How are modern terrorists more violent than terrorists in the past? Be specific in demonstrating this and offer examples. Discuss how determining the answer to this question might play a role in how you would create anti-terrorism strategies?

Modern terrorists are more violent now than they have ever been in the past.  Kegley (2006) states that “(…) [the] ability to switch tactics is a major reason why defending against terrorism is so difficult” (p. 25).  This is largely due to the fact that terrorism changes with each counter terrorism effort.  One example of this occurrence is the popular tactic used in the 1970s by terrorist organizations where the seizure of embassies and political icons yielded higher bargaining power for financial advancement and the widespread of political propaganda.  In the 1980s, this particular tactic rendered lesser results as governments were less willing to negotiate with terrorists (Kegley, 2003, p. 24).

Terrorism is a constantly evolving “parasite,” which requires large financing efforts.  According to White (2006), “(…) terrorism changed between the 1960s and the 1980s and most Western defense policies failed to account for the change” (p.66).  White was referring to financing of terrorism and the unawareness of the governments which were trying to combat terrorism efforts.  In recent years, we have been subjected by the media to the truth of how some of these terrorist groups finance their attacks.  Terrorism is linked to organized crime and drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, and even charities and legitimate business enterprises (White, 2006, p. 79).

Technology, and the increased use of it, serves as another catalyst for the advancement of terrorism.  With the power of the Internet and the media, terrorist organizations can expedite their efforts in bringing their political/religious message to the masses.  Technology also serves as a building tool for more sophisticated weapons of mass destruction.  In the early 20th century, factions like the Irish Republican Army used primitive weapons and bombs in order to carry out their attacks.  Now, the IRA is known as the “mother” of bomb making and uses of bombs in global scale terrorism (White, 2006, p. 24 & 26).

In retrospect, modern terrorists are more violent now than they have been before due to increased arsenal of knowledge, money, and technology.  Terrorists switch their tactics in order to avoid losses or risk the chance of getting exposed.  These organizations are becoming much more calculated institutions with an ability to evoke more destruction and fear by working together (with other terrorist groups) on multinational level.  The terrorists change their organizational structures in order to keep current and vigilant against counter terrorism efforts.

It is my opinion that anti-terrorism strategies need not be dormant, but rather ephemeral and constantly updated.  The financial channels terrorist groups rely on must be compromised and fully cut off.  More resources should be directed towards transnational support and technology (in relation to force multipliers) in order to combat terrorism with the most current means available.

Resources:

Kegley, C.W. (2003). The New Global Terrorism; Characteristics, Causes, Controls. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. (5^th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

If you plan on working in the criminal justice field then you should be familiar with the many policies that are going to take place during President Barack Obama’s tenure. One of such policies focuses on Homeland Security, specifically an initiative to prevent terrorism.

This article focuses on nuclear terrorism which may cause significant casualties if not properly prevented and countered in a timely fashion.

Obama’s Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism

A comprehensive strategy for nuclear security is needed. This strategy will reduce the danger of nuclear terrorism, prevent the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. They will:

• Secure Nuclear Weapons Materials in Four Years and End Nuclear Smuggling: Lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons materials at vulnerable sites within four years — the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Fully implement the Lugar-Obama legislation to help our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction.

• Strengthen Policing and Interdiction Efforts: Institutionalize the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a global initiative aimed at stopping shipments of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials worldwide.

• Convene a Summit on Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Convene a summit in 2009 (and regularly thereafter) of leaders of Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and other key countries to agree on preventing nuclear terrorism.

• Eliminate Iran’s and North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Programs Through Tough, Direct Diplomacy: Use tough diplomacy — backed by real incentives and real pressures — to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to eliminate fully and verifiably North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

• Strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Seek to ensure that the Agency gets the authority, information, people, and technology it needs to do its job.

• Set the Goal of a Nuclear-Free World: Show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. America will not disarm unilaterally.

• Seek Real, Verifiable Reductions in Nuclear Stockpiles: Seek deep, verifiable reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons and work with other nuclear powers to reduce global stockpiles dramatically.

• Work with Russia to Increase Warning and Decision Time: Work with Russia to end dangerous Cold War policies like keeping nuclear weapons ready to launch on a moment’s notice, in a mutual and verifiable manner.

• Appoint White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security: Appoint a deputy national security advisor to be in charge of coordinating all U.S. programs aimed at reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism and weapons proliferation.

• Strengthen Nuclear Risk Reduction Work at Defense, State, and Energy Departments: Expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military. Thwarting terrorist networks requires international partnerships in military, intelligence, law enforcement, financial transactions, border controls, and transportation security.

