1. Citing class discussion and course readings, please critique the following passage: Our analysis suggests that democracies are more likely to be sensitive to the costs of terrorist attacks, to grant concessions to terrorists so as to limit future attacks, to be constrained in the ability to pursue a lengthy attritional campaign against an organization, but also to be under a greater pressure to do something
Terrorism as we know it is a tactic, a tactic used by marginalized and disenfranchised groups to attempt to claw back some of the rights that they have lost or to try and address grievances. Terrorists in this context use violence as a method of somehow getting either the population or more importantly the government and authorities to recognize their goals. Kydd and Walter argue that democracies are particularly vulnerable to terrorism especially because of the values which they value: openness, individual rights, a free media and public pressure make combating terrorism harder not easier. (Kydd and Walter 61-62)
One of the primary factors at which Kydd and Walter locate the difference between democracies and their ability to fight a long war of attrition against a terror group rests on the simple fact that democracies who are largely dependent on public support and opinion as the main attributes of their regime type make it seem plain that they would “more likely to be sensitive to the costs of terrorist attacks, to grant concessions to terrorists so as to limit future attacks, to be constrained in their ability to pursue a lengthy attritional campaign against an organization.” (Kydd and Walter 80) While on the other hand also being under more public pressure to combat terrorism. This may be why terrorist organizations have chosen to target democratic regimes largely because they are particularly vulnerable to being shaken by the act of terrorism. Democracies are built on responsive institutions they usually react to threats or demands both internal and external, violent and non-violent. In this framework terrorism is nothing more than another set of pressures put upon the government to which they are forced to respond and that is why they are easier targets. They are designed to be “weak” which is to say constrained by political pressures and the very nature of the regime type.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the statement below. Be sure to cite readings and class discussion to support your answer. Understanding how terrorists assess the effectiveness of suicide terrorism should also be influenced by our prior understanding of the fanatical nature of the specific terrorists at issue
According to the literature there is no evidence that the fanaticism of the terrorist groups who undertake suicide attacks are not at issue. Suicide attacks just like any other action taken by a group that has specific political goals should first of all seen as rational and logical. This may at first glance seem illogical or counterintuitive but Pape in his article “The Strategic Logic of Terrorism” argues just that.
Viewed from the perspective of the terrorist organization, suicide attacks are designed to achieve political purposes: to coerce a target government to change policy, to mobilize additional recruit and financial support, or both. Crenshaw has shown that terrorism is best understood in terms of its strategic function; the same is true for suicide terrorism. (Pape 344)
This action may be called the “rationality of irrationality” and it serves an important function. It works to display to the populations and policymakers in democratic countries that groups performing suicide attacks are indeed “credible threats.” (Paper 344)
The purpose of terrorist attacks has been shown to have direct political motivations and they are undertaken by groups who have a defined strategic goal. They look irrational and fanatical but as a matter of fact terrorist groups much like states and organizations are rational actors and they are drawn to suicide terrorism because it likely seems to be a more effective strategy of coercion than any other at their disposal. (Pape 350)
3. Do you believe that the citizen rights and foreign intelligence trade off can assured by judiciary review? Be sure to explain your answer citing course readings and class discussion.
One of the most important questions when dealing with the intelligence collection both at home and abroad is trying to balance the value of secrecy and oversight of intelligence on society. This question also extends to trying to answer the question of how supposedly open and responsive governments should deal with how the privacy of its citizens should be balanced with the imperative of both domestic and foreign intelligence gathering. Although there are examples to be followed such as the case of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Courts before 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act was a promising case of balancing civil rights and intelligence activities.
This balancing of openness and secrecy is something that all democratic governments must deal with while trying to live up to the values of “debate, review, discussion, and response” while being to gather, analyze and deploy intelligence without jeopardizing how it is collected and maintaining its secrecy. (Parker and Pate 51) This is what Parker and Pate call the “paradox of foreign intelligence oversight” and is something that United States has particularly struggled with especially since the September 11, 2001 and the implementation of the Patriot Act. (Parker and Pate 51) Although there have been examples of actually dealing with this issue as well as it refers to a problem of civil liberties.
