguity that is present in the term. If you asked someone on the street to name the major identifying characteristics of a terrorist attack, it is quite likely they would talk about the killing of innocent civilians. However, if this was used as the defining factor in a definition then the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden would be considered terrorist attacks, while the recent attacks on military targets such as the pentagon and barracks in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon would not (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 7).
Another factor that many people would talk about is the idea that terrorists are not officially part of a nation state. This overlooks the fact that throughout history states have taken terrorist actions on their people. Indeed, the term “terrorism” originally came from the reign of terror in France, where the government used tactics of fear and intimidation to suspend the democratic achievement from the revolution. Terror has also been a central element of most totalitarian regimes, such as the Nazis, the Peronists, and the Stalinist regimes. (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 10)
A third aspect that many people think about is that of the motivation behind the attacks. Most people believe that terrorist activities are an attempt to capture the attention of citizens of a state and the media. As one scholar put it quite aptly, terrorism is “propaganda by the dead.” (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 9) However, even this seemingly central element of terrorism doesn’t hold true in all cases. Several groups that are considered terrorists by many, such as the mafia, terrorize only very specific groups of people. They attack the police and their competitors, but they try to stay out of the public eye.
With all of these considerations it is quite a difficult task to write a definition of terrorism that is acceptable to everyone. Paul Pillar, the former deputy in chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, argues that there are four main points present in every definition of terrorism. He argues that terrorist attacks are premeditated, political, aimed at civilians, and carried out by subnational groups. While his points are all valid, they have yet to give a good, black and white definition of terrorism. In fact, the best definition that I have found for terrorism is the simplest: “Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime” - A.P. Schmid (Schmid, 2004)
History of Terrorism
Even though most people cannot come up with a black and white definition of terrorism, there are clearly some attacks that can be viewed as terrorist attacks, the most famous as of now being the 9/11 attacks on New York. Terrorism has been used as a tool of radical groups throughout history to get their message out.
The earliest recorded suicide terrorist attack is actually found in the bible, with the story of Samson. Samson was a warrior who was betrayed by his lover and then imprisoned by his enemies, the Philistines. The Philistines were celebrating their victory, so they called for Samson to gloat at him over their victory and made sport of him. Samson asked to be taken to the pillars that supported the hall, and when he reached them "He cried out, 'Let me die with the Philistines!' And then he leaned forward with all his strength, and the temple fell on the chiefs and on all the people who were in it. He killed more people at his death than he had killed in his life." (Judges 16:23-31)
In first century Palestine there were roving groups of criminals known as the Thugs. These groups originally committed murder to honor the Hindu goddess of destruction, Kali. However, later the religious significance was lost and the killings were simply robbery. The cult continued to grow over time, and by the 19th century the thugs were strangling 40,000 people a year. While these people are considered terrorists by many, they lacked a political agenda and welcomed their capture and execution as a quick route to paradise (Wilson, 2004).
The history of the Muslims also shows the involvement of terrorist groups. Assassinations were common from the moment that the prophet Muhammad died. Three of his early successors were assassinated. In fact, the term assassin comes from a group founded by Hasan Ibn al-Sabbah. From the 11th-13th centuries these people terrorized the Muslim world (Wilson, 2004).
These Assassins were the worlds first terrorists, in a modern sense. They sought not only to change the rulers of a country through assassination, but also to change the entire social system present from a Suuni to a Shiite regime. The assassins had no fear of giving their lives in completing a killing. Some have suggested that “surviving such a mission was often viewed as shameful. (Wilson, 2004)”
If you look at these early terrorist attacks, and even more modern groups, you will see that they have one thing in common: Religion. While there are terrorist activities that are not religiously motivated (Tamil Tigers, etc), religion drives many groups to terrorism (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 8). While we have witnessed much Muslim fanaticism recently, this fanaticism is present in all religions. Blaise Pascal remarked that “men never do evil so openly and contentedly as when they do it from religious conviction.” (Wilson, 2004)
Even though there are terrorists from all religions, recently there has been a large wave of suicide bombers due to radical interpretations of Muslim religion. Normally suicide is seen as a sin, in a sense. The Koran says that followers should not "kill or destroy yourselves" (Surah 4:29). The leader of Uzbekistan’s Muslim Board, mufti Abdurashid Bahromov, said in an address at the end of Ramadan that "The Koran says help and support each other in the implementation of good deeds. Allah warns against helping each other to carry out such evil deeds which create enmity and hatred among people. Such things as shedding innocent people's blood, committing suicide, and blowing oneself up absolutely do not exist in our sacred religion of Islam. Islam is against such unacceptable things. (Bahromov, 2004)"
However, some have taken a much more radical interpretation of the Koran to show that Allah not only thinks that suicide attacks are OK, but that they are a quick and easy way into paradise. These groups reason that while suicide is not ok, if you die while killing the enemy in a jihad (holy war) it is seen as an act of martyrdom, which is such a sacrifice to Allah that all of your previous sins will be renounced and you will go straight to paradise (Brundrett, 2003).
