• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
The Global War on Terrorism
Daniel HoffayMarch 25, 2006What is terrorism? What is crime? What is war? What is the difference? Which is the greatestthreat to nations, economies, or societies, and how should we confront it? Is the Global War onTerrorism fought against any and all forms of political violence directed at civilians, or only againstdistinct groups of people? Does it honor the ideals of a free society? Can it achieve peace or  justice?Before we can answer these questions, we must first define that which we have declared war upon, but we find that terrorism is defined differently by states and other organizations.The reason there is international controversy over the legal definition of terrorism is that allcurrent definitions show that states are, in fact, the biggest perpetrators. Each state supportsdefinitions that will condemn actions which clash with their interests, while at the same timecondoning their own. This poses a serious obstacle, because before we can mount any kind of international cooperation against terrorism, we must first establish exactly what it is, and agree tohonor that definition (Esposito).
We will find no peace until, as a nation, we admit to, and seek to make restitution for our part inthe violence on this planet. We cannot fail to acknowledge this, or we will follow a path of lies toour own destruction. The mote in our own eye must not be allowed to burrow into our brains
Definitions of Terrorism
Webster's online dictionary defines Terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as ameans of coercion." ("Terrorism").The FBI acknowledges that "There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism" (4).Its working definition emphasizes force and violence being used unlawfully in order to intimidateor coerce, and in order to further political or social objectives (8).The U.S. State Department defines "terrorist activity" in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which was restructured in the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It lists specificactivities which can be viewed as "terrorist activity" if such acts are illegal in the states where theyare perpetrated ("Immigration").The United Nations does not yet have an established legal definition for Terrorism. Itacknowledges that one state's 'terrorist' is sometimes viewed as another state's 'freedom fighter',and emphasizes that the lack of agreement on a definition poses a major obstacle.Controversy arises from U.N. debates about terrorism definitions. States do not agree on theextent of the application of any proposed international conventions and seek guarantees thatarmed forces would not fall under the jurisdiction of this convention. Others disagree that statesshould be exempt from any law against organizations that perpetrate terror against civilians.Some groups demand that the right of armed resistance to aggression or occupation be honored.One proposed definition seeks to use the definition of 'war crimes' (deliberate attacks on civilians,hostage taking, and killing of prisoners), and call terrorism a "peacetime equivalent of a war crime." (United Nations).Kofi Annan states: "A simple, clear statement bringing into moral clarity that maiming and killing of civilians is unacceptable regardless of one's cause I think will satisfy all of us."(qtd. in BBC).
 
If there is no global agreement on a definition of terrorism, can there be global cooperationagainst it? We don't even know what it is we're fighting till we have a satisfactory definition.
Arguments for the "Global War on Terror"
In spite of the lack of a clear legal definition of terrorism, a "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT)was declared after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This was possibly the single most traumaticevent that this nation had ever experienced. A shocked people readily accepted the need for immediate reaction.Advocates of the GWOT are certainly justified in their view that the murder of civilians and thedestruction of vital infrastructure are criminal, and should be defended against. People have theright not to live in fear. Terrorism creates economic instability especially in developing nations, byaffecting trade, tourism, and foreign investment. Terror denigrates civilization by dividing thenation, causing suspicion, and exacerbating racial, economic, and cultural tensions. Security andpublic safety is a legitimate concern, and it is the prime duty of government.Most people on this earth desire justice, peace, and have a similar understanding of civilbehavior. Everyone perceives the hypocrisy of demanding that others abide by laws of behavior that we will not honor ourselves. No one would agree that giving up liberty to fight those who hateliberty is logical. Nobody, regardless of political affiliation, wishes to spend huge resourcescombating terrorism if those expenses will be counterproductive.
We all want to address the actual causes of terrorism and make efforts to reduce, and ultimately eliminate it. The question is: "What is an appropriate response?" 
