Definition, Association, and the Concepts Surrounding Terrorism - Essay Example

English Terrorism Introduction Terrorism had caused great dilemma to mankind. It has been rampant in the news recently. When onehears of the word “terrorism”, several things would come into one’s mind. One may think of Osama Bin Laden upon hearing the term for he is considered as one of the notorious terrorist of all time and many people believe that he was the one who fueled up acts of terrorism in any part of the globe. His infamous act of terrorism has also been one of the most tragic and heart-breaking incident that marked the pages of world history and that is, the 9/11 attack, which is considered as one of the apparent examples of terrorism. Terrorism has also been associated to a variety of terminologies so as to give individuals a picture of what it is. Others linked it with civil disobedience while others label it as acts of violence. However, experts claimed that these three are very different terms from each other but in as much as one wished to gain adequate understanding of the word “terrorism”, it is crucial also to obtain insight about the other two terms often connected with it. Civil disobedience is deemed acceptable by many deliberative democrats as long as it remains relevantly tied to the objective of communicative action (Allen 15). However, Allen also emphasized that certain kinds of terrorism cannot be ruled out either (15). On the other hand, an individual must acknowledge that the deliberative democrat will not really be able to justify taking life as a maneuver for the reason that dead people cannot deliberate (Allen 15). Allen highlighted that this does not rule out terrorism per se, the object of which is not death so much as to bringing about fear, anxiety and trauma (Allen 15). Moreover, while a persistent circumstance of fear would set the boundaries on forethought, restricted and transitory physical harm to individuals need not (Allen 15). For this instance, it entails that deliberative democrats must elucidate why purposely causing some physical harm to property or person is constantly an illicit and unlawful means of communication and demonstration (Allen 15). This paper endeavors to explore the concepts associated with terrorism and to tackle the impacts brought about by such circumstance. Definition, Association and the Concepts surrounding Terrorism Terrorism had always been synonymous to threat, intimidation, trauma and destruction. Individuals express anxiety whenever such term is brought up. Defining exactly what terrorism is proves to be a rather daunting task. One must also learn and understand to grasp the essence of the other terms connected with it to be able to fully obtain a clear insight about what this is as guided by certain propositions of expert and the law. Civil Disobedience is one of the terms confused with terrorism for the reason that some governments might label such acts as form of terrorism even though for the ones doing it, their main objective was only to find a means for their voices to be heard and for their standpoints to be given attention. Civil Disobedience is a tactic that is hard to reconcile neatly with persuasion and communication as stressed by Allen (15). Indeed, many deliberative democrats are willing to concede that civil disobedience contains some irreducible elements of threat and intimidation (Allen 15-16). Nevertheless, the deliberative democrats still supposed that it can still be accommodated within the conceptual orbit of deliberative democracy, and the priority that it gives to legitimate actions through public communication (Allen 16). Conversely, terrorism is a position that deliberative democrats extensively believe to be in every respect incompatible with their fundamental theoretical commitments (Allen 16). Terrorist acts, which scale up from non-violent illegal protest to the violent annihilation of property or lives, truly say the opposite with the deliberative ideal of justification through non-coercive public communication (Allen 16). In the case of civil disobedience, however, threat and intimidation is thought to remain relevantly tied to the ideal of communication but terrorist acts can also be interpreted as encompassing distinct semantic components as both public and communicative (Allen 16). Nevertheless, it is supposed that terrorism cannot be entirely ruled out by deliberative democrats but simultaneously, there can be no straightforward backing of terrorism by deliberative democrats, even when the term terrorism is defined in a neutral way that rejects the uncomplimentary assumption of gratuitous and capricious hostility (Allen 16). Indeed, scrutinizing deliberative democracy against the occurrence of terrorism pushes the limits of deliberative democracy beyond the steadfastness of civil disobedient persons to non-violence (Allen 16). On the contrary, the type of terrorism cannot be effortlessly reconciled with the allegiance of deliberative democrats to treating all persons as free and equal dialogical partners, who are proficient of formulating allegations in ongoing deliberative processes (Allen 16). If compulsion crosses the limitations set by the criterion of non-violence, then it has to do so in a way that continues to honor the deliberative democratic devotion to the freedom and equality of speakers in a public communicative forum (Allen 16). Thus, this necessitates a balancing act that may well be extraordinarily complex to perform in practice while not in principle impossible to fulfill (Allen 16). Every anti-terrorism measure suggested by government leaders tests the fine line between fighting terrorism and denying basic liberties (CATO Institute 1). The majority of measures offered by well-meaning legislators that have been going on would do little or nothing to stop or deter terrorism (CATO Institute 1). It is unlikely to exactly pinpoint what could have avoided terrorism acts in the past such as the World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Amtrak derailment in Arizona or even the Unabomber; in fact, such