Blog Post 8: Torture

Torture is something that sparks a lot of controversy. Some people find the use of torture to be acceptable because it can help save many lives. Others find it to be inhumane and oppose the use of torture. I will give an explanation of torture, waterboarding and discuss whether torture is humane or not. Through this explanation and discussion I hope that a better understanding of torture is achieved.

According to Seumas Miller, torture is: (a) the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenceless person; (b) the intentional, substantial curtailment of the exercise of the person's autonomy (achieved by means of (a)); (c) in general, undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will. Torture inflicts extreme pain and suffering on the individual that is being tortured. The reason to torture is to break the person’s will in order to get a confession or information. It can also be used to simply punish the person. If this is true, torture is a means to punish someone. Is it cruel and unusual punishment? I think that many would say that it is.

According to Tom Boice, waterboarding causes suffocation and water inhalation, simulating drowning. This interrogation technique has the person strapped to a flat surface at a slight angle where their feet are above their head. The interrogator will force water into the mouth and nose of the person while questioning them. This will trigger a gag reflex that makes the experience more terrifying and makes the person feel like they are really drowning. This form of torture can seem so real to the person that it can actually cause physical harm, psychological harm and death. While going through this, they struggle and as a result, bones can be broken. Water is constantly forced down their mouth and nose, which can cause damage to the lungs. All of this can cause extreme pain and suffering for the person that is going through it.

Is torture ever an acceptable practice? Is it inhumane? These have been questions asked for a long time. At the heart of all this we are asking whether torture can be morally justified. As I said before, some people say it is because it can save the lives of many people. Others believe that we are all born with inalienable human rights that protect us from things like torture. According to Jonathan White, the UN Declaration of Human Rights says that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This would mean that torture is not an acceptable practice and that it is inhumane.

For me, torture can never be justified. The reason I say this is: to do these things to another person, you need to become something that isn’t human. A human being is someone that respects the rights of others, that acts with compassion and does things that are just. Torture does none of these things. I believe a lot of people resort to torture because they like to harm others. They enjoy the power and control they have over the person. It isn’t about justice; it is about making a person suffer. The things done to the people at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are fine examples. A lot of the people there were suspected terrorists. There was no real proof that they were terrorists. This would mean that many of the people that were tortured were innocent. The people who did these things to those people did not care about innocence. This is more than enough reason to not use torture. When we do use it, we become beasts and there are better ways to get information or confessions without resorting to something that is inhuman.

Works Cited: Boice, Tom. Waterboarding: It’s not a summer sport. UWF Book Club. 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.uwf.edu/bookclub/waterboarding.html

Miller, Seumas. Torture. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2008. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/

White, Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA 2009.

Blog Post 7: Extraordinary Rendition and "Ghost Detainees"

Extraordinary rendition and “ghost detainees” are subjects that are unknown to a lot of people. I first learned about them earlier this year. When I found out what they were about, I was shocked to hear what occurs when a person is taken under these practices. I will explain the subjects of extraordinary rendition and “ghost detainees.” This should give a good description of what they are all about

According to Sharla Cook, extraordinary rendition is a government policy where terror suspects are transferred from U.S. control into the control of foreign governments so that interrogation methods that are not permitted under U.S. law may be applied to the suspects. The only legal action needed for rendition is suspicion that one is involved in terrorism. Once that is established, that person could be taken into custody. Many of the people taken into custody are innocent but are arrested because suspicion is the only thing needed. Using probable cause increases the chance of actual terrorists being arrested instead of innocent people.

Dan Edge from Frontline says the organization responsible for this form of indefinite detention was the CIA. The CIA would arrest these suspects; they would be bound, gagged and hooded. They would be dressed in a diaper and a jumpsuit. According to Dan Edge, they would be put onto a plane and tied down like enemy combatants. Then, they were taken by plane to a secret location. Upon arrival, they were taken off the plane and driven to the CIA facility. Once there, they were tossed in a cell, alone and shackled. While at these places, they would be left in darkness for days. Dan Edge says that they would be tortured, beaten and sexually assaulted to get intelligence. After awhile, they may be transported to other sites to try and get more information. Dan Edge said that these sites were known as “black sites.” To check the video out go here and watch the three segments.

