The Victims of Terror - Article Example

 The Victims of Terror In recent decades the definition of terrorism has included activity as wide ranging as the people who flew the airplanes into the world trade center to eco-terrorists that hammer spikes into old growth trees to impede the efforts of loggers. The modern definition has focused on a particular aspect of terrorism that has a greater capacity to inflict harm and fear. Today, terrorism is generally accepted to be any organized group that has the financing and skill to threaten violence on a massive scale to further their social or political agenda. As the definition has changed through time, so has the public's perception of the victims. When a terrorist target is focused and isolated, such as when the Unabomber attacked University faculty, there is little public outcry for compassion for the victims. Yet, when the country is faced with the graphic images of the Twin Towers disaster and the massive loss of life, the social agenda focuses on caring for the victims and the survivors. Modern terrorism has presented the world with a new definition of terrorism and is in search of a new definition of victimization. Modern terrorism has its roots in the 1970s and the wave of airline hijackings during that period. This was a move away from attacking strategic targets to the taking of innocent hostages as victims in an effort to create a threatening public display (Rapoport 421). The hostage taking at the US embassy in Tehran presented a new dynamic to the American people. The media provided an endless stream of pictures of Americans being held captive and the terrorism became more personal as the public was able to relate to the victims. Religious extremism became even more apparent in the 1980s as numerous Middle East countries that facilitated terrorist organizations began to directly threaten the security of the US at home and abroad (Shuggart 29). However, until the turn of the 21st century foreign attacks against Americans would remain overseas. Because they were out of the public eye, they remained largely out of the public consciousness. The attacks were sporadic and seemed to have no logical target. This was in keeping with the characteristic of terrorism of focusing on an indirect and innocent target that could be used as negotiating power. September 11, 2001 forever changed the way Americans would view terrorism and the way that they would perceive the victims. The 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building was the first time that the public would mobilize to generate aid for the victims of terrorism ("A Nation Challenged: Oklahomans Questioning Sept. 11 Aid"). It paled in comparison to the donations collected after the 9/11 bombing, but it was a significant change in thinking. The public began to see terrorism as a social issue as well as a criminal threat. The focus at this time was on the right-wing para-militaries located within the US. The government mobilized and launched numerous investigations into these groups. This was some of the first public displays of action against terrorists and planted the seeds in the public's mind of the dangerous threats that terrorism held for innocent victims. As soon as the airliners crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the public acquired the perception that terrorism is a common enemy and the victims are blameless. As soon as the graphic images were shown live on national television, the issue of foreign terrorism against Americans became legitimized. While after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building there were individual rights groups that tried to sway public opinion against from the government's role of investigating the right wing, there was almost universal unanimity in the public's response for pursuing foreign terrorists after 9/11. Within moments of the action, the public had been mobilized and terrorism left the arena of policy and strategy and entered the sphere of a social problem. Within days, the public had mobilized with an outpouring of support for the victims, survivors, and rescue workers. While political activists had been warning of America's lax attitude towards terrorism, it seldom spilled into the public domain until 9/11. It had been considered a problem that they could not control and no one felt personally at risk. Within 2 weeks after 9/11, the media not only continued to define the perpetrators, but also mobilized to aid the victims in an organized way. A fund raising concert was organized by the United Way charity that was carried live by the four major network television stations. The broadcast was carried in 210 countries and on 8000 radio stations and within the first hour collected $42 million (A Nation Challenged; "A Nation Challenged: $150 Million in Aid Is Pledged"). In all, the broadcast would generate $150 million for the victims. America had placed a face on the victims that seemed to fit the Just World Theory. The victims were viewed as blameless and innocent and in an effort to create justice, the people were willing to contribute (Hafer and Begue 129). This differed from terrorist victims that may have worked at an abortion clinic or an animal research lab. In those cases the public perception may have been that the victim had some responsibility in precipitating the crime (Meire and Miethe 162). The Just World Theory would allow the public to ignore those cases in which they felt the victim had been an active participant. In the days and weeks that followed 9/11, the concentrated media attention was able to construct an image of who the terrorists were, where they were from, and what their motives were. The image may have not been factual, but it was a picture that the public could grasp and legitimize. The public can only deal with a limited number of social problems that rise to the level of consensus. All other forms of terrorism dropped from the public discussion as foreign terrorism took center stage. The government quickly passed laws that would enhance the security of America's borders and allocated money to improve security. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security allocated funding to the victims of terrorism through the Office for Victims of Crime (US Department of Justice). However, people will naturally question the government's motives and wonder if there are politics driving the policy without regard to the public good (Boulanger and Boulanger 5). In a usual situation crisis should produce common sense solutions while social issues that don't demand immediate attention may be more prone to politics. The government was able to formulate and pass laws with overwhelming support in the weeks following 9/11. The government and the media constructed an image of terrorism that played on fear and labeled everyone as a potential victim. While there may be threads of truth in this approach, once again politics may be impacting a social issue. The government has often redefined terrorism to accommodate friendly allies or to place increased blame on certain enemies (Jenkins). Still, after 9/11, and without regard to the individual victimizers, almost all Americans feet like they were a potential victim of terrorist violence. This has allowed the government to institute security systems that may impede individual liberty. These may be the first signs of mass victimization. The terrorists have been successful at making our life more intrusive and our activities more inconvenient. Social change has been significant in that terrorism has resulted in increased fear and anxiety. The public views high rise buildings and populated areas as areas of threat. It has caused some people to relocate as well as businesses to take the view of spreading their resources around. These concentrations of resources are high value targets and may fit the Lifestyle Exposure Theory of Victimization (Meier and Meithe 446). In time, these social attitudes may result in a change of demographics and the way business operates. In conclusion, modern foreign terrorism has existed since the wave of airline hijackings in the 1970s. However, it was not brought to America until the bombing of the Murrah Federal building in 1995. At that time the victimizer was American and remained an invisible threat as a social issue. When 9/11 happened, the issue of foreign terrorism gained a face and was legitimized through consensus. People and institutions mobilized to aid the victims that had been unjustly harmed. The government has passed numerous laws that impede social liberty, but has been able to accomplish this with the cooperation of the people. This has been possible as everyone views themselves as a potential victim and has compassion for those that are harmed. Works Cited "A Nation Challenged: $150 Million in Aid Is Pledged." New York Times 25 Sep. 2001. "A Nation Challenged: Oklahomans Questioning Sept. 11 Aid." New York Times 23 Dec. 2001. Boulanger, Paul, and Marie Boulanger. Political Uses of Social Indicators: Overview and Application to Sustainable Development Indicators. Presented at the International Conference on Uses of Sustainable Development Indicators” held in Montpellier (3-4 April 2006) (2006): 1-15. Academic One File. 18 Oct. 2007. Jenkins, Philip. "Images of Terror: What We Can and Can’t Know about Terrorism." The Indepenent Review 9.2 (2004). 18 Oct. 2007 . Meier, Robert, and Terance Meithe. "Understanding Theories of Criminal Victimization." Crime and Justice 17 (1993): 459-99. JSTOR. 18 Oct. 2007. Rapoport, David C. "The Fourth Wave: September 11 in the History of Terrorism." Current History (2001): 419-25. Academic One File. 18 Oct. 2007 Shuggart, William F. "An Analytical History of Terrorism, 1945–2000." Public Choice 128 (2006): 7-39. Academic One File. 18 Oct. 2007 US Department of Justice. What Is the Office for Victims of Crime? Washington, DC: Office for Victims of Crime, 2004. Read More