Modern Terrorism
In the past terrorists basically had to take down single people. The most common instruments of the time were the dagger and the vial of poison, and one terrorist was usually able to kill one, or maybe two people before they were subdued. With the advent of the machine gun, the hand grenade, and plastic explosives terrorism has become far more deadly. Now a suicide bomber can routinely kill 10 or 20 people and injure many others (Moore, 2002). This has led to an overall shift in tactics. While terrorists still have the same goals that they have always had (to get their message seen) the targets have shifted from more prominent figures in society to regular civilians. Killing one civilian might not cause someone to raise an eyebrow, but images of people being blown up in shopping malls and getting gassed in subways sends a much more direct message to a society. (Dershowitz, 2002, p. 14)
In the past few generations there have been many attacks that are clearly terrorist attacks, such as the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in Tokyo and, of course, the 9/11 attacks. These attacks have been pretty much universally condemned by those in the western world. However, one of the difficulties of getting a definition ratified is the number of attacks that fall in some definitions of terrorism but have the backing of some large states, such as the US. Groups such as the Mujahaideen in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation and the Nicaraguan Contras have not only escaped condemnation, but have actually been supported by the US.
The Aum Shinrikyo gas attacks occurred on March 20th, 1995. Five members of the cult released poisonous Sarin gas into the subways during rush hour. Twelve were killed and thousands of others were injured. (Rwamo, 2004) This attack is undeniably a terrorist attack. The gas was released to kill innocent civilians, and the attack was planned to get plenty of media exposure. The only reason that these people died was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The same is true of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which in many ways are the epitome of what terrorist attacks are.
While these cases are quite clear-cut, there are many more cases that fall more in the grey area. The most widely known of these is the Israel - Palestine conflict. While this topic is broad enough for an essay of its own, the basic premise in the conflict is that the Israelis and the Palestinians both feel entitled to the same lands, and they have both engaged in terrorist activities. In this case you can look at it in two ways: that the Israelis are being killed by the Palestinian terrorists, or that the Palestinians are brave freedom fighters willing to give their lives to regain their land. Both of these are describing the same events, but one paints the Palestinians as the evil aggressors while the other shows them as being brave patriots fighting for their country (Moore, 2002).
Another grey area is that of the conflict in Northern Ireland. In 1916 the Irish nationalist Michael Collins led an uprising against Britain, which ruled Ireland as a colony. Following this Britain decided to split Ireland into the Republic of Ireland, the Catholic southern part of the island, and the Ulster counties in the north, which were mainly protestant. The Catholics in Northern Ireland feel that the Protestant majority is unfairly discriminating them against, and they wish to join Northern Ireland with the Republic. Fighting over this has been going on since the 60’s, and nearly 3,500 people have died so far (Ireland, 2004)
The fighting in this conflict has been between two groups: The Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the loyalist parliamentary groups such as the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defense Association. Both the IRA and the UVF and UDA have engaged in what could be defined as terrorist activity, with attacks on civilians being common. The difficulty comes when some try to draw the line between being a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Depending on your own point of view you can see one group as a bunch of vicious terrorists while the others are valiant freedom fighters. Nation states engage in this kind of labeling as much as ordinary citizens do. Since there is no clear definition of what a terrorist is, and there is certainly no clear distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, states will continue to use the two terms as they see fit (Ireland, 2004).
A good example of terrorist activity that is viewed throughout the world as freedom fighting is that of Nelson Mandela and the fight against Apartheid in South Africa. In 1961 Mandela became the head of the armed wing of the ANC, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation). He coordinated plans to sabotage military and governmental targets, and planned for a guerilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid. (Mandela, 2004) By all the definitions we have looked at, Mandela was a terrorist. When he was interviewed in 2000 on Larry King, he was asked if he engaged in terrorist activities and he replied, “I was called a terrorist yesterday, but when I came out of jail, many people embraced me, including my enemies, and that is what I normally tell other people who say those who are struggling for liberation in their country are terrorists. I tell them that I was also a terrorist yesterday, but, today, I am admired by the very people who said I was one. (King, 2000)”
These double standards have even led to the US supporting terrorist organizations. By now most people have heard of the US support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. At first under president Carter, and later with Reagan, the US “launched a massive support and training campaign for the Afghan freedom fighters (East, 1995).” Ironically, these same weapons that were given to the Afghans were turned on the US during its invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th.
Another example of the US supporting terrorist regimes is that of the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras were the opponents of the Nicaraguan government after the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza Debayle in 1979. They were considered terrorists by many Nicaraguans, and often attacked civilians. Even so, on November 23rd, 1981, Reagan signed a directive allowing the CIA to give the Contras 19 million in military aid. Even when the World Court found the US guilty of attacking Nicaragua through its support and training of the Contras they didn’t change their position, instead dismissing its jurisdiction and escalating the war. (Contras, 2004)
Consequences
There are many consequences to the lack of a specific legal definition of terrorism, but perhaps the best example is that of Guantanamo Bay.
Guantanamo Bay is a US military base based in Cuba. In January of 2002 it began to be used to house small numbers of prisoners from the war on terror. One of the factors that made Guantanamo such an ideal place for the holding of these prisoners was its strange legal status. (Guantanamo, 2004)
Officially, Guantanamo is Cuban territory on perpetual lease to the US. The US government argued that because of this detainees at Guantanamo were not entitled to the constitutional rights afforded those imprisoned in the US. For more than 2 years these prisoners were held without being allowed to talk to lawyers or see the charges against them. Fortunately this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the case Rasul v. Bush. The court ruled that because Guantanamo Bay was under the complete control of America its detainees were to be allowed access to American courts (Guantanamo, 2004).
The only reason that the American public was complacent with the idea of holding these people was that the government had labeled them terrorists. While that wouldn’t have been as bad if there was a specific legal definition for terrorism, the ambiguities in the term allows the government to label pretty much anyone a terrorist.
As you can see, terrorism comes in many different forms and for every rule about it there are many, many exceptions. Even so, that doesn’t mean that we should stop trying to form a definition. Without a clear definition of terrorism there will be no way to prevent these abuses from happening again in the future.