The Direct and Indirect Victims of Terrorism - Essay Example

The Direct and Indirect Victims of Terrorism I. Introduction Terrorism is a criminal act that has plagued society for centuries. It seeks to gain attention to a political situation or highlight an act of perceived social injustice. Because of the political nature of the criminal act, there are often polarized sides that seek to apologize or excuse the perpetrators while laying responsibility for the act on the victims or their associates. Terrorism is unique in the field of victimology in that it actively seeks to create indirect victims. The survivors are infused with fear and may turn against the lawful order of society in an attempt to appease the terrorists. As society processes the information regarding the event, the victims are framed by the news media and public officials. The reaction to the event creates another class of victims as the public is penalized through loss of freedoms and privacy. Innocent people are viewed with suspicion and an unrealistic assessment of the risk places a heavy toll on a stressed society. While terrorism has existed for millennia, recent uses of the criminal act and escalated methods have increased the level of societys awareness of the victims of terrorism. There is a Chinese saying that says, "Kill one [to] frighten ten thousand" (as cited in Ewald, 2006, p.4). Where in centuries past the concept of terrorism was to instill fear, modern terrorism seeks to murder on a massive scale. It is the ability of the terrorists to murder thousands of people in a single event that evokes such fear and dread. Exploring a few of the most significant terrorist acts committed against Americans can help to understand the ways that the victims are viewed and why they become victims. They are generally victims of opportunity and symbolism. Direct victims can be viewed through the positivist lens, while the indirect victims are more aptly analyzed through the anti-positivist viewpoint. The direct victims are real and concrete, while the indirect victims are constructed through societies own labels and judgments. Killing one can indeed frighten ten thousand, and killing 3 thousand can frighten 3 million. II. Historical Background Americans have lived with various forms of terrorism since the countrys beginning, but only recently has it been viewed as a complex social issue. Table 1 is a partial list of the most noteworthy terrorist acts in modern history. Table 1 Year Incident Casualties 1988 Pan Am Flight #103 270 Dead 1993 Truck Bomb, World Trade Center 6 Dead, 1042 Injured 1995 Truck Bomb, Oklahoma City 168 Dead, 500 Injured 1996 Saudi Arabia 19 Dead, 500 Injured 1996 Sri Lanka 90 Dead, 500 Injured 1998 Kenya, US Embassy 212 Dead, 4022 Injured 1999 Moscow Apartment 200 Dead 2001 Twin Towers, Pentagon, PA 3062 Dead 2002 Bali 202 Dead, 300 Injured 2004 Madrid 191 Dead, 1800 Injured 2004 Beslan, School Children 344 Dead, 600 Injured Source (Ewald, 2006, p. 3) The 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center was the first terrorist event that took place on US soil that attracted large scale public attention. Though there had been a number of airplane hijackings throughout the previous two decades, the 1993 bombing was the first to draw focused attention on the publics vulnerability to terrorism. It also united the public behind anti-terror activities and helped to mobilize the issue. The number of dead was small in comparison to other international acts of terrorism and therefore never rose to the level of social legitimacy. The 1995 truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building left a scene of immense death and destruction. The news media was able to capture the devastation and portray the victims in a personal manner. There were working people, children, and a long list of innocent direct victims. The motivations were almost inexplicable and the public became indirect victims merely by being American. The focus by the media and the framing of the victims helped to gain legitimacy for terrorism as a social issue. Americans had gained an awareness that everyone was vulnerable and everyone could be a victim. The 2001 attack on the Twin Towers would again redefine the construction of terrorism. Intense news coverage framed terrorism as an act committed by Islamic extremists as a statement of contempt for the American way of life. To each individual citizen, the threat was different, yet had a common thread. The government and political officials framed the attacks as an act of war and played to peoples patriotism to enlist their support for the war against terrorism. The initial 3,062 direct fatalities all had the commonality of living and working in New York City, which was a symbol of American capitalism. The indirect victims were the American public who were asked to sacrifice their personal freedoms and right to privacy to prevent another terrorist act. In addition, the framing of the act as a political act against America by a well defined group fueled the publics prejudice against the Arab minorities living in the US. In this way, the bombing created yet another class of indirect victims. In many ways, the way we frame 9/11 and the way we have constructed the victims is the way that we perceive the threat of terrorism today. Because terrorisms direct target is never the intended victim, there are some social inferences that need to be made as to target selection, time, and place of the event. Parties with a vested interest in highlighting the problem have used the news media and public awareness strategies to gain the cooperation of the public. They have willingly given up their right to privacy and freedom of expression in response to the construct used by the