measures cheerfully and without apology to do more to crack down on average Americans than on terrorists (CATO Institute 1). Acts of violence are not automatically terrorist acts, no matter how much legislation regulates them and how much technology is at law enforcement’s directive; no one can deter or stop a psychotic predator from formulating or perpetrating an act of violence (CATO Institute 1). The fear of terrorism and the trauma brought about by it often poses that extreme measures are done so as to avoid the occurrence of another terrorist attack. However, this does not necessitate that the enforcement of the law may intrude into any citizen’s private life and no protestations of good intentions in pursuit of security must be permitted to increase the limits of government power (CATO Institute 1). In evaluating new laws, Wizner suggested that the principle should be “safe but free” and he offered two simple but direct ways to judge the new security measures (Thorson 1). First, “Will this law make us safer?” and second, “Even if it will makes us safer, is it worth it?” and an obvious example cited is the wiretapping done to eavesdrop on Mosques which necessitates justification why certain Mosques were investigated while others are not (Thorson 1). It was also highlighted that with this, it is even more difficult to argue that “total information awareness” is worth it; thus, “it seems more likely that hundreds of innocent people will be become suspects” (Thorson 1). Lastly, it was highlighted that terrorism is a war of unknown duration against unnamed foes (Thorson 1). The Impacts of Terrorism Terrorist attacks stimulated a variety of outcomes that provoked widespread society awareness. Criticisms of present laws arise and several emotions have developed because of the occurrence of terrorist acts. The United States Supreme Court responded slowly to the constitutional questions stimulated by post-September 11, 2001 anti-terror strategies hence, many inquiries were still left unanswered (Poscher 1). Certain issues left unexplored include the absence of rulings on the “special treatment” of detainees in the fight against terrorism, and the nonexistence of decisions on wiretapping issues or other surveillance questions (Poscher 1). Moreover, there seems to be a conflict with the Court decisions and the standpoint of the individuals as provoked by the people’s trauma on the 9/11 Terrorist attack on the World Trade Center for in the case of Guantanamo detainees who were deemed as terrorists wherein the writ of habeas corpus was imposed, the decision was opposed and the justices supporting the ruling were accused of contributing to the killing of the Americans (Poscher 1; Perkins 437-471). The task of setting constitutional limits to legislative and administrative anti-terror measures is not only politically delicate but doctrinally demanding (Poscher 1). In contrast with the background attacks like the ones on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the fear of even more monstrous attacks with biological or nuclear weapons supposed that many constitutional standards become elusive (Poscher 1). Americans specifically the New Yorkers have waited for the “closure” of the 9/11 attack and it was achieved nearly ten years for the news of Osama Bin Laden’s death, the mastermind of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (Greenwald 1). The news “was hoped to at least bring some measures of closure and comfort to all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001” as stated by the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Greenwald 1). Moreover, due to the terrorist attacks, three intertwined accomplishments have proven to be the dispositive features of American success in the war against terrorism: formulating the Freedom Agenda, reversing the course of war in Iraq and establishing a national-security apparatus to foil multiple terrorist attacks which has been considered as the most controversial foreign policies that the United States of America has implemented since the Vietnam War (Greenwald 1). Studies were also conducted to gain a better understanding of attitudes toward restrictive political measures that were issued in the aftermath of September 11 and thus to the understanding of psychological underpinnings of threats to democracy showing that although feelings of threat from terrorism did not eventually lead to stronger endorsement of surveillance measures and restriction of civil liberties, they reinforced the effect of Right-Wing Authoritarianism or RWA on support for surveillance (Cohrs et al. 276). Conclusion Terrorism is a very complicated term hence; it is a difficult endeavor to provide the exact definition of the term. Confusion can still result whenever the term is raised in arguments. Nevertheless, continuous learning of the concepts and the laws gives one a clearer picture of what this term encompasses. Moreover, the social stigma associated with the term could also elicit a variety of emotions and perspectives whenever the term is tried to explore. Works Cited Allen, Michael. “Civil Disobedience and Terrorism Testing the Limits of Deliberative Democracy.” Theoria: A Journal of Social & Political Theory 56.118 (30 Mar. 2009): 15-39. CATO Institute. Combatting Terrorism, Protecting Freedom. November/December 1996. CATO Policy Report, CATO Institute. 14 December 2011. . Cohrs, J. Christopher, Kielmann, Sven, Maes, Jurgen, and Barbara Moschner. “Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties.” Analyses of Social Issues & Public Policy 5.1 (2005): 263-276. Greenwald, Abe. “A Decade after 9/11: What We Got Right in the War on Terror.” Commentary 132.2 (2011): 14. Perkins, Jared. “Habeas Corpus in the War against Terrorism: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Citizen Enemy Combatants.” BYU Journal of Public Law 19.2 (2005): 437-471. Poscher, Ralf. “Terrorism and the Constitution.” Dissent 56.1 (2009): 13-18. Thorson, Carla. Terrorism vs. Civil Rights: A Debate. 4 April 2003. UCLA International Institue. 14 December 2011. . Read More