One good example of how to deal with problem of oversight, transparency and respect for civil liberties concerning intelligence gathering and surveillance was the creation of the FISA courts that gave the judiciary branch the power to deal with the question of foreign surveillance and privacy of US citizens.. The FISA courts worked very well within the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and from “1978 through September 2001, it worked well and was rarely the subject of controversy.” The FISA court system is proof how the judiciary oversight can prove to be quite effective in controlling and curbing the use of invasive techniques on domestic targets for the collection of foreign intelligence. (Parker and Pate 63)
While the question of balancing liberty and security will always play heavily on how democracies deal with the question of how they collect intelligence it seems that judicial oversight seems to be one of the best ways to deal with this problem. The courts are impartial and mostly apolitical, not beholden to public pressure, so they will more likely err on the side of evenness which should be to curb the power of intelligence organizations to undertake surveillance unabated.
4. Do you believe there is a conflict between international human rights law and effectively prosecuting terrorists? If yes, be able to point to specific provisions of international law (the Convention Against Torture, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, etc) that are inappropriate when dealing with terrorists.
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 the United States and its allies have been fighting a so-called Global War on Terror. In the prosecution of this so-called global “war” advanced Western democracies have shed their steadfast beliefs in human rights and a regime of international law that they themselves created in order to fight an amorphous and indefinite enemy. The United States in the aftermath of 9/11 have completely shed the illusion that terrorism should be treated as a law enforcement issue, they have resorted to calling even US citizens “enemy combatant” and stripped them of their constitutional rights. Furthermore, they have argued for torture which is a clear violation of international law.
The United States in the course of the Global War on Terror chose to use a particular method which Luban calls a “hybrid war-law approach.” This approach allows for forces to use lethal forces, the incidence of collateral damage and the “foreseen but unintended killing of non-combatants is permissible.” (Luban 9) Third and finally the burden of proof in war is much lower than in the law and allows for more expedient dealing with certain threats. (Luban 9)
The United States also came up with a new method of skirting the Geneva Conventions in fighting the terrorist threat. They came up with a new category called “enemy combatants” because they do not belong to any single commander, nation or wear uniform. (Luban 11) this distinction allows for those who are captured to not be treated as prisoners of war and the Geneva Conventions and the many protections it affords to POW can be circumvented. One of the salient point regarding how regard for human rights has decreased during the Global War on Terror is the accepted use of torture by the United States, other advanced democracies and their willingness to use so-called “black sites” and extraordinary rendition in the sake of “expediency” and in blatant disregard for the Convention against Torture. (Luban 13)
5. Should terrorism be defined through legislative prescription or through judicial development? Be sure to cite readings and class discussion to support your answer
Defining terrorism is not an easy task for governments. There are a lot of variables which they must keep in mind while trying to come up with a single final definition. Although in the above page David Luban argues that the United States in fighting al-Qaeda and terrorism had gone away from a law enforcement approach to the problem that is partly incorrect. The act of terrorism is in fact a crime and something that has been defined by the US Congress. It is a matter of fact that the legislative branch has the power to define laws and in this case define what terrorism is and is not. In contrast, the judiciary does not define anything but instead investigate an issue to try and see which party is in the right. The courts do have a role to play in negotiating any of the mistakes made by the other two branches of government through judicial review. Terrorism is an ever evolving problem and something that is best dealt with by the legislative branch and its much less deliberative nature.
Governments can’t hope to fight a crime that has no definition or keeps changing definition and that is ultimately why laws and legislative prescription is ultimately the best way to deal with terrorism and outlining a cogent strategy to combat it. This is was the path taken after 9/11 with the passage of the Patriot Act and has as far as we can tell been a very effective at keeping us safe from other terrorist attacks in the 15 years since.
Works Cited
Parker, Elizabeth Rindskop, and Bryan Pate “Rethinking Judicial Oversight of Intelligence” in Bruneau, Thomas C., and Steven C. Boraz. Reforming Intelligence: obstacles to democratic control and effectiveness. University of Texas Press, 2007.
Kydd, Andrew H., and Barbara F. Walter. "The strategies of terrorism."International Security 31.1 (2006): 49-80.
Luban, David. "The war on terrorism and the end of human rights." (2002).
Pape, Robert A. "The strategic logic of suicide terrorism." American political science review 97.03 (2003): 343-361.