authorities. III. Theoretical Perspective No crime has as many indirect victims as terrorism. While the Twin Towers attack claimed 3,062 casualties, the indirect victims were all 300 million American citizens. They became victims and were asked to sacrifice. This sacrifice came in the way of time, energy, and money. Donations were sought to aid the victims and the families that were left behind. According to Fischer (2006), "…the traditional meaning of sacrifice marked the recognition of a higher power by which the individual eased the feeling of the contingency of his existence, at least for some time, so does donating involve elements of strategic action" (p.69). The act of donating creates and validates an indirect victim. In archaic history, the Gods asked for sacrifice in terms of offerings and ritual, but modern society exhibits its willingness to sacrifice by the act of donating their material wealth to a worthy cause (Fischer, 2006, p. 69). This is the method by which the indirect victims of terrorism are legitimized. The media has the ultimate task of defining the victim and their status. The media could call for the ultimate sacrifice, the giving of ones life for their countrymen. This sacrifice would be reserved for a select group within society, those that were eligible to serve in the military. The media works to frame the victim as a special status that is reserved for the sacrificial elite. The public was able to honor the victims. Philosopher Ernst Junger contends that, "…the deepest delight of man is that he is sacrificed, and the greatest art of command is to show goals worthy of making sacrifices" (as cited in Fischer, 2006, p.71). The press and the public had constructed the victims, both direct and indirect, as heroes. There has been a relatively recent movement in criminal justice reform to not just consider the criminal, but also seek justice for the individual victim. Justice advocates have argued for a, "…reconceptualization of crime, suggesting that we should view it not (simply) as a violation of the legal order but (also) as a violation of the rights of the individual victim" (Dignan, 2004, p. 14). To a large part, this movement has been spurred by the large scale politically charged crimes that have been, "…directed against innocent civilians, political assassinations, violent outbursts resulting from ethnic or intercommunal tensions and even, on occasion, violent acts carried out by state agencies" (Dignan, 2004, p. 15). This again has been with the aid of the media that requires a victim to be a part of a significant crime and to be newsworthy. Typically, victims have been stereotyped and constructed for the convenience of the crime. Each crime had an ideal victim that would be weak, defenseless, and have the ability to elicit compassion (Dignan, 2004, p. 17). This token definition would aid the news media in conjuring up visions of the crime and keeping the story newsworthy. However, the massive crime of terrorism began to change the concept of the ideal victim. In line with the continuous coverage of the event, there became more attention paid to the victims. Williams (2005) notes that, "When confronted with real victims and the ways in which criminal justice has failed them, politicians and public can discard preconceptions about the ideal victim and find ways to address victims" (p.152). The scale of the crime and the medias need to add meaning to their coverage has resulted in a redefinition of the victim with a more human face. This added dimension has created more sympathy in the eyes of the American public and has given additional status to being a victim. The statistically possible, though mathematically unlikely, potential to become a direct victim of terrorism pervades society. As indirect victims, Americans have sacrificed their time and money. As a special class of victims they have given up personal freedoms and privacy. In a sense America has become a nation of victims who walk in a cloud of fear waiting to be victimized again. When viewed through the lens of traditional victim theory, there is the intuition to not challenge the claims of the victims lest it be misconstrued as victim blaming (Best, 1997, p.13). Any claims of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) would need to be taken seriously with out regards to how far the victim was from ground zero. Does the average American fit the definition of an indirect victim of terrorism? The victim may be diagnosed with PTSD if they exhibit "emotional distress, fear, anxiety, nervousness, self-blame, anger, shame, or difficulty sleeping" (Dillenburger, 2007, p.438). From a technical standpoint there are many indirect victims of terrorism. Many of these are not the product of the positivist victimological theory, but from an anti-positivist viewpoint. The direct victims have real injuries, were at the edge of life and death, and have a concrete experience (Davies, Francis, and Jupp, 2004, p.32). The anti-positivist viewpoint more correctly defines the indirect victims. These victims have been constructed by the media and the legend that is promoted by individuals and organizations in positions powerful enough to dominate the prevailing thought (Schurink, 1992, p.66). They are made up largely of labels and have only the imagined experience of a criminal attack. This has watered down the meaning of the term victim and trivializes the experience of the direct victims. The dilution of the meaning of the term victim only serves to diminish the real value of victimology in respect to terrorism. Victims of terrorism also are the ethnic minorities who suffer discrimination by association with the terrorists. Accused perpetrators may become victims of mob rule. Victimology can aid in preventing these human