What is terrorism? Is there such a thing as a 'just cause?' (Blog #4)
Based on your research and our webquest, answer the above questions. You should also reflect on the process of reaching a definition and how such definitions are applied. What other questions arise based on your work or our discussions?
Additional Questions (You need not respond to all of these, but should consider them as we explore this topic?
- How do we respond to terrorist acts?
- To what extent should we act to prevent terrorism?
- Is torture at times acceptable?
- Do we have to rethink the manner in which we view civil liberties to successfully fight terrorism?
- Should terrorist be afforded rights?
- Is collateral damage a necessary byproduct of the war on terror?
- How should we deal with states that sponsor terrorism?
Can YOU think of additional questions?
3 comments:
As I briefly mentioned in response to the webquest, “terrorism” means vastly different things to different people. For instance, I might consider the 1940 London Blitz to be an act of terrorism, while another person might consider the same event to be an act of war, which in the eyes of society is generally acceptable, if regrettable. Terrorism, then, defies an objective definition because it is per se a highly subjective term. (Here, it should be noted that though I realize that a very lengthy essay could be written exclusively about the definition of terrorism, I will omit numerous points for the sake of brevity and so that I can address the other questions presented in this blog.) Accordingly, I have developed a subjective definition, whether that be an oxymoron or not, for a subjective term. Terrorism, I propose, is best defined from an individual standpoint: it involves an action performed by a person or group of people of whom the individual seriously disapproves. The action must have a long-term effect not only on the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s) but also on society.
Clearly, mine is a broad definition that, while not terribly helpful in the political or diplomatic areas, allows for the differing opinions that characterize individuals and make the interaction between people so interesting and dynamic. Thus, returning to my previous example, a pacifist who “disapproves” of those who wage war could view the Blitz as an act of terrorism, while another person who does not so roundly condemn war could accept the act as one of war. (It is worth noting my use of the word “could” rather than “would,” which implies that the final labeling of an act as terrorism also lies with the individual. That is, even an act that meets the criteria of my definition as an act of terrorism need not be one if the individual’s judgment determines otherwise.)
Much as I am tempted to write more about the definition of terrorism, I should move on. On the question of a “just cause,” I deny that any can possibly exist for terrorism. It is well and good for a person to have a goal, including a goal that involves spreading an ideology or religion, but the decisions for how to achieve that goal lies with that person, and performing acts of terror is not an appropriate choice. People who resort to violence and terror to further their own aims effectively revoke their claim to any acceptable cause.
Increasingly, the debate is shifting to the proper ways of responding to and combating terrorism. The “natural” response is perhaps the desire for retribution, for causing the perpetrators as much suffering as they have caused their victims. From this motive arise wars against terrorism, widespread suspicion and investigation, followed by severe or cruel treatment of terrorist suspects, and “security” measures that contradict promises and laws. Unfortunately, it is not until after these measures have been enacted that people around the world begin to criticize, to question the effectiveness, validity, and humanity of the response.
Since I possess a reasonably sound mind, I do not approve of terrorism or anyone who accepts or condones terrorism. But neither do I have any praise for governments and other organizations that seek to combat terrorism with acts that could in themselves be terrorism. A prominent example is the use of torture. I have, I think, exasperated several people by my vehement objection and condemnation of torture and most things associated with it. But I cannot be the only one who believes that torture is never acceptable, that nothing can even begin to justify its use. Indeed, the United Nations explicitly upholds that torture is in all cases prohibited. Specifically, this is a creed to which the United States subscribes. President Bush has stated that he and all that he represents “do not condone torture.” The State Department has issued public affirmations that no one under its supervision is permitted to use torture, and that any who do face prosecution. Yet the UN Committee Against Torture finds it necessary to submit a list of “concerns and recommendations” to the United States that, if put into effect, would eliminate the use of torture and close overseas prisons, including secret facilities and Guantanamo. In other words, the U.S. government continues to break its pledges and its laws in the name of combating terrorism, in the name of “homeland security.” If the United States is truly dedicated to its ideals—democracy, liberty, civil rights—it should stand above terrorism, not stoop to its level.