When apprehended, these people just disappear. I mean they are pretty much kidnapped by the CIA. Some of them disappear completely and they become what is known as “ghost detainees.” John T. Parry explains “ghost detainees” as people who are secretly held and interrogated by the United States or its allies in undisclosed locations and who are outside the protections of domestic or international law in any practical sense. “Ghost detainees” and rendition are issues that are closely related to one another because the detainees are created by the practice of rendition itself. According to John T. Parry, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have custody of up to 100 ‘high value’ detainees held ‘off the books’ in unknown locations.

Rendition and “ghost detainees” are illegal practices. These people are tortured in many different ways and most aren’t even terrorists. If they were terrorists many would say torture is fine because they could give information that could save lives. However, it is my opinion that people need to practice humane treatment of one another. There are many ways to get information without becoming like them. We cannot allow ourselves to become the enemy to beat the enemy. If we do this, we cannot be sure that we do not punish the wrong people. To punish the right people is fine but to harm the innocent is wrong. With that said, illegal and inhumane practices should be removed from society.

Works Cited: Cook, Sharla. CRJ 132: Violence and Terrorism notes. CSUS. 2009. Chapter 17, Detection and Surveillance, and Detention and Treatment of Prisoners.

Edge, Dan. “Extraordinarily Rendition.” 6 November 2007. Online video clip. Pbs.org. Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frow03p29&continuous=1

Parry, John T. "The Shape of Modern Torture: Extraordinary Rendition and Ghost Detainees." [2005] MelbJIL 19; (2005) 6(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 516. Retrieved from: http://kirra.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2005/19.html#_Ref115180538

Blog Post 6: Force Multipliers

According to Jonathan White, force multipliers are used by terrorists to increases striking power without increasing the strength of a unit. This would mean that force multipliers could create the illusion of higher strength. There are four force multipliers: technology, media, transnational support and religion. Technology can increase the power of a terrorist unit in many ways. Some of the ways it would be done is through cyberterrorism and the use of weapons of mass destruction. According to White, cyberterrorism refers to the use of computers to attack technological targets or physical attacks on computer networks. Weapons of mass destruction would be biological agents, chemical and radiological weapons. Biological weapons allow terrorists to kill people with poisons, toxins, viruses, bacteria and plagues. Chemical weapons are nerve agents, blood agents, choking agents and blistering agents. Radiological weapons can produce burns, contamination and health problems. The most feared of all radiological weapons are nuclear weapons. Robert Earl and Norman Emery say that advanced technology has made the world more transparent, creating a global ‘fishbowl’, where even local events can have international influences.

To increase striking power through manipulation of images terrorists use the media. These images are used to try and build sympathy for their cause. Terrorists try to portray themselves as freedom fighters fighting against oppression. Paul Wilkinson says terrorists try to multiply force through communication. Terrorists seek to send messages through the media because it serves as a psychological weapon. These messages will attempt to demonize their enemies, which can create the illusion that the terrorists are the good guys. If this can be done, they can rally support for their cause and more people will join them. The influence through the media can make terrorists a more powerful threat.

Transnational support or transnational operations are used to increase striking power by attacking economic systems. If terrorists attack targets that are tied closely to the international economy, they can strike a huge blow for their cause. Tourism attractions are populated with many people and produce a lot of money for the economy. If these areas were attacked, it would cause the death of many people and result in a loss of money for the economy. The reasons for this are: the damages to the area, the loss of lives and fear that goes with that loss. People will not want to go back to this place for fear of death. The attack can be done by a small group of terrorists and result in a huge lost for the international economy.