• Control Fissile Materials: Lead a global effort to negotiate a verifiable treaty ending the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes.

• Prevent Nuclear Fuel from Becoming Nuclear Bombs: Work with other interested governments to establish a new international nuclear energy architecture — including an international nuclear fuel bank, international nuclear fuel cycle centers, and reliable fuel supply assurances — to meet growing demands for nuclear power without contributing to proliferation.

What are your thoughts about these strategies and policies? What would you change, add, or remove?

In order to counter religiously-motivated terrorist threats I would use a myriad of tactics.  However, there would be three I would focus on the most: an educational campaign, a partnership between nations, and a strengthened counter terrorism effort.

An educational campaign would serve as one of the most rewarding tactics.  This counterterrorism effort would teach kids, both here and abroad, about cultural and religious differences that exist around the world.  It would serve more or less as a “sensitivity training.” This action would benefit future generations of people in multifarious ways as long as other nations support this idea.  When religious ideologies are introduced the propensity for violence tends to grow, as does the number of casualties of terrorism.  The religious force of terror is vicious and its terrorizing agenda is most often meant to hurt the most people and topple the most “targets” (White, 2006).

As stated before, the support of other nations is vital in countering terrorism.  Political terrorism differs immensely from religious terrorism; where a political idea may carry its message within a couple of countries, a religious initiative may be spread out all over the world.  Dr. Goldstein (2007) states in his document that religion is the “true” catalyst for more than 50% of the most dangerous organizations and the acts of terror are part of their extremely meticulous belief system.  Other countries need to support further eradication of terrorism worldwide, especially the religious radicals who utilize terrorism tactics.  Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and Hezbollah have “set up shop” in countries like England, Germany, Spain, Greece, and U.S., and religion is their main strength in setting up campaigns to exterminate the non-believers (Goldstein, 2007).

The other aspect of fighting terrorism is an increased counter terrorism effort against religious fundamentalists.  I think that more needs to be done in order to properly train and consequently deploy counter terrorism forces.  What I mean by that is that religion and culture needs to be presented to special units which will be infiltrating religiously run terrorist groups.  A different approach on devout terrorism should be taken, as the world viewed by such terrorists is a constant war between “good and evil.”  There is no such thing as negotiations or mutual agreements, because “(…) God can never compromise with evil [the U.S., other countries fighting against their cause, and essentially, all the non-believers]” (White, 2006, p. 62).

Resources:

Goldstein, D. (2007). Week 3: Religion and Modern Terrorism. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from Boston University Vista Online Web site: http://vista.bu.edu/webct/
White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

Barack Obama finally settled in the White House, but he openly states that work needs to be done. One project that will require the president to act is Terrorism. Obama is ready to take steps to defeat terrorism worldwide. Can he do it?

Initiatives to Defeat Terrorism Worldwide

Develop New Capabilities to Aggressively Defeat Terrorists: Improve the American intelligence apparatus by investing in its capacity to collect and analyze information, share information with other agencies and carry out operations to disrupt terrorist networks.

Prepare the Military to Meet 21st Century Threats: Ensure that our military becomes more stealthy, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. Bolster our military’s ability to speak different languages, navigate different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

Restore American Influence and Restore Our Values: Stop shuttering consulates and start opening them in the tough and hopeless corners of the world. Expand our foreign service, and develop the capacity of our civilian aid workers to work alongside the military.

Win the Battle of Ideas: Defeat al Qaeda in the battle of ideas by returning to an American foreign policy consistent with America’s traditional values, and work with moderates within the Islamic world to counter al Qaeda propaganda. Establish a $2 billion Global Education Fund to work to eliminate the global education deficit and offer an alternative to extremist schools.

Find, Disrupt, and Destroy Al Qaeda: Responsibly end the war in Iraq and focus on the right battlefield in Afghanistan. Work with other nations to strengthen their capacity to eliminate shared enemies.

Other White House initiatives related to the Criminal Justice System

• Homeland Security
  • Prevent Nuclear Terrorism
  • Strengthen American Biosecurity
  • Protect Our Information Networks
  • Improve Intelligence Capacity and Protect Civil Liberties
  • Protect Americans from Terrorist Attacks and Natural Disasters
  • Protect Critical Infrastructure
  • Modernize America’s Aging Infrastructure

• Urban Policy – Crime & Law Enforcement

• Foreign Policy
  • Afghanistan & Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Energy Security

• Immigration

These policies and agendas will be presented throughout this month.

