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.

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.

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

The 2009 presidential inauguration has its set of challenges for the law enforcement officials. These challenges involve protecting the president of the United States. Numerous law enforcement agencies, from all corners of the criminal justice system, are responsible for the safety of President-Elect Barack Obama, and consequently, President Obama.

In all likelihood, you already know that the Secret Service is assigned with the task of protecting the president. However, not many people know that many other departments and entities participate during the swearing in ceremony.

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – provides man power to aid the Secret Service in the protective measures. This help can be in a form of uniformed and undercover surveillance. You can often see FBI agents scouting the surrounding area for threats. In addition, constant intelligence updates are provided to those in charge of protecting the president.
• Capitol Police – a special police unit set to protect and serve the United States Capitol area. The job description also includes protecting U.S. officials.
• State, county, and local law enforcement professionals are also involved in helping the inaugural ceremony go smoothly. Tasks may include surveillance, patrol, and crowd control.
• Besides government agencies, there may be a presence of security consulting firms which may be hired to handle risk and threat assessment, as well as provide protective services.

A little about this year’s inauguration

The presidential inauguration is the official day that the President of the United States is sworn into office. This year’s inauguration takes place on January 20, 2009 in Washington D.C. on the steps of the United States Capitol. The purpose of the inauguration is to honor the inbound president with dignified ceremonies, including: a Presidential Swearing-in Ceremony, an Inaugural Address, and an Inaugural Parade

President-elect Barack Obama will take the oath of office, which states the following:

“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Vice President-elect Joe Biden will have already taken a similar oath.

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.

I was watching TV last night and found myself glued to the screen, watching a documentary. It wasn’t just any documentary. It was a History Channel production “King,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that is. You might ask, what does Marin Luther King has to do with the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system? Well, plenty!

The August 26, 1963 famous “I Have A Dream” speech is one of the most memorable moments of that era. It was initiated by a charismatic Dr. King to bridge the racial divide in the United States. The same racial divide which devoured millions upon millions of blacks who were unemployed, unjustly treated, and unable to contain ravaged emotions. In the end, it was the same racism that changed the criminal justice system forever.

Pre – Martin Luther King, Jr., Corruption, and Injustice

Prior to that iconic day in 1963, the same year John F. Kennedy was killed, the U.S. law enforcement community was upholding unjust laws targeting African-Americans; laws which should have been defunct ages ago, by today’s standards.

To me, the images of spraying non-violent protesters with high-pressure streams of water, executing unprovoked beatings, and falsely arresting black minorities were very eerie. I never had to live through that kind of separatism, and even though I comprehend that the times were different then, I can’t swallow this gut wrenching feeling those images leave me with.

The corruption level of the criminal justice system in the 1950′s and 1960′s was enormous. Throughout Dr. King’s peace campaign he and his followers were chastised and scorned by same government entities on which we now rely on for protection. One infamous tirade involves a very well known FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover.

Hoover was adamant about stopping the Peace Movement. In fact he made it his personal vendetta.

Just Imagine

Can you imagine the Federal Bureau of Investigation sending you harassing letters, tape recordings, and photographs just because you spoke up about what you believed in? What about telephone wire-taps and constant surveillance which invades your personal life because you protected someone that needed the protection? It seems unjust and inhumane, doesn’t it? Surely, you can say: “it depends on the situation,” and “not all cases are alike.” However, the fact of the matter is, how do you question something that is morally wrong, yet laws and prevalent majority prohibit you to act on it? The esteemed FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover, could have cared less.

From the perspective of those victimized by the police and the U.S. government the law enforcement was a sham. From the vantage point of racist whites, who had strong roots in their traditions, the actions of upholding self-serving laws were just. And, from the view point of a moral Caucasian police officer, who knows that a line must be drawn somewhere, the legal system was corrupt, and yet the job needed to be done to put food on the table. Where is the justice in these scenarios? Who wins and who looses?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Worldwide Recognition, The Dream

Martin Luther King literarily made it his life crusade to bring racism to an end. In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed with the help of Hollywood elitists and a handful of open-minded politicians. It wasn’t an easy feat to achieve, but it paved the way for a better tomorrow for African-Americans who were hoping for something better out of life. This same Act served as a catalyst to massive changes the law enforcement community would go through in the upcoming years.