rights violations. According to Turkovic (2006), "In the fight against terrorism we must be careful not to increase state powers to the detriment of civil rights" (p.56). A single act of terrorism can produce many victims. In addition, at the root of the cause of terrorism may lie victimization. Turkovic argues that, "War victimization, human rights victimization and oppression are some of the multiple root causes of terrorism." (p.58). He further notes that it may be helpful to view the terrorists as victims to gain a better understanding of the crime and says that the study of victimology "…offers a series of theories and methodologies by which to organize and pursue our understanding of…" of terrorists and their victim status (Turkovic, 2006, p.58). This is the same concept that acknowledges inter-generational violence as a predictor of further violence. The victim will eventually become the abuser. IV. Data Analysis The national recognition of the victims of a terrorist attack as a social issue did not reach any level of legitimacy until 9/11. Though there was some national attention after the Federal building was bombed in Oklahoma City, it failed to gain adequate mobilization. The fact that the victimizer was an American and a veteran cooled the atmosphere surrounding the event. There were some token fundraising efforts in the aftermath, but there was no national consensus or unity of thought. The direct victims were acknowledged and soon forgotten. The attack on the Twin Towers on 9/11 would galvanize the nation as the media began to construct the many victims of terrorism. One of the most basic movements in the victimization after a terrorist attack is to care for and aid the direct victims. Fund raising activities were organized that raised money for the victims and the survivors. This was an immediate reaction through the lens of a positivist viewpoint. The initial surge of donations netted more than $1 billion to be used for the education of the dependent survivors that may number as high as 10,000 (Pulley, 2001). In addition, a national telethon that was promoted by celebrities raised an additional $200 million (Oldenburg, 2001). These were the first waves of empathy for the victims. The claims were made by activists that were interested in seeing some form of justice for the survivors of the attack. When the public generously donated to the fundraising efforts in the wake of 9/11, they were placing themselves in the status of victim. They had made a sacrifice of their material wealth and were thus a member of the group that was harmed by the terrorists. Other members of society enlisted in the military to offer the greatest sacrifice that a member of society can give. Immediately after the attacks, the rate of enlistment surged as people sought to raise their victim status (Zdechlik, 2006). The self sacrifice evident in these events served to increase the numbers of the indirect victims. The next redefinition of the victims of 9/11 would also be played out through the media. The indirect victims would be defined as all Americans. The individuals and organizations making the claim that all Americans were victims were from diverse backgrounds with a multitude of motivations. The government wished to exploit the potential for attack in an effort to pass oppressive legislation that gave them a wider latitude in pursuing and prosecuting terrorists. This allowed the government to circumvent normal judicial procedures when dealing with terrorists. Dick Cheney (2003) stated the administrations position when he said, "In a sense, 9/11 changed everything for us. 9/11 forced us to think in new ways about threats to the United States, about our vulnerabilities, about who our enemies were, about what kind of military strategy we needed in order to defend ourselves". The government was constructing the public as a victim. This would also have the long term effect of creating more victims at the hands of state oppression. Religious organizations also had a stake in creating indirect victims. The Christian right was able to mobilize its membership by demonizing the terrorists as an enemy of their faith. Tele-evangelist Jerry Falwell contended that the death of Osama Bin Laden would come at the hands of the Lord (as cited in Warner, 2004). Other religious leaders were no less hostile in their efforts to unite their followers. Pat Robertson denounced the Islamic faith as a satanic organization and portrayed the entire Muslim faith as a terrorist group (Pat Robertson, 2006). Again we see individuals and organizations constructing indirect victims for the purposes of exploitation. The government and religion could exert more control over victims and potential victims than they might otherwise be afforded. As the list of indirect victims grew, the public created additional victims by their reaction to the Arab minorities residing in the United States. Dr. Tom OConner (2006), the Director of the Institute for Global Security Studies at Austin Peay State University reported that, Mosques, Arab community centers, and Arab-owned businesses were vandalized, women and girls wearing the traditional Muslim head covering, the hijab, were harassed and assaulted, and a Moroccan man in Bridgeview, a suburb of Chicago with a large Arab and Muslim population, was spat on by two people and then attacked with a machete. Also in Bridgeview, a mob of jingoistic Americans attempted to march on the neighborhood mosque with sticks and bats before they were stopped by state and local police. OConner (2006) further states that the vigilantes did not work alone to create these indirect victims, but that the US government rounded up and detained over 1,000 Arab men caught in racial profiling. The American public was further