Can state-sponsored terrorism ever be eradicated or eliminated entirely without a war? For instance, is the United States’ war with Iraq the best way to quell the perceived terrorist threat? Were there any other solutions to this perceived terrorist threat? How does your answer fit into the Hezbollah Umbrella (see figure 8.7, p. 133, White, 2006)? Note the fit, or lack of it, in your closing statements for this week’s assignment.

As much as I would like to follow the notion that “nothing is impossible,” I am determined to say that state-sponsored terrorism will not be eradicated or eliminated entirely even with war as the main catalyst.  Terrorism has become a tremendous issue to deal with.  It is imperative to understand, that even if a war was waged on a country that supports terrorism, the efforts will at best solve little.  Firstly, terrorist groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah are transnational factions with supporting infrastructures in a lot of countries worldwide, including United States (White, 2006, p. 139).  Even with efforts to overthrow leaders of terrorist groups (in order to cause chaos and disorganization) we must consider that al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden has been illusive; costing the U.S. and other nations billions of dollars.  If U.S. and other supportive nations would wage war against a terrorist harboring country it would translate into loss of a lot of money and lives.  I feel that to some extent this needs to be done, but an “intelligent” war will solve much more, especially now, with terrorists that are smarter and much more cunning than they have ever been in the past.

United States and Iraq…

Based on the many articles/documents I’ve read and the media coverage I’ve seen I can conclude that United States’ way of handling the perceived terrorist threat was defunct from the start.  U.S. entered Iraq with little supporting evidence of terrorist threats in the country ran by Saddam Hussein.  Although Hussein’s regime ended, the country and its people are suffering tremendously while “democracy” is being introduced.  Terrorist organizations and rebels are running certain parts of the country with blatant disregard for human life.  It becomes more evident that George Bush wanted to end Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and garner the perceived reward, the Iraqi oil.  However, things didn’t work out as planned, because there was no set plan, nor was there a contingency plan for the resulting hasty decision.

Perhaps there were other methods to address the perceived terrorist threat in Iraq.  Time and patience would have been a good start.  Also, we must consider that the intelligence gathered didn’t sufficiently present the terrorist threat as a certain risk.  Counterterrorism efforts, not war, should’ve been used by the government first, but only after the recent changes.  According to the 9-11 Commission’s Analysis of  counter terrorism, the many agencies and their respective departments handling terrorist threats and counter terrorism campaigns were inadequately prepared to handle certain aspects of their efforts.  This was mainly due to the misinterpretation of laws which hindered communication efforts between the diverse agencies (White, 2006, p. 113).  I feel that more needed to be done before U.S. entered Iraq.  The perceived terrorist threat should have been a definite terrorist threat.

The Hezbollah umbrella seems to be a genius interpretation of how terrorism can shift into legitimate guerrilla warfare in the eyes of many; a political cause with “dental benefits.”  Hezbollah, deemed as one of the most charismatic terrorist groups has put the infamous al Qaeda in the second place.  Hezbollah has terrorism ties throughout the world and their international efforts have been very successful (White, 2006, p. 136).  Their strategy focuses on having different mission statements for different causes which they bring forth, making their intentions that much more acceptable.  This terrorist organization has its own security forces (guerrillas/terrorists), political factions, social services (provided to followers), and financing (White, 2006, p. 137).  Their terrorist campaigns are sponsored by Iran, according to White (2006).  It seems U.S. was thinking about waging war with Iran (at least once or twice) before.  Why not now?  Perhaps, this is because we (the U.S.) are not ready to start what we can’t finish.

Resource:

White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. (5^th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.

The four force multipliers listed by J.R. White’s book have all been evidently giving strength to terrorist organizations. Technology, transnational support, media, and religion compose the force multipliers.  If I was in charge of the budget that was to be used in the fight against terrorism I would allocate the most funds to the transnational support.

According to White (2006), transnational support serves as a way for terrorist groups (with same interests, ideologies, and beliefs) to cooperate in funding, planning, and executing attacks (pp. 9-10).  In my opinion, transnational support is the biggest obstacle for law enforcement, military, and government agencies.  I feel that when one group ties in with another, there is an opportunity for further growth; as one small group becomes a bigger force; a bigger force acquires smaller, medium, and large groups; they progressively grow larger and their message becomes a solid political icon.