At age 35, Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize. You would think that was the zenith of his career, but it was just the beginning. He carried on his message of peace and hope until he was abruptly gunned down on April 4th, 1968. His death, as well as sacrifices made by many other peace activists, were very important in the eyes of the mistreated minorities helped over the years.

The same people who had to sit in the back of the bus, were now propelled into a new era; an era that doesn’t include such a prominent voice as King has provided them with. The corrupt and defaced criminal justice system would take many more years to get itself to the way it is now, but Martin Luther King’s big dream would start taking shape.

I feel that without the initiative of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. the world we live in now might have become a much more impoverished, violent, and lawless place. Although racism is still present in the American society, Dr. King’s Dream has opened-up many minds to the possibility of equality for all.

In light of this occasion, the questions I pose to future and present law enforcement professionals are:

Would you be able to perform law enforcement duties now if you had to choose between Black or White? How have the events of the past helped you in your present understanding of the criminal justice system / your line of work?

More helpful resources with historical roots:

What Changes Would You Make to the American Judicial System?
LA Confidential – Has Policing Improved Since That Time
Crime Interest and Media Emphasis on Crime
The American Justice System is Failing?

This post is for everyone taking Criminal Justice classes online and who want to learn reading smarter. The underlying concept is simple, yet takes precious time to master. Time you may not have especially with super-accelerated online courses. The smart reading tips may help, but first…

So the time comes when you have to turn in your assignment. You haven’t read any of your assigned readings and you’re a few days away from the deadline. Then it narrows to one day, and then… you have two hours left to conjure a masterpiece without a clue. What went wrong?

You got too comfortable

I went through this very destructive phase in my online courses. I often had a week’s notice on a homework assignment which I knew I can complete fast if I read the assigned chapters, but I didn’t. I begged for an extension and drowned in a self-made pool of stress. I learned fast that if I gotta read chapter 3, 4, & 7 I better do so as soon as possible.

Don’t even ask me what happens when you don’t read them. Since many online courses are only six to nine weeks long it is academic suicide to postpone your reading and thus a timely turn-in of your assignment. In most criminal justice courses, and others I’ve taken, I had 6 weeks to basically read the whole book, grasp the concepts, and transfer them on paper, discussion forums, and online exams. Six weeks flies by very quick so Tip #1 is: pace yourself.

Get that deleterious sense of comfort out of your system

That alone will make you a better reader in your criminal justice classes. Sure, but how are you supposed to do that?

Tip #2: spread your reading down into sections. If you have at least several days notice make sure to complete your reading by taking even a full day to read one chapter. Do so the next, and the next, until you’re done. With just a few, or even one day away, you are armed with knowledge which will make your assignment writing much easier.

If you only have two days left for chapter 2, 3, and 7, your decision making for the next couple days may include calling in to work, or making sure that you find a quiet place to cram. This predicament could have been avoided, and you know that.

“I have only today to do this”

Well, I know how you feel, and even though life throws curve balls straight in our face, you have to learn to pick up your teeth. Tip #3: if you know that you will most likely fail turning in your assignment call your student liaison and hope you’ll get an extension.

If you skipped the reading, the depth of your assignment is going to be limited, and unless you are knowledgeable on the subject matter, you should not turn in an assignment that lacks well supported information. Therefore, even if you are knowledgeable, you still have to support your assignment with references. Moral of the story, don’t skip your reading.

You burned your extension limit – what then?

If you are the chronic postponer, online education may not be the best fit for you. You’re not going to hear me saying that you should read the chapter summaries to make up for your mishaps.

Final Tip: learn to manage your time better. Taking your college education seriously, online or off, is important. You can start by better managing your time. If change makes you uncomfortable start slow at first, but keep your target in sight. Initially make small and attainable goals, then progress to the bigger ones.

Your ultimate goal is to complete your criminal justice degree online and making that commitment may ask you to rescind your other commitments.

Don’t forget, your personal well-being comes first. If you are over-stressed, sick, or in a proverbial “hole,” you should reconsider starting an online degree program or consider pausing it until you get back your mojo.

The truth is, online academics are not as easy as one may think. There are certain advantages to traditional learning as there are advantages to online learning. Where do you belong? I hope you’ll find that answer here.

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.