Religion being used in conflict is by no means a new concept. But, it has become a big factor in terrorism today. Terrorism today is about cleansing the planet because it is corrupt. There is a global jihad movement that calls for all Muslims to rise up and fight against this corrupt world. Terrorists utilize this call through suicide bombing. The people that do this believe that they are sacrificing themselves for a greater cause, which would make them martyrs and strengthen the cause they fight for. Suicide attacks fueled by religious fanaticism are intimidating. Intimidation is something that is favored by terrorists. According to Jonathan White, it can penetrate secure targets with a good chance of success. These attacks provide for high casualties and publicity. White says suicide bombers give terrorist groups maximal control over the attack.

Force multipliers and its ability to increase striking power is an important tool used by terrorists to achieve their goals. Terrorists use them to show strength that isn’t really there in numbers. Terrorists very rarely attack in a huge force. They are usually small cells that infiltrate an area and attack. By using force multipliers, they create the image of a huge force that can strike from anywhere. This can create fear, which is a great weapon. Fear creates panic and makes one lose focus. This allows terrorists to easily pick their targets and attack from where ever they like.


Works Cited: Earl and Emery, Norman E. Terrorist Approach to Information Operations. Naval Postgraduate School. Monterey, CA. 2003

White, Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA 2009.

Wilkinson, Paul. (1997). “The Media and Terrorism: A Reassessment.” Terrorism and Political Violence 9 (Summer).

Blog Post 5: Another look at the Patriot Act

In my previous post, I talked about the Patriot Act and what it is. This law has been around for quite some time and has gone through some changes. Some of the issues I will mention may not be a problem with the law today. The purpose of this post is to give an overall look at the issues that the Patriot Act has had. I mentioned that this law killed balance in our country. This balance is between national security and civil liberties. There are many issues to address with the Patriot Act since it became law. These issues will illustrate how the Patriot Act destroyed that balance. These issues are threats to the civil liberties we are guaranteed to have by the Constitution. Some of these issues will touch on due process and invasion of privacy.

Jennifer Bergen says that the designation provision authorizes the Attorney General or Secretary of State to designate a foreign organization as a terrorist group. Now these groups are supposed to be funding money and resources to terrorist. The issue is that there was no way to verify whether the designation is just because you cannot challenge or review it. The administrative records can be sealed and because of this, any challenge that could be used is ineffective. According to Jennifer Bergen, if you do manage to bring it to court, the review may not be impartial because review is limited to the District of Columbia Circuit court. There is no way for there to be some sort of oversight. An organization can be designated a terrorist group and they may not even be one. Because it is illegal to support terrorism, this group that has been designated as one could be arrested. These people that are arrested could spend the rest of their lives in jail based on the designation that may not be true. Since it cannot be challenged, due process is not found. Bergen says that because evidence is sealed, there is also another violation of rights, which is the Sixth Amendment right to confront evidence against oneself. How can you confront evidence that is sealed?

The threat to the Fourth Amendment has to do with surveillance and privacy. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA allows the gathering of foreign intelligence information. Because it only applied to foreign intelligence, you would think that the Fourth Amendment was in no danger. But under the Patriot Act, you could become a target. According to Jennifer Bergen, this means that if you speak to a friend or relative in the Middle East and that person gave money at some point to an organization that provides humanitarian aid to a group suspected of ties to terrorism, you are a legitimate target for wire, phone, or computer taps under FISA. This provision authorizes search and seizure of any third-party maintained records, which can be medical, educational and financial. It also allows for records to be obtained without even going to a court to get a warrant. Searches without a warrant were permitted with the Patriot Act to enhance national security. Jennifer Bergen says that all requests for foreign intelligence warrants to tap or search are presented to the FISA Court. This court is a secret court and the existence of such a thing is unheard of. This court would determine all requests by the FBI to wiretap or search a foreign intelligence target. But, the key here is, foreign did not necessarily mean foreigners. The target could be you or me if we were suspected in anyway to be in connection with foreign groups that were designated as a terrorist group. Probable cause is usually criteria for a search, which is ignored. In essence, the government could spy on anyone they pleased as long as they are suspected to be part of terrorism in some way.