victimized by the irrational fears that were imparted by the government as a reaction to increasing national security. As shown in table 2, the likelihood of becoming a victim of other violent crime far exceeded the possibility of being a victim of terrorism in 2001. Table 2 Source (Crime index offense reported, 2002) The mass victimization of Americans made it possible for the government to take extraordinary steps to protect and secure the country. In the zealous pursuit of the perpetrators of the crime, there was another group that was victimized. The suspected terrorists were subject to torture and imprisonment without the due process of law that is afforded to everyone by the constitution. The media shed some light on the conditions in the Abu Ghraib prison and the harsh treatment that the prisoners were subject to. It additionally brought to light the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, the US prison in Cuba designed to hold terrorist suspects. Though many details of Guantanamo are clouded with disinformation, the BBC reported that as many as 660 prisoners were being held in 2003 (Whitlock, 2003). These prisoners were held without the right to a lawyer and no trial date. These prisoners were being victimized by the direct and indirect victims of a terrorist act. Whitlock (2003) also reported that, "US defence department officials announced that they had three children between the ages of 13 and 15 detained at Guantanamo". The only rationale for holding children was to portray their victimization as an example to other young Muslims. V. Conclusion This research demonstrates the power of the media to construct a definition of a victim. It also highlights the power of individuals and organizations to portray a class of people as victims for their own self interest. During the process of assigning the victim label to a wide range of people, protocol and etiquette insists that we do not question the claims of the victims. This process continues until the definition is so broad and encompassing that it has no meaning. We literally have 300 million victims that potentially suffer from PTSD. Organizations and individuals will use the victim label to justify the creation of other victims. Vigilantes will take out their anger on any member of society that is in any way associated with the terrorist group. The result is victims of ethnic and racially based hate crimes. Governments will take extraordinary steps to provide additional national security. These steps will allow revenge and retribution in the name of their victim status. In the case of terrorism, the government will promote an unrealistic fear of becoming a victim of terrorism. In conclusion, the terrorist action on 9/11 against the Twin Towers in New York City was on such a massive scale that it immediately mobilized the country and legitimized the issue of terrorism. It also created several new classes of victims and assigned victim status on a wide scale. This dilution of the definition of the term victim would spread out across the country until almost everyone felt the impact of the attack. The direct victims were easily defined through a positivist viewpoint. The indirect victims were constructed by the media or created by society. In a mass disaster such as 9/11, it is important to keep victimization in perspective. Victimology can help trace the roots of terrorism and cope with the victims of terror. The media, stakeholders, and claim makers can create an environment where justice is sought through the process creates more victims. References Best, J. (1997). Victimization and the victim industry. Society, 34(4), 17-9 Cheney, D. (2003, December 22). Remarks by the Vice President. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031223-1.html Crime index offense reported (2002). Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf Davies, P., Francis, P., & Jupp, V. (2004). Victimology, victimisation and public policy. In J. Dignan (Ed.), Understanding victims and restorative justice . Berkshire GBR: McGraw-Hill Education. Dignan, J. (2004). Understanding victims and restorative justice . Berkshire GBR: McGraw-Hill Education. Dillenburger, K. (2007). A behavior analytic perspective on victimology. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 3(3), 433-448. Fischer, K. (2006). Between scarification and victimization. In U. Ewald (Ed.), Large-scale victimization as a potential source of terrorist activities . Amsterdam: IOS Press. OConner, T. (2006, March 21). Discrimination against Arab Americans and other Middle Eastern groups. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/soc/355lect14.htm Oldenburg, A. (2001, December 18). Celebs have helped raise $200M in past 3 months. USA Today. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.usatoday.com/life/2001-12-18-charities.htm#more Pat Robertson on Muslims (2006, March 13). Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/pat_quotes/pat_islam.htm Pulley, J. L. (2001). Fund-raising efforts proliferate for families of terrorists victims. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(10). Turkovic, K. (2006). What victimology has to offer in the fight against terrorism. In U. Ewald (Ed.), Large-scale victimization as a potential source of terrorist activities . Amsterdam: IOS Press. Warner, G. (2004, November 5). Call to kill terrorists in the name of the Lord sparks outcry. The Baptist Standard. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2518 Whitlock, M. (2003, May 16). Legal limbo of Guantanamos prisoners. BBC. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3034697.stm Zdechlik, M. (2006, September 10). Retrieved December 11, 2007, from http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/09/05/enlistees/ Read More