While fighting the war against terrorism, though it may be challenging, societies should place the utmost value upon human rights even if that means undermining one’s counter terrorism policy. Along with a terrorist attack comes prejudice and discrimination towards those of similar nationality or religion as the attackers out of fear of another attack. A challenge for liberal democracies such as Canada is creating an effective policy in order to constrain potential terrorist attacks that is also abiding one’s individual rights that come as a part of residing in a democratic society. Difficulty comes when one is suspected of terrorism and is detained without charge. Being held without charge, specifically in Canada, violates one’s right to not be arbitrarily detained. As well, one has the right to be informed of what they are being charged for, as well as being released if the detention is unlawful (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982). Within national policies, it is unclear if abiding ones individual rights outweighs the potential of a possible terrorist attack. There is a fine distinction between reasonable measures of terrorist prevention and discrimination of certain groups of people, and that fine line has yet to be democratically agreed upon. Not only is it a challenge in the ways which a state would approach the prevention of a potential terrorist attack, but also the concept of terrorism is an extremely difficult term to define universally.
Before the upsurge of counter terrorism measures after the bombings of 9/11, a 1984 New York Times article defined terrorism as attacks of a political nature that were not harming political figures themselves, but civilians that have no connection with political conflict of an...
... middle of paper ...
...(2006, Oct 25). Anti-terror law suffers new setback: Definition of terrorism violates charter: Judge. National Post. Retrieved from
Masilamani, L. (2013). Readings for political science 100. (2 ed., p. 67). Boston, MA: Pearson. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/docview/330657363?accountid=13800 Opoku, E. B. (2011). Human rights violations under the guise of counter-terrorism measures: A question of reconciling security concerns and protecting the fundamental right to life.
(Order No. MR77065, Queen's University (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 142. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/docview/1008917223?accountid=13800
Rubin, A. P. (1984, Jul 28). A definition that fits terrorism anywhere. New York Times (1923-Current
File). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/docview/122496308?accountid=13800
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
Within the world today, there are many organizations with varying opinions about specific ideals. But some of the organizations will take things to the extreme, and will do almost anything to prove that their view is the right one. This extreme act to further an objective is known as terrorism, but what exactly is a formal definition of terrorism? Frank Schmalleger defines it as “[a] violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state, that is committed to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (Criminal Justice Today, 2013 p.560). The American way of life and other aspects such as policy and the criminal justice system have been impacted by terrorism in many ways over the course of the twenty first century.
Finding a proper, well-accepted definition of what constitutes terror is extremely difficult. There are many challenges that confront scholars, experts, and everyday people when it comes to defining terrorism and terrorists. Differing backgrounds and cultures of those defining terror in addition to differing histories are just one of the many challenges facing those that wish to define terror. Furthermore, labeling a group or an individual as a terrorist could be considered offensive, especially in today’s politically correct environment, potentially damaging those in the political arena. However, on the flip side, labeling someone as a terrorist can also serve a political purpose as in the case of being propaganda towards a war effort, or to help define an enemy. Nevertheless, the main problem with not being able to have a widely accepted definition of terrorism is that “It is impossible to formulate or enforce international agreements against terrorism” (Ganor, 300).
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal” (“Terrorism”). Terrorism is a problem that all countries should be concerned with. Canada has been one of the countries that are concerned with the safety of people against terrorist attacks. Canada is very concerned with the issue of terrorism, it has a very specific position of counter-terrorism, it believes that violent extremists are the leading cause of terrorism, it has ways that the international community should respond, and it is willing to contribute to make the problem of terrorism end.
Lawless, M. (2008, October 8). Terrorism: An International Crime. Retrieved from Canadaian Military Journal: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no2/05-lawless-eng.asp
Herman, E. & Sullivan, G. O.1989. The Terrorism Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of Terror. New York: Pantheon.