National security letters was another issue. Sharla Cook explains that national Security Letters are self-issued subpoenas that allow investigators in terrorism and espionage cases to require phone companies, banks, credit reporting agencies and internet service providers to turn over records on Americans considered "relevant" to an investigation. These letters allowed government agencies to get anything that was needed to protect national security. According to Sharla Cook, they permitted the FBI to obtain sensitive personal records without a court order. This is an extension of the section on privacy issues. Pretty much, national security letters allowed law enforcement the ability to get records and data with ease. This was highly abused by the government to gather information to better combat terrorism. But, the problem is they were spying on people like you and me. Is it really all right to do this type of thing without the proper checks and balances? Some would say that it is just fine because national security is important and we cannot allow another incident like the terrorist attacks on 9/11 to happen again. But, we are invading into the privacy of everyone around us. We have the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure for a reason. The Patriot Act completely bypasses the Constitution and the rights it guarantees us. A good video to check out is linked here click video number four once it has opened.

The Patriot Act gave the executive branch too much power and they abused that power. In the beginning, I believe they needed this power to protect the country and gather more information. This would allow them to better combat terrorism. But, they went too far and the abuse was very apparent. Balance is very important and to have balance you need to have power equally distributed among all branches. This balance of power would also extend to the people. In a democracy, the people have a voice and it must be heard. During the Bush administration, there were a lot of things the people did not like. Regardless of that, the government continued to do whatever they wanted to do. If the proper checks and balances were in effect like they are suppose to be, this would have never happened. This is my solution to the problems with the Patriot Act. Adhere to the rule of law and apply the checks and balances that this country was founded on. To abide by the Constitution and rights that it guarantees to all of us. If the government does these things, I believe a proper balance will be created. This will provide the remedy to the issues that have come from the Patriot Act and the abuse of power by the government.

Works Cited: Bergen, Jennifer Van. The Twilight of Democracy. 2005.

Cook, Sharla. CRJ 132: Violence and Terrorism notes. CSUS. 2009. Chapter 17, Detection and Surveillance, and Detention and Treatment of Prisoners.

PBS Website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

Blog Post 4: The Patriot Act

The Patriot Act is a law that was passed in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Those attacks shook the very foundation of our country. It made us aware that we were not as safe as we may have thought. It also made us react very quickly to protect ourselves. I will give a description of the Patriot Act to explain what it does. With all this information, we should have a better understanding of this law.

According to the Department of Justice, their first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks. The Patriot Act has played a key part in protecting Americans from terrorists dedicated to destroying America. The Department of Justice says that Congress simply took existing legal principles and retrofitted them to preserve the lives and liberty of the American people from the challenges posed by a global terrorist network. The purpose of this law is to protect us. The law did this through enhancing national security and limiting civil liberties. This would allow the government to better protect the nation.

The Patriot Act has ten sections to it that outline the new powers that government will have. Title I enhances domestic security. White says it creates funding for counterterrorist activities, expands technical support for the FBI, expands electronic intelligence-gathering research, and defines presidential authority in response to terrorism. Title II is one of the more controversial aspects of the law. It improves the government’s ability to gather electronic evidence. For White, this means that it allows police officials expanded authority to monitor communications. It allows sharing of intelligence with federal agencies. Also, private corporations would have to share their records and data with federal law enforcement. During an investigation, these materials could be seized when it was believed that national security was in jeopardy. Title III empowered federal law enforcement to interact with banking regulators and provides arrest power outside U.S. borders for U.S. agents investigating terrorist financing and money laundering explains White. Title IV increased border patrols and the monitoring of foreigners. It also allowed detention of suspected terrorists. Title V enhanced investigative powers. It provided a reward system, called for sharing of findings among agencies, extended the jurisdiction of the Secret Service, and forced educational institutes to release records on foreign students. Title VI was created to provide compensation to the families of public safety officers killed during a terrorist attack. Title VII focused on police information sharing. This helped in the use of a nationwide police investigative network called the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) says White. This system was only used in criminal investigations prior to the Patriot Act. Title VIII helped to define what terrorism is by defining terrorist attacks and domestic terrorism. It provided the basis to charge terrorists overseas. It criminalizes support for terrorism and cyber-terrorism, allowed investigation of terrorism rackets and it expanded bio-terrorism laws. The last two titles contain miscellaneous things that do not need to be addressed.

