Terrorism Defined

Ever since the specter of terrorism mounted over New York City on 11 September 2001, Americans have developed a keen sensitivity to non-governmental factions that may threaten national security. With the war in Afghanistan coming through its last phases of engagement, the so-called "War on Terror" is supposedly coming to an end with the majority of American troops set to leave this rocky Middle Eastern nation by the end of 2014. Important questions concerning the nature of terror itself, however, still remain in effect. What are the qualities of a terrorist? How do we know when we have won against them? Perhaps most importantly, who exactly are the terrorists? Various political factions, scholars, and media struggle to agree upon a singular definition for terrorism itself. One must work to grasp the nuances implied in different points of view as each has its underlying motives. In endeavoring to understand terrorism as it shapes American society, its implications will allow a more realistic viewpoint for future policy.

It seemed as if the "War on Terror," the phrase so famously coined by President Bush in his State of the Union Address in the weeks following the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, was to have a definite beginning and end. Americans were touched by the outreach of support from around the world in the aftermath of heinous acts and expected a conclusion that would "bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies." After the President announced the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom from the USS Abraham Lincoln on 2 May 2003, many Americans assumed that the war on terror had reached its just end—mission accomplished. Terrorism fostered the existence of extremist religious points of view that sought to quash the American dream and take away God-given freedoms. President Bush perhaps captured the sentiment of the American people best in his famous post-9 /11 address: "terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life . . . They hate our freedoms—our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Today, Americans recognize this and more. Terrorism will continue to threaten Western civilization, and, as shown in the viewpoints of some of the brightest minds of this generation, joins people in unity in spite of its disorganization.

Jonathan White has dedicated years of his life to consulting law enforcement agencies and military groups. His perspective on terrorism considers candidates obvious to the American perspective such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas but also searches for a more intrinsic understanding of the word that reflects its elusive nature. In spite of disagreements, White contends that terrorism always serves as a pejorative description of offending parties driven to violent action, most often invoked in times of peace unexpectedly interrupted by brutality. He also quotes some classic authorities who have sought to simply define it as in the viewpoints of Walter Laqueur: "terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent people." This facile viewpoint, while concise and direct, leaves much to be desired.

Labeled as terrorists to some people, to other groups, extremist violence fights in the cause of licit grievances. In the case of Hezbollah, some people view them as a legitimate militant organization fighting against the Israeli Defense Force. Israel routinely invades Lebanese air space, and, due to its status as an unrecognized state, commits acts of terrorism that run against Shi'ite Muslim interests in the region. It appears that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed, when accepted at face value, the nature of the legitimate and illegitimate remains a convenient question of perspective. More academic ideologues such as Alex Schmid seek to combine multiple viewpoints culminating in an expression of the abstract. His argument ultimately has earned the approval of the United Nations. After compiling a myriad of empirical evidence identifying twenty-two features of terrorism, Schmid argues that terrorism exists in the world of ideas and symbolic gestures that incite fear and intimidation in people. Whatever the definition, terrorism will shift dramatically in the viewpoints of the following groups.

One of the most important issues posed by White concerns the challenge of criminal justice and national security. The United States Department of Justice views terrorism as a fight against crime and willfully avoids defining the term. Instead, terrorism is simply viewed as a movement that conflicts with American interests worthy of definition on the basis of pragmatism rather than ideology. The Department of Homeland Security, created by President Bush in the aftermath of 9 / 11, takes on the role of an agency dedicated to national security. Their most important directive focuses on the prevention of terrorist attacks, the unauthorized transport of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials within American borders, and securing important infrastructure components and essential human resources within the nation. As such, the two departments seem to pose a unified front in the fight against terrorism.

The conflict lies in defining how these state-recognized terrorists should be pursued, especially when targeted within the borders of the country. In most internal affairs, matters of criminal justice concern law enforcement agencies. However, when the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee proposes the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act that bans military use for law enforcement, it becomes clear that the government is increasingly preferring methods that view terrorism as an act of war even when the enemy is not a clearly defined state. Ultimately, the government has already recognized that political states no longer have a monopoly on war acts; foreign terrorist groups may integrate into society with the intention of creating violent symbolic acts towards citizens—the defense against such actions has already been relegated to war powers. If the government views criminal justice as a means by which to fight terrorism within its borders on the basis of pragmatism as outlined by Attorney General Holder, terrorism defense should exist solely within the realm of law enforcement. After 9 / 11, however, it appears few politicians are willing to take that risk.

American forces make a broad definition of terrorism and resort to any means necessary by which to defend against it. The result creates a situation where the liberty of citizens becomes endangered. One need look no further than the revelations published by former National Security Administration contractor Edward Snowden. In interviews with Snowden following the revelations, he stated that his motives lay not in hurting people, but calling for greater transparency in the face a rapidly growing war on terrorism: "I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building." Perhaps, the most disappointing aspect of the entire scandal lies in a quick discovery of the difficulty of obtaining Snowden's leaked information. The Internet lies full of news of its publication, but the true knowledge of what was published seems deliberately obscured. As the American people expect clarity and the ability to act as they please, the federal government implements surveillance programs to monitor their actions in the relentless fight against terrorism.

Different groups struggle to arrive at a consensus in defining terrorism because there is so much emotion tied up into the word. Only through a broad understanding of peace and war can one come to a clear understanding of how terrorism functions in society. White describes a spectrum of conflict where no true state of peace exists but only relative implementations of war. Beginning with "normative social conflict," tensions escalate through "civil conflict, low-level criminal behavior, normal crime, organized crime, gang violence, criminal networks, rioting, disruption, [and] civil disorders." Just at the edge of the spectrum between peace and war, White places terrorism—it is here that the problem exists. The destructive power that lies in the hands of single individuals, coupled with the disseminating power of the media for relating ideas, is simply too great to be left to civil means of restriction thereby creating an all-out war on terror.

Although it may have at one point been viewed as an act on the state as outlined in the policies of President Bush, terrorism lies at the fringes of civil disorder. By any means necessary, terrorism seems worthy of repression. As the individuals threatened by it ultimately define it, the means by which it may be pursued are growing broader as the American Justice System seeks ways to protect its citizens against this shifting apparition of hate.

Bibliography

Bush, George. "Text of George Bush's Speech." theguardian.com. http://www.theguardian.com /world/2001/sep/21/september11.usa13 (accessed March 5, 2014).

Greenwald, Glenn, Ewen McAskill, and Laura Poitras. "Edward Snowden: The Whistleblower Behind the NSA Surveillance Revelations." World News Daily. https://www. chebayadkard.com/uploadfile/english-article574.pdf (accessed March 6, 2014).

Holder, Eric. "The Criminal Justice System as a Counterterrorism Tool: A Fact Sheet." Justice Blog. http://blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/541 (accessed March 6, 2014).

Johnson, Jeh. "Homeland Security." Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security. http://www.dhs.gov/prevent-terrorism-and-enhance-security (accessed March 6, 2014).

Terwilliger, George, Theodore Cooperstein, Shawn Gunnarson, Daniel Blumenthal, and Robert Parker. "The War on Terrorism: Law Enforcement or National Security? » Publications » The Federalist Society." The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-war-on-terrorism-law-enforcement-or-national-security (accessed March 6, 2014).

White, Jonathan Randall. Terrorism and homeland security. 5th ed. Australia: Thomson Wadsworth, 2006.