The Radicalism of Osama Bin Laden - Case Study Example

The Radicalism of Osama Bin Laden 1 Biography Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, was born to a self-made Saudi construction billionaire. His family life was somewhat unstable as evidenced in the fact that his mother was his father’s tenth wife and were divorced early in his childhood. With three half brothers and sisters from his mother’s side and over fifteen from his father’s, it would be hard to assume that he benefited from a stable home environment. Nevertheless, while his family life may have been unstable, familial wealth afforded him countless opportunities and experiences. These included education in the best private schools in Saudi Arabia, education in Europe and the United States as well as unlimited world travel and contact with the global economic and social elite (Jacquard, 2002). Despite these and countless other opportunities, Bin Laden exhibited a persistent tendency towards religious fanaticism and upon the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, joined the mujahedeen forces. 2 The Time Born in 1957, Bin Laden’s childhood period coincided with the collapse of colonialism and the rise of Arab and Islamic nationalism. His childhood and youth, therefore, unfolded during a period of politically inspired religious and nationalistic fervor. The degree to which the stated influenced him is amply evidenced in his response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As Gunaratna (2002) explains, bin Laden immediately responded to the United States’ call for the liberation of Afghanistan, a Muslim territory, from the atheistic communist forces headed by the Soviet Union and joined the ranks of the mujahideen. During this period he was exposed to extremist Islamic ideology and, according to Gunaratna (2002, p. 21), was afforded the opportunity to establish “close relationships with several religious authorities,” most of whom like Omar Abdel Rahman, were living in exile having The times into which Osama Bin Laden was born and the way he interacted with and responded to them determined his evolution into a terrorist. It is within the context of these times that the events of September 11th assume a type of inevitability. From his perspective, as long as the United States supported Arab regimes which did not adhere to radical Islamic ideology and supported Israel, it was an obstacle to the rise of Islam in the Muslim World and therefore, had to be violently removed from the Middle East. September 11th was an attempt to force the US to cease all forms of intervention in the Middle East. 3 Influences Osama Bin Laden was exposed to a number of religious influences, most of which tended towards extremism and radicalism. His early perspectives of, and introduction to, Islam were, influenced by the thoughts of Mohammed Abdel Wahab, the founder of Wahhabism and one of the founding fathers of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism embraces and supports an extremely strict Sunni religious credo (Jacquard, 2002). Bin Laden was influenced by Wahhabism towards extremist interpretations of Islam, rendering him vulnerable to the subsequent acceptance and embrace of fundamentalist and extremist Islam, as interpreted and propagated by Egypt’s Sayyid Qutb (executed by the state as a terrorist and traitor in the 60s) and Omar Abdel Rahman (exiled by the stated after a period of imprisonment for terrorism). Indeed, as Abu Khalil (2002, pp. 47-48) contends, while it is impossible to list all those who influenced Bin Laden’s radicalism, one can safely assume that all influences were primarily fundamentalist, extremist and radical. 4 Legal Changes The events of September 11th, and the continuing threat to national and global security posed by bin Laden and his Qaeda organisation, instigated widespread legal changes, rationalized by the imperatives of fighting terrorism. 4.1 United States In response to the attacks of September 11th Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, Act more commonly known as the USA PATRIOT ACT (Ashcroft, 2006). The Act was signed into US law, by President George W. Bush, on October 26, 2001. The primary purpose of the law was to provide US law enforcement, national defense, and intelligence agencies with both new and improved tools to catch terrorists, and other dangerous criminals, in order to prevent another attack (Fukuyama, 2006). A significant portion of the PATRIOT Act was devoted towards amending the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA), in order to give the President greater surveillance powers (Greenwald, 2006). For example, the executive was now able to eavesdrop on the phone conversations of Americans for up to 72 hours without prior court authorization. It also implemented “roving” surveillance, so that the government was not restricted to eavesdropping on one telephone number, but was also authorized surveillance on all numbers connected to the suspect (Ashcroft, 2006). Another provision included the authority to investigate and prosecute anyone found to be financially supporting terrorism and set provisions for court delayed warrants. This was needed so as not to risk tipping off suspected terrorists, which could result in the destruction of evidence, cause the suspects to flee, or take other actions to avoid being caught (Ashcroft, 2006). 4.2 United Kingdom The United Kingdom already had extensive counter-terrorism measures, prior to the attacks of September 11th, 2001, as a result of terrorist activities by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). However, by November 2001, the United Kingdom enacted a new anti-terrorism statute, known as the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA) 2001. The ATCSA shared many similarities to the US PATRIOT Act. Like the PATRIOT Act, provisions of the ATCSA included: cutting off terrorist funding, ensuring that government departments and agencies have the ability to share intelligence, updating and restructuring of immigration procedures, ensuring the security of nuclear and aviation services, extending local police powers to all relevant services and improving the security of dangerous substances that may be used by terrorists. The most controversial aspect of the Act, however, focused around Part Four, which dealt with international suspected terrorist (Home Office, 2006). This provision allowed for the confinement, without trial, of a “suspected international terrorist” if the Home Secretary reasonably suspects that the person is a terrorist, and therefore a threat to national security. Additionally, if the person is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, they can be detained for an unspecified period, without being charged with a crime (Home Office, 2006). Following ATSCA, the 2006 Terrorism Act became a law. The 2006 Terrorist Act created a number of new criminal offenses relating to terrorism. The following are now considered criminal offenses, according to the 2006 Terrorism Act: acts of planning terrorism; the encouraging of terrorism; the distribution of terrorism propaganda. The Act allows for the prosecution of anything that gives or receives terrorist training. Additionally, the 2006 Terrorist Act extended the period of detainment, without charge, from 14 days to 28 days, although, there must be judicial authority after two days (Terrorist Act, 2006). 4.3 Canada Following the events of September 2001, Canada passed the Anti Terrorism Act (2001) which, like the PATRIOT Act, expanded law enforcement’s power and authorities, purportedly to facilitate governmental ability to fight terrorism and to securitize the country. ATA, needless to say, has numerous critics, and is widely regarded as an affront to, and attack upon, civil liberties. It eschews the principles of disclosure, thereby rendering the populace vulnerable to judicial abuse, allows for surveillance of citizens and, in essence, renders all Canadians vulnerable to eavesdropping and scrutiny by law enforcement without the protection of checks and balances. 5 Reflection Osama Bin Laden is a threat to global security because his radicalism is such that all who do not subscribe to his fanatical ideology are labelled “enemies” and, therefore, vulnerable to attack. While he may be a product of a very particular time and set of circumstances, it his reaction to, and the way he interacted with these times and circumstances that transformed him into the global terrorist that he is today. Whether his philosophy and ideology would stand up to scrutiny is questionable because like all radicalism, it lacks coherence and logic. That it lacks logic is evidenced in the fact that while he has declared his primary enemies to be the Saudi regime and Israel, he launched his terrorist attacks on the United States and Great Britain instead. That it lacks coherence is amply evidenced in the fact that while he was opposed to Saddam Hussein and his secularism, he vocalised support for him in face of US threats and while he had earlier cooperated with and worked with the United States, he now works against it. In other words, there is no consistency or logic to his actions but, instead, a radicalism which recognises no bounds. Read More