According to White, in 2005, the Patriot Act was scheduled for renewal. The House of Representatives voted to renew it. But, the Senate argued that it was passed too quickly and that many of the provisions expanded governmental authority too far. The Republicans wanted to pass the extension of the Patriot Act, the Democratic Senate leaders wanted to urge caution. Jonathan White says that in 2006, the White House and Congress reached a compromise. As a result, the Patriot Act was approved with new provisions. Some of these new provisions involved the use of legal counsel if one is found to be a suspect of terrorism. When the government seeks information it can be challenged. In a situation of terrorist investigations, suspects and others involved are allowed to talk about it. Regardless of these changes, the Patriot Act still provides a lot of power to the government, especially the executive branch of government. Currently, the Patriot Act is still in effect but I believe that it is going expire at the end of this year.

The Patriot Act is a law that was developed to protect our country. It greatly increased the power of government. The particular branch that got the most out of it was the executive branch of government. At the time, the executive branch had enormous power to defend national security in anyway they saw fit. When you give one branch enormous powers, the balance between the branches is broken. This made it to where civil liberties were put at risk. Making people become a victim of the very law that is suppose to protect us. That is the very reason why changes were made to the law. The idea of trying to balance the situation became an important issue to tackle. With the expiration of the Patriot Act at the end of this year, it will be interesting to see what happens. For me, balance is very important to have and the Patriot Act completely killed that balance.

Work Cited: White, Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA 2009.

The Department of Justice. What is the Patriot Act. Retrieved from: http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ll/highlights.htm

Blog Post 3: An analysis of a terrorism group

According to Gale Thomson, Al-Jihad (also known as Egyptian Islamic Jihad; Jihad Group; Talaa'al al-Fateh—the Vanguards of Conquest) is an Egyptian Islamist extremist group. They have been involved in a variety of atrocities throughout the years. Egypt, during the time of Gamal Abdel Nasser, was very oppressive to Muslims. The new President Anwar Sadat attempted to make relations between Egypt and Muslims better. He started by embracing the Muslim Brotherhood. He hoped this would widen his support and legitimacy as President. In 1971, Gale Thomson says that thousands of Brotherhood members and other Islamists were released from prison and in subsequent years, restrictions on meeting, publications and other rights of association were lessened. Regardless of these efforts, Sadat’s relationship with the Islamists remained very shaky. According to Gale Thomson, the economy was dislocated and the Camp David Accords of September 1978 (which afforded recognition of and peace with Israel) led to popular dissatisfaction. Because of this, a large number of extremist groups emerged. Harsh measures to stop these groups from emerging were implemented by the Egyptian Government, though the groups continued to grow. Gale Thomson says that the most dangerous of these appeared in the late 1970s, and was known as al-Jihad, or the Jihad organization.

Al-Jihad was the most radical offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. They broke away from the Brotherhood because they didn’t agree with their nonviolent tactics. According to Salama and Bergoch, it began as a small underground group based out of the Cairo districts of Boulaq, Nahia, and Kerdasa, under the leadership of jihadi ideologue Muhammad 'Abd al-Salam Farraj. Al-Jihad absorbed many people, including leaders from a number of other groups. Farraj provided the groups ideological background. Military expertise was provided by an Egyptian Army Colonel by the name of Abbud Abd el-Latif al-Zumor. Members of al-Jama’a al-Islamiya joined up with Al-Jihad. A consultative council was also created for the group. According to Salama and Bergoch, the organizational and decision-making structure of al-Jihad al-Islami was thus finalized by the end of the fall of 1980, complete with Upper and Lower Egyptian branches, and multiple cells throughout Egypt's urban centers. The group’s motivation is to overthrow the Egyptian government and to replace it with an Islamic state. Ted Thornton says that Farraj wrote in a pamphlet; in this, he argued that apostates ruled Egypt and an apostate has to be killed. Farraj believed that these apostates or infidel leaders needed to be killed and replaced by an Islamic Order. Military.com says that the group split into two factions sometime in the late 80s. The old faction has receded in recent years due to many members arrest. The newer group, led by Al-Zawahiri, has merged with Al Qaeda.