Religion can be considered a fearsome force multiplier and can be an accelerant to fanatical attacks, like the ones orchestrated on September 11, 2001 (White, 2006, p. 10).  However, it is my opinion that religion is just a front for a much bigger political message.  It seems that religion is the recruiter’s tool to get willing participants to take part in exploiting the weaknesses of the nation and the world by instilling fear and pain.  The ones that are recruited, often times, do not know the real message they will be sending when they sacrifice their bodies.  Religion does play an integral role in linking separate groups together in order to share the same or similar cause.

The media can make it seem that a terrorist group has more political substance; however, this is more pertinent to small/start-up groups (White, 2006, p. 9).  But, the media can be a great force in helping with transnational support by furnishing the culprits with a self-made resume; a message geared not only towards the world, but other terrorist organizations.  This message is best presented in White’s (2006) interpretation of “Us-against-Them,” phenomenon; where comradeship comes with the acceptance of antisocial behavior, along with a “corporate mission statement” and a “corporate agenda” with intent to bring forth the message by means of terrorism (p. 11).

Technology would be my second pick in relation to the investment of resources in fight against terrorism.  It is no news that bombs have existed since before we were born, however, bombs are also the most popular way for terrorists to bring their message across.  What do bombs have to do with technology? Everything.  Bombs in the early 1900′s were sticks of dynamite joined together to evoke an explosion, but bombs of today are much more sophisticated.  Technology can aid terrorists in creating and utilizing weapons of mass destruction.  “Terrorists tend to use simple tactics, and the most common is the use of the bombs” (White, 2006, p. 15).

I feel that technology is used heavily by terrorist groups in order to circumvent the authorities and expedite the campaign process.  I believe that terrorists will continue to use simple methods, until they can acquire (if they haven’t already) the necessary materials to create a sophisticated weapon of mass destruction.  The technology is here now to create the complicated bombs which can cause mass destruction and loss of life.  Stopping the groups possessing this technology is a harder task, as there is so many of them working together; covertly in distant countries, or maybe, next door to us.

Reference

White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. (5^th ed.). Belmont: Thomson-Wadsworth

In your estimation, what is the current level of terrorist threat to the United States involving technology, and based on your response, what are some of the measures you would incorporate to guard against such a threat? Do they represent a significantly different strategy from that of Discussion 1? Why or why not?

In my estimation the current level of terrorist threat to the United States involving technology is high.  This is in part due to the growing number of people who are well trained in the uses of technological marvels like the computer and the Web.  In the 1970′s and 1980′s computers were the language of a specialized industry, where few knew the future success of this widespread device.  Then, the Web was merely a project for communications designed by the U.S. government and later institutionalized by universities across the country.  Times are different now and what one person dreamed of 20 years ago, millions of people live by it today.

The prevalent increase of computer literate people opens up doors for Cyberterrorism attacks, as the more people are involved the smoother the operation can be executed.  The Internet serves as a “playground” for millions of people worldwide and each day, just like on our city streets, crimes occur.

The proclivity for well orchestrated terrorist campaigns over the Internet is continuously rising, even with the aid of the Patriot Act of 2001. This is in part due to the fact that many other countries have different security measures pertaining to the use of the Web, and some have virtually none at all.  Additionally, it has been my experience that people that reside in the United States do not adhere by lawful standards on the Net either.  To some of the Cyberspace law breakers the Internet is just an imaginary world where they can live out their fantasies and feel unaccountable for their actions.

Besides Cyber Terrorism there are other technological advances which increase the range of attack by terrorist organizations.  Cell phones, satellite phones, GPS navigation, faster modes of transport, and instantaneous wire transfers are just few examples that illustrate the progress of technology.  This increase also serves as a feeding ground for transnational support, where terrorist organizations have the capability to implement world wide campaigns and an opportunity to hide or move based on the rapid enhancement of intelligence gathering techniques (White, 2006).

Technology makes life easier, now more than ever, but it also makes the life of a terrorist group much easier, too. Therefore, I feel that my previous post (Week 4 – Discussion 1) has a lot of credibility at present.  My “not so ideal” solution seems practical enough to curtail such terrorist activity by utilizing international support to its fullest.

Sanctions should be placed against the countries that harbor terrorists and allow for terrorist organizations to operate freely.  The support of other nations in the fight against terrorism can hinder efforts of terrorist organizations.  This can be done by revamping the policies on the use of the Internet in their respective countries, and allow for monitoring of possible and credible terrorist and criminal activity.  Additionally, the international collaborative efforts can pay off with screening telephone calls of probable and absolute terrorists.

Resource

White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

As you may already know Jack Bauer is back in the hit TV series “24.” FOX opened the seventh season with a new cast, but some of the old favorites are still playing key roles.

