& Crank Gregor Chap 2 Lecture What is Terrorism and Counter-terrorism? Summary of all definitions: Terrorism: Use of violence and threat of violence to obtain non-egocentric political goals. Against civilian targets only? This creates a distinction guerilla warfare and civil insurrection. Injury to civilians as collateral damage (human shields or military employees) is not terrorism? Terrorist: A non-governmental agent who commits an act of terrorism. What about the planner or organizer? Distinction between an assault and a battery. Use of includes organizer as conspirator? Guerilla: Armed individuals who operate in the open as military units, seize and hold territory, and engage other military forces. Criminal: Uses violence for selfish ends, no intended repercussions beyond the goals of the criminal act itself, no intent for the act to convey any political message. So, whats a Freedom Fighter?
The Philosophy of Counter-Terrorism 1. Should we treat terrorism as an act of war or a crime?
a. First answer: It depends upon the size of the threat posed.
i. Consequences of this answer:
1. The nature of the terrorist act as a crime or act of war is ignored. 2. The is military good at destroying things and enforcing order; but not so good at determining fault. 3. Size of the response matches the size of the threat. 4. Anticipatory strikes are encouraged. 5. No probable cause requirement.
b. Second answer: The criminal justice system is inadequate (Turk, page 33)
i. Consequences of this answer:
1. Assumes that individualized justice is ineffective when facing terrorist groups. 2. Creates a third status for bad persons who are not criminals and not soldiers. 3. What are the third status rules, if any?
a. Limited civil rights for known terrorists?
b. How can a state legitimately abandon the rules to punish people for abandoning the rules? See pp 33-34. c. Do we create special rules for those people outside the container of democracy? See p. 37.
c. Third answer: The criminal justice system is slow but sure.
i. Consequences of this answer:
1. Is it better that 10 guilty people go free than one innocent personbe punished? 2. Bad people get the benefit of the civil rights intended for good people. 3. Cant punish someone for being suspicious. 4. Can only punish the guilty. 5. Actions limited to within your jurisdiction?