Anthony Keats says that Egypt has long claimed that both Iran and Sudan provided assistance to al-Jihad. These countries have been accused of providing arms to al-Jihad. Financial ties have been linked to al Qaeda. It is believed that Osama bin Laden provided resources for al-Jihad. Also, Anthony Keats explains that many members of al-Jihad have trained at al Qaeda-financed Kunar and Khost terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Al-Jihad is believed to receive funds from non-governmental Islamic organizations, cover businesses and criminal acts.

The al-Jihad is known for many different incidents. They have carried out assassination attempts on the Egyptian Interior Minister Hassan al-Alfi and the Prime Minister Atef Sedky. Information from Gale Thomson supports that al-Jihad has been involved in the Luxor massacre that killed 62 people, 58 were western tourists and 4 were Egyptians. U.S. Embassies have also been bombed by al-Jihad. The assassination of President Sadat and the September 11th World Trade Center attacks are the most prominent incidents. The plan to assassinate Sadat was proposed to Farraj. Khalid al-Islambouli had been in command of the armored transport vehicle that would take part in the military parade. Some of the group leaders argued that the timing of the Sadat assassination was off and were against the idea. They believed they needed more time and members, though the council ultimately overruled objections. According to Salama and Bergoch, on October 6, 1981, as al-Islambouli’s vehicle approached Sadat’s reviewing stand, he and his accomplices opened fire and advanced toward the president. Killing Sadat had immense impact, though this was only one element in a larger strategy. The other part of the plan was to seize control of the Army’s operation room and the Central Security headquarters. Next, they were to gain control of the Radio, Television and Telephone Exchange buildings to communicate the beginning of an Islamic Revolution. The last part was to assault the city of Asyut in central Egypt. The uprising in Asyut did not occur on time and the government suppressed the attack.

After the split, Al-Jihad was greatly weakened. The original group was destroyed because most of the members were arrested. The newer group, lead by Ayman al-Zawahiri, became known as The Vanguards of Conquest. They still carried the name of al-Jihad but they used the other name as an alias. Jonathan White says that in 1998, Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) was absorbed into al Qaeda when Osama bin Laden announced that he was forming the World Islamic Front against Jews and Crusaders. At this point, al-Jihad was taken over by al Qaeda. Also, Jonathan White says the experiences of al-Jihad evolved al Qaeda into a more sophisticated international network. Due to this merger, al-Jihad is stronger then ever.


Works Cited: Keats, Anthony. In The Spotlight: Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad). Center for Defense Information. 1779 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036-2109. 2002. http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/aljihad.cfm

Military.com. Al Jihad (aka Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Al-Jihad, Al-Islami Al-Jihad, Islamic Jihad, Jihad Group). 2009. http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=AlJihad-Organization.htm

Salama, Sammy & Bergoch, John-Ryan. Special Section: Terrorist Attacks on America, Al-Jihad al-Islami. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies. 2008. http://cns.miis.edu/research/wtc01/aljihad.htm

Thomson, Gale. Al-Jihad. The Thomson Corporation. 2006. http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/exgi_0001_0001_0/exgi_0001_0001_0_00019.html

Thornton, Ted. History of the Middle East Database: Al-Jihad. 2007. http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/jihadorgan.php

White, Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA 2009.

Blog post 2: Crime for a cause

Crime is something that can be understood in many ways. A terrorist’s crime is done for a cause; while for the ordinary criminal it is usually a crime of opportunity. What separates the terrorist from the ordinary criminal is the cause. It is important for law enforcement to recognize the differences between typical criminal behavior and terrorism. If this can be achieved, prevention of crime and apprehension of criminals will be more successful. If they fail to recognize that the crime committed was something more than ordinary crime, they will miss the point of the investigation.