Too much to say, not enough time or room to say it. I will leave with the assertion that terrorism is best combated within the humane bounds already set. If these bounds need reform, then they should be reinforced, not weakened, not riddled with loopholes that provide an excuse for hypocrisy. Terrorism above all seeks to disturb the status quo and to instill chaos and fear in society. To change the meaning of civil liberties and human rights solely for the sake of terrorism is in fact to help the terrorists accomplish their goals. If authorities have said a thousand times—even though one time should be enough—that all people are equal and are entitled to natural rights, then they must do as they say. Otherwise, their words are empty, and they risk breaking the trust placed in them.
Terrorism is a word that is very often used but never fully understood. Philosophers and everyday people alike search for a universal definition of terrorism that may help people understand the logistics behind it and be able to catalog events under the definition.
Often people, whether it be regular citizens or World leaders associate terrorism with a certain religion. Whether it be Islam, as Americans commonly associate it with, or the Irish, who the British associate with Terrorism is still difficult to define.
A hard part about the definition of terrorism is the fact that it is hard to say that the act of terrorism is only acted upon unsuspecting civilians. It is seen in Iraq that this is untrue, where terrorists car-bomb military checkpoints and plant roadside bombs where soldiers will obviously walk by. This, with terrorism, is paired into the same category as a train full of civilians in Israel which is blown up. So do we define terrorism by not distinguishing soldiers and civilians?
I do not believe that there is a just cause for secret attacks against unsuspecting people. This can be compared to walking behind someone on the street that you do not like and hitting them on the head over with a baseball bat. In real life, you don't do that. You confront situations head to head and do not take an easy way out and attack someone without their knowledge. Throughout history we have seen declarations of war and we scold countries which attack without going through the proper diplomatic procedures.
I do think that torture is acceptable when immediate knowledge is necessary. If we had someone in custody prior to the 9/11 attacks that we knew had knowledge but we didn't perform torture to make that person talk then we would be doing all the people in the World Trade Centers an injustice along with the rest of the American population. We should go through any steps necessary to ensure our safety even if it involves minor torture.
In all, we can see that there are some clear steps that must be taken in defining the act of terrorism. But I do not believe that we will ever come to a consensus because of all the different opinions on the subject matter. Maybe one day, we will not have to define the act of terrorism because it will become obsolete.
Terrorism is used very frequently among the population, especially more recently; however, the concept of terrorism is never fully understood and realized in every day life. Terrorism is and use of violence by a person or group against people or property; usually when trying to intimidate societies or governments into certain agreements.
Terrorist’s claim they carry out plots for political reasons and so on, but it is evident that there is never a good enough reason to violate the rights of other human beings by inducing terror in them. Terrorism in Europe has been an issue standing much longer than in the United States. It wasn’t until 9/11 that terrorism was really realized by the media and the general population. There is no doubt that terrorism claims the lives of countless innocent people, but we should not be fighting fire with fire.
Terrorism alone may not achieve its goal directly, but, like in the case of 9/11, it can indirectly have an effect. The United States has gone to “war” in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last six years because of the attacks on 9/11. We have used military force and violence to intimidate the terrorists into giving up their fight and letting democracy take effect. This sounds a lot like the definition of terrorism. So we can now realize that terrorist is a title that the general population gives a person or group who is being radical and using violence to go against the standing government. Once enough people agree with the terrorists, it is no longer considered terrorism. Enough people agree that the U.S. is right in taking military action in places like Iraq, that it is not considered terrorism, but rather a fight against terrorism, which, by definition, is an oxymoron in itself.
So is terrorism right? Should violence be used to coerce other people into believing what you believe? History shows us many examples around the world that support both sides. It is impossible to ever justify terrorism, but it is still one of society’s biggest issues and should be looked at seriously and unbiased to determine the reasons behind terrorist actions, and to further prevent future terrorism.
Post a Comment