Terrorism and War 
Some things need to be clear. Terrorists are at war, and according to many, war has no rules. Thisidea is not so far fetched, since civilians die at the hands of militaries daily. Most terrorist groupsclaim to be retaliating against aggression and war crimes already committed against them. If there is any legitimacy to this assertion it should be addressed.In times of war, crimes are often committed by all sides, including officially deployed militaries.The International Criminal Court was established on July 1, 2002 to prosecute war crimes suchas mistreatment of prisoners of war or civilians, mass murder, genocide etc.Several states have criticized this court and have refused to participate. The United States,China, and Israel refuse to allow the court jurisdiction over their citizens. It has been argued thatsome actions of these countries could and should have been prosecuted.International courts established after WWII were accused of favoritism toward the victors. Somecontroversies are the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, Agent Orange usedagainst civilian targets in Vietnam, and use of depleted uranium in operation Desert Storm and inthe recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts.The global civilian death toll by acts of terror (as distinct from war crimes) is vastly eclipsed bythose of war. "Shock and Awe" or "Scorched Earth" policies, as well as attacks on civilianinfrastructure are common. States have waged "low intensity conflicts" that are indistinguishablefrom terrorism: sabotage, kidnapping, assassination, torture, and suppression of civilian dissentthrough support of brutal and corrupt governments (Sewall; White).
 
Terrorism entails violence against civilians. If states demand that the use of military violenceagainst civilians be exempt from any definition of terrorism, can the war on terror honestly beabout protecting civilian populations from political violence? 
False Flag Terrorism
A more covert form of terrorism is "false flag terrorism". Rather than risk open confrontation,states and organizations occasionally sponsor terrorist groups which appear to act independently,or commit actions designed to lay the blame on their enemies.We must be sure we are not victims of false flag terror hence the need for public examination of evidence. Legal protections for those accused of terror serves us by preserving valuabletestimony for public scrutiny. The perpetrators of false flag terrorism remain concealed by thecreation of a class of crime for which the accused has no right of legal defense or trial by jury.There is no trial, nor public examination of evidence. Public testimony of the accused and a publicexamination of evidence are the only way to determine the true enemy.Many of today's terrorists are yesterday's "Freedom Fighters". Yesterday's Mujihadeen foughtcommunism with religious fervor and full support of the U.S., and are today's Al Qaeda.Yesterday, Noriega was an asset of the U.S.; today he is a criminal. Yesterday, Saddam Husseinwas a Cold War asset. Today he is a war criminal. Yesterday, the African National Congress wasa terrorist organization; now the apartheid government they fought against is considered terrorist.
Is the majority of terrorist activity the tool of states or of fringe groups? Who profits most from our fear of terrorism? Can increasing executive authority, restricting civil rights, and suppressing freespeech possibly lead to truth or victory in the "GWOT", or are we being manipulated through our fear? 
Organized crime vs. Terrorism
Organized crime also takes the lives of civilians, destroys economies, and threatensgovernments, yet unlike terrorism, it is not seen as 'political violence'. Although organized crime isfar more devastating to public safety and national security than acts of terror, combating itreceives far less government attention and funding. Its extent and impact make organized crimethe supreme threat to our political processes, economic well being, and social cohesion, far moreso than terrorism.Organized crime deals in transportation of illegal immigrants, prostitution, drugs, and armssmuggling. It subverts border security, supplies and transports terrorists, exploits and tilts labor markets, fomenting creeping slavery in its wake. The economy is threatened by criminals wholaunder money to conceal its source using banking systems, investment brokerages, currencyspeculation, real estate, and commodity speculation. This threatens national economic securityhere, and especially in developing economies. Governments, financial institutions, and currenciesare undermined by the myriad ways criminals conceal their sources of income. Legitimatebusinesses cannot compete with criminal profits. The S&L and banking scandals of the 80's and90's, as well as more recent corporate accounting scandals, led to government intervention, andthe taxpayer paid the bill.A U.S. State Department publication dealing with the methods and implications of moneylaundering states: "Money is laundered through currency exchange houses, stock brokeragehouses, gold dealers, insurance companies…. Private banking facilities, offshore banking, shellcorporations; free trade zones… all can mask illegal activities. In doing so, criminals manipulatefinancial systems in the United States and abroad." (McDowell & Novice).
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...