In cases of malicious destruction of property, law enforcement tends to classify it as ordinary crime. However, these cases could very well be something more. Let me use an example from Jonathan White. He tells a story of unlawful entries on farms. While there, the perpetrator destroys the cages and frees all the animals. The farmer comes out in the morning and sees the destruction, then, goes inside and calls the police. Is this really just an ordinary crime? The ordinary criminal would just destroy the cages and leave. But in this situation, we have someone that took the time to release the animals. Now, I will add in another piece of information. There is an animal rights group that has been upset about the caging of animals at farms. They believe that all animals should be free. With this information, it could be possible that the recent crime at that farm was part of a greater cause. This crime could very well be an attack by a terrorist.

Ordinary criminals are unfocused when it comes to the goals they have. They strike when the opportunity presents itself. There is little preparation because of the fact that everything is unplanned. They usually live in an underworld of crime but they very rarely are devoted to crime as a philosophy. When confronted with force, the criminal will run. When captured, this person will make deals to try and avoid punishment.

Terrorists, on the other hand, are completely different. According to Jonathan White, they find strength in a cause and the ideology or religion behind the cause. These people are supported by an organization that sends them on missions. They tend to work in teams or cells that work together to achieve a goal. The whole idea of being part of a greater cause is what fuels them to act. The targets that are chosen by terrorists are symbolic targets. The attack on these targets will be carefully planned. The terrorists will receive training to prepare them for the operation. They will rehearse the plan over and over to execute the attack without error. When confronted with force, terrorists tend to attack and die for their cause. They believe that they will become martyrs and strengthen the cause. If they are captured, they will rarely cooperate with law enforcement because they refuse to betray the cause they are dedicated too.

The ordinary criminal and the terrorist are two very different people. For me, it is important to understand how they are different. Because, if it this isn’t understood, law enforcement will assume that everything is just an ordinary crime. It is clear with the explanation I have given, that not all crime is just ordinary. Sometimes it can be part of something that is much bigger. If law enforcement always assumes that crime is done by your typical criminal, they will not capture the proper person that did the crime. As a result, law enforcement could even contribute to the problem because they aren’t going after the right person. While this is occurring, the terrorist will have free reign to commit more acts of terror; which can cost the lives of many people.

Here is an interesting article with a similar theme.

Works Cited: White. Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. 2009.

Blog Post 1: Terrorism

Terrorism is a subject that has been in the media a lot. Currently, it is still being reported on and the threat is great. Terrorism needs more attention for people to understand what it has become. Terrorists are more advanced in the technology they use and can strike from anywhere. The worldwide threat is very real. The reason for this is that it has become more scattered and as a result more dangerous. This link will give you an idea of the evolving nature of terrorism.

There are a great number of people who are affected by terrorism. Of course, this number can be small if the terrorist plans it that way. A lot of times terrorists will target things that will attract a large amount of media attention. Media attention gives them the ability to get their message out. It can also dramatize the struggle, which can provide support from sympathizers to their cause. The amount of people that can be affected could be in the thousands or many more. A good example is the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to the New York Times, this attack claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 people. Here is a quick link to the article.

Another area to talk about is the financial aspect of terrorism. Terrorism needs money and lots of it to function. Funding for terrorism is gained through many ways. According to Jonathan White, examples are: robbery, kidnapping, extortion, fraud, larceny, smuggling, drugs, forgery, counterfeiting, state-sponsorship, underground channels, organized crime and charities. Some of those should be startling for us to see. The most startling of these examples are government sponsorships and the possibility that money you have donated to charity could be supporting terrorism.

Attacks from terrorists have become more and more bold. The September 11, 2001 attacks should show you this. The reality of terrorism is that this problem will not go away. With advancements in technology terrorists will become more deadly. The most powerful weapon used by terrorists is probably the media. The media can be used to benefit their cause and doesn’t cost them anything. The future of terrorism is one that will continue to evolve and because of this it will become a greater threat. In order for us to combat terrorism we must also evolve and educate society on the severity of its threat.

Works Cited: White. Jonathan R. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. 2009.

New York Times: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/index.html

PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/front/view/1_hi.html