Jack takes on a new terrorist threat on U.S. soil, but his efforts are blocked by near impossible working conditions. Bauer’s training, smarts, and pure luck will hopefully save the day. Sounds familiar?

I really like 24 for its ability to draw the viewer in with a labyrinth of mini save-the-world missions within each hour that Jack Bauer confronts. The 24th hour, the super-climax of the series, is something we all can’t wait for (at least that’s the case for me).

Those of you who haven’t been hooked by the 24 bug should give the series a try. As with the other seasons of 24 you don’t have to watch the prior seasons to understand and enjoy the new one. Everything will piece itself together.

The Criminal Justice field often deals with the terrorist threats that you may be seeing through Jack Bauer’s altruistic actions.

In my opinion, the series illustrates the unseen counter-terrorism efforts U.S. and other peaceful nations have to initiate to thwart terrorist threats. But take this illustration with a grain of salt, as not all things that Hollywood throws at our TV screens is entirely true. But you knew that already, right?

I’m officially adding a new category to the blog that will focus on the many criminal justice TV shows, including this one. Look for it in “Categories.” Enjoy the show.

What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of an international consensus on a definition of terrorism?

Since there is no single definition for terrorism, and the understanding of terrorist vs. criminal violence is still not well defined itself, how will terrorism be defined internationally?  There are potential benefits, as there are drawbacks, of an international consensus on a definition of terrorism.

The benefits would include ratifying and enforcing treaties to eradicate terrorism with the power of world-wide support.  Since many countries would support counter terrorism efforts it would be much easier to set up a task force dealing with worldly terrorist issues with branches in every supporting country.  Moreover, the increase in capital and manpower in order to curtail terrorism can be reserved for a faster breakdown of terrorist groups.  A consensus on the definition of terrorism will also allow for collective intelligence support with networked agencies internationally.

The drawbacks may include the perception of certain governments that may view terrorism as all violent acts committed by their political opponents (Kegley, 2003).  Additionally, countries supporting anti-terrorism efforts in proximity to terrorist harboring countries may be on the brink of war if a popular consensus is reached on the term terrorism.  If such a definition is supported by countries not previously involved in any terrorist conflicts their borders may be infiltrated by terrorist groups retaliating against the support of anti-terrorist efforts with Western countries as catalyst.

Defining terrorism is no easy feat.  There are many interpretations of what the term terrorism means and with those interpretations debates are initiated and policies are executed.  Additionally, the often misunderstood perception of a terrorist vs. a criminal makes the defining of terrorism that much harder to achieve.  The international consensus on the definition of terrorism is “light years” away, in my opinion, and it is mainly due to the many problems certain nations may face when they, too, become the members of the consensus.

Reference

Kegley, C.W. (2003). The New Global Terrorism; Characteristics, Causes, Controls. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Why is there no common definition offered for the term terrorism?

There is no common definition offered for the term terrorism.  This is in part due to the wide array of definitions offered and the interpretations of them by elite researchers, consultants, domestic and foreign governments, specific governmental agencies (ranging from local to federal), and of course people like you and me.

It is much more evident that September 11, 2001 instilled “terrorism” as a common word in our vocabulary, but its popular interpretation by lead analysts still differs due to the multifarious terrorist groups that roam the Earth.

There is no one set definition that covers all terrorist groups.  Some terrorist groups may have political reasons to propagate their cause and infiltrate government agencies, while others may have religious ideologies which need to cleanse the world of other religions.

Additionally the term terrorism has been changing its definition due to changes in history.  The media helps present this point quite accurately.  While acts of terror have been committed in the years past, the present day interpretation of terrorism by the media and the public may be a simple crime or the use of airplanes as bombs.  Therefore, White (2006) asserts that the term has a “pejorative connotation” and “routine crimes (…) and political movements” may be labeled as terrorism (p.3).

Alex Schmid utilized thirteen of twenty-two common elements, which represent the definition of terrorism, and conglomerated it to come up with the Academic Consensus Definition used by researchers, private enterprises, governments, and even the United Nations (White, 2006).  But even with such classification there are persons and governments that may qualify terrorism as war and there are some classifications of terrorism as a crime (Goldstein, 2007).  Yet many analysts and governments are trying now (after 9/11) to make all the different definitions more comprehensive for policy making and for the betterment of counter-terrorism efforts.

References

Goldstein, D. (2007). The Criminology of Terrorism. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from Boston University, Vista Online Web site: http://vista.bu.edu/webct/
White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security. (5^th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.