Terrorism: Origins and Evolution - Essay Example

Critiquing the passage below

"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 (The Strategies of Terrorism, Kydd and Walter, p. 80; top of the page)"

Terrorist activities have resulted in an increased loss of life in addition to large amounts of property that is destroyed in the process. The idea behind these terrorist attacks according to several types of research conducted arises from the terrorist groups desiring to deliver their message triggering desired responses from different states and countries. Such responses have resulted in the United States withdrawing or deciding to engage in military activities aimed at curbing terrorism while reducing the impact of these attacks. For example, the state had to pull its military from Lebanon when a suicide bomber attacked its marine base in Beirut in 1983. A similar reaction was observed two years later after the September 11, 2001 attack, the United States had to get its soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. Recently, Kydd and Walter (80) had made states consider the costs they incur and are considering to grant concessions to these terrorist attacks.

However, granting concessions is not likely to minimize the costs of terrorist activities but rather would increase and motivate events related to the behavior. Efficient counter strategies can only be designed when the policy makers understand the strategic motive that drives violence within the terrorists resulting in ‘basic human insecurity’ (Piazza 472). Establishing democracy and appropriate ways of channeling grievances has a high correlation to reduced terrorist activities. When terrorism is a strategic choice, the terrorist leaders tend to reduce costs of terrorist activities while maximizing returns. Therefore, politics and democratic societies will offer “conflict-reducing mechanisms” deemed effective (Li 282). Such mechanisms help citizens channel and address their grievance via an established venues that resolve issues in a nonviolent style (Drakos and Andreas 717). The approach rules out the granting concession mechanism suggested by Walter and Kydd, a fashion that boosts the morale of terrorists.

Agreeing or disagreeing with:

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 (Strategic Logic of Terrorism, Robert Pape, p. 351, 4th paragraph).

The social psychology standard principles have provided different definitions and approaches through which terrorists can resolve ambiguities arising from the subject. Several people will interpret ambiguous information under normal circumstances in approaches that tend to be consistent with their prior knowledge, beliefs and therefore, would tend to justify their actions based on those beliefs, such as dying for Allah (Bruneau and Boraz 135). Terrorists committing suicide attacks would likely, of course, have some initial confidence on the efficiency of committing the act, else they would not have resolved into committing the attack, and the fact of having committed the act gives them the knowledge and choice to justify their attacks. The sequence of such events and the suggested social psychological beliefs make me agree to such concept “that prior understanding of the fanatical nature of terrorist activities” forms the basic to understanding the suicidal terrorism (Pape 350).

Media portrays terrorists as crazy extremists committing indiscriminate violence activities. However, lack of prior knowledge and understanding of the course triggers the motive behind the goal to revenge and triggering fear. Such fanatical nature is well expressed in the statements of one a Hamas suicide bomber when his bomb failed to go off. He said that he knew of different ways to committing jihad. However, his method is sweet, all martyrdom activities, when done to Allah, would hurt less compared to a gnat’s bite (Kydd and Barbara 52). Such behavior calls for prior understanding and placing oneself in the bombers position and establishing whether it was economic rewards or attainment of power that triggered the attack (Lee 207).

Do you believe that the citizen rights and foreign intelligence tradeoff can be assured by judiciary review? Be sure to explain your answer citing course readings

The judiciary has tried its best in maintaining citizen rights as it regards to foreign intelligence and the same has made the system endure the greatest tests of all time. The core institutions of the United States’ democracy have consistently grappled with different issues raised in different administration approaches to counter-terrorism attacks and agendas specifically when it comes to the assertion of heightened power by the executive branch (Bruneau and Boraz 27). Despite the administration behavior being met with skepticism from diverse quarters in the state, those that have had a significant impact and pushback are the judiciary and the press. The press has had to often query and probe questions on the outcomes of policies tabled to counter terrorism while publicizing acts of injustices against the people, groups or individuals while assessing the administration efforts and effects especially when the information is not censored (Drakos and Andreas 724). On its part, the judiciary has made its effort to force the government to reverse or change its course of action on various counterterrorism policy aspects while validating other initiatives at the same time.

However, even after several years, the impressions of the administration’s policies towards the Americans civil liberties remains very unclear. It is because of the attempts by the admiration trying to place limits on the public knowledge of its decisions and actions as it regards national security (Lutz and Brenda 12). Policing geared towards counterterrorism are placing the basic human rights and freedom in jeopardy and lead to massive civil rights violations especially when observed from different perspectives. Civil liberties that include immigrant rights in the constitutional protection are proving resilient compared to the past despite the high level of political polarization, critics of such behavior have been able to express their views even through the internet and the judiciary has been at the helm to help pushback these policies whenever they went against the constitution.

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.

No, the protection and promotion of human rights to every individual and the rule of law are very significant to the requirements of recognizing, strategizing and implementing of effective measures against counterterrorism as well as promotion measures of human rights, the two do not conflict both goals but rather mutually complementing and reinforcing each other (Cassese 280). Irrespective of whether a state has been attacked by international terrorist attacks and deciding on the manner in which to target and handle the kind of group that is outside its jurisdiction has raised a series of controversies. The result is targeted killing, the idea that came along from Israel as well as advancing other policies such the covert action (Barry 284). Some human rights activists have termed such acts as extrajudicial killings or executions while others have had their argument for the same claiming they are legit responses to war.

The set of rules required to protect the people in “armed conflict” and the conduct of hostilities is contained in the International humanitarian law. The rules are still reflected in several treaties that include the four Geneva Conventions as well as some of their provisions being identified as customary international law (Pictet and Frédéric 10). The law prohibits all actions committed in armed conflict and considers them terrorist acts. It also defines that deliberate actions of violence directed towards civilian objects constitute crimes of war, for which the individuals would be prosecuted under the international law (Kretzmer 176). According to international humanitarian law, all parties have to distinguish between combatants and civilians for prosecution and mode of implementation to be determined.

Should terrorism be defined through legislative prescription or through judicial development? Be sure to cite readings to support your answer.

Terrorism is best defined using the legislative prescription when compared to judiciary development. However, whether the judiciary or legislative defines the term, the real question is how they share the task and if legislation has to define the very little possibilities and leave a bigger scope to the judiciary for the development (Cassese 994). It is the question of competence within the institutions encompassing the common law methodology and capacity to responding towards the fast development of terrorist types. Courts would have the capacity applying a definition in the manner that responds to developments that legislative may not have foreseen, especially reflecting the rule of law and common law rights (Pictet and Frédéric 89). They would refine and develop the concepts over time as it regards personal cases. However, such flexibility is likely to be stifled through the accumulation of precedents.

The judicial application of flexibility cannot outweigh the greater role of the legislative. The definition of main features of terrorism has bigger advantages when carried by the legislative. The case operates with specific strength provided the tough consequences that would flow from using the terrorism term if attached to an action, a person or an organization. The major reason for the legislation is its democratic and representative forum that offers a good avenue to deliberating over what terrorism should constitute. Therefore, the forum offers media and open public scrutiny. Such deliberations lead to appropriate and nuanced definitions of the term “terrorism.” It is difficult to attach tough consequences such as death or invasion of privacy before the legislature deliberates on the issue (Pictet and Frédéric 56).