What is “terrorism”? Terrorism is a hotly contested term that is subjected to the reader’s political alignments. Most readers can agree that “terrorism” is a form of political action through violence that seeks to instill fear into a population, but defining “terrorism” becomes more complicated when being applied to groups and organizations. Lisa Stampnitzky’s “Can Terrorism Be Defined?” addresses this issue by drawing three important questions from the difficulty of defining “terrorism”: first, who is the enemy? Second, when is violence legitimate? Third, what is political? These three questions are instrumental in understanding terrorism while also understanding why certain groups are labeled terrorists and why others are not. This bias of
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
Categorical terrorism, according to Jeff Goodwin, is defined as “the strategic use of violence and threats of violence, usually intended to influence several audiences, by oppositional political groups against civilian or noncombatants who belong to a specific entity, religious or national group, social class or some other collectivity, without regard to their individual identities or roles.” More so, in terms of definition, according to a study done by Jeffrey Record in 2003, there was a count of over 109 definitions of terrorism, covering 22 different categorical elements. During the 70s and 80s, the United Nations struggled to define the term, finally coming up with the following definition: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
Defining terrorism has remained a highly contentious terrain with even International organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations finding it extremely difficult to build and develop a consensus upon .But different scholars have attempted to define this concept:
In Chapter 1 of “Inside Terrorism” political analyst Bruce Hoffman, explains that the term “terrorism” has undergone numerous definitions over the course of history, starting with the French Revolution of 1789-94. Hoffman explains that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, terrorism can be defined basically as an act or policy enacted by a government to strike fear into those against whom the act is against, to coerce them into submission to the policies of the government. He also explains that a more helpful definition, that of a terrorist, rather than the act of terrorism, provides a better way of defining terrorism. He also explains that the term terrorist is more of a political term than a specific action. (Hoffman 2006) Sociologist Charles Tilly also mentions the French Revolution as the earliest reference to the term of terrorism. They also agree that these early references to terrorism was primarily carried out by governments as a means of oppressing those who would revolt against them. (Tilly 2004) Both authors also agree that although the roots of the term terrorist began during the late 1789s. The concept as well as the definition of terrorism has changed over time, particularly in recent years since Sept. 11, 2001. As the definition of terrorism has changed over the years, so have the methods of dealing with
The quest to establish a universal definition of terrorism is entangled in questions of law, history, philosophy, morality, and religion by nature, a subjective one that eludes large-scale consensus. Terrorism is defined differently by different countries, nations and even department’s federal or state law enforcement. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (NIJ).
Terrorism definitions are difficult to solidify mainly because of the overwhelming differences in perspectives. After review of 18 U.S. Code § 2331 certain dialect and shared commonalities have led to my own definition of terrorism which I define as; any activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of criminal laws enacted by a sovereign region, for the purpose of policy change or gains through implementation of fear, directed towards non-participating entities. Tony Duheaume a critic and author which has spent over forty years following political and civil events in the Middle East, depicts events from his article, “Understanding Hezbollah’s history as a ‘proxy of Iran’” from the Al Arabiya English website concerning acts of terrorism which Hezbollah has claimed responsibility
There have been a number of major developments in terrorism from the 1970s; elements that are considered different to those that once characterised ‘traditional’ terrorism now have a significant presence in modern terrorism. However, these developments are reflections of our changing world and society, and do not justify identifying that a ‘new terrorism’ has emerged since the late 1980s.
As a member of the US Navy and a servant to the armed forces of the US, the past four or five months have been almost heartbreaking as I have watched the world take shots at the domination of US foreign policy. To think about the US Military as a potential or even acting terrorist makes me sick as I believe that I am serving to protect ideals such as freedom and democracy. However, there are many that look to the red, white and blue of the Americas as an aggressor against world peace and not as a linch-pin in the search for the global sustainment of order. This idea of aggression can be backed up by many examples, however, I would like to take this time to try and point out the good that comes from military intervention and disregard, just for a minute, the inability of the US to respect global sovereignty of various nations. It is through this explanation of service to the world in which I will defend myself as I try desperately to defend my nation.