Domestic Terrorism: Yesterday and Today - Essay Example

Domestic Terrorism: Yesterday and Today War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions. Zbigniew Brzezinski Introduction Zbigniew Brzezinski's words tell a chilling tale about the history of modern warfare and our relationship to the violence that surrounds us. While we often think of terrorism as a foreign group that is set on attacking our American institutions and way of life, this is only part of the story. Terrorism can come from anywhere and may originate in the target country. Terrorism can be perpetrated by American citizens against the United States government, its corporations, or its people. Terrorist attacks can be launched by ethnic minority citizens that are acting on behalf of a foreign country or ideology. When the terrorism is perpetrated by US citizens against the US government, political ideals, or our social structure it is known as domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is as threatening and as prevalent as the danger of outside groups that cross our borders to inflict terror, as it is fueled by America’s own idealism. 1.) Defining Domestic Terrorism When an act of terrorism is used by a citizen against their native country to change government policies or social institutions it is called domestic terrorism. The Homeland Security Act and other government actions that target US citizens have made domestic terrorism a bigger issue in the public's mind. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines domestic terrorism as, "... the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (Jarboe, 2002).1 It is important to note that the definition of domestic terrorism includes the limitation of 'without foreign direction'. This differs from 'homegrown terrorism' that may be perpetrated by US citizens on behalf of a foreign entity such as Al Qaeda. The motivation, as well as the perpetrators, must come from within the US borders and target a US policy or institution. The FBI's definition of domestic terrorism is broad and sweeping. It does not differentiate between the methods of attack. Violence is described in vague terms and the incident may be an Internet denial of service or a highly targeted bomb. The target may be a corporation, innocent civilians, or a specific government agency. Previous definitions have included exemptions for guerrilla warfare units and freedom fighters. These para-military groups were typically highly organized and their targets were very specific. They differed from terrorists in that they did not target the civilian population and did not use the threat of mass casualties as a psychological weapon. The new threats of massive communications disruption, loss of utilities, and the access to larger weapons have necessitated the broader definition of domestic terrorism. Modern domestic terrorism has been more destructive and wider spread. In 1993 Timothy McVeigh committed one of the most deadly acts of domestic terrorism known to date. This act would change the face of domestic terrorism by the willingness of a right wing para-military philosophy to inflict large and indiscriminate killing of innocent bystanders (Vohryzek-Bolden, Olson-Raymer, & Wharmond, 2001, p.193). These groups usually view the United States as an oppressive government that limits individual freedom and expression. In fact, rights groups have often gone to court to impede or halt the government's investigation of these terrorist groups based on the right to privacy and the constitutional guarantees of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments (Chaliand & Blin, 2007, p.249-250). Recent years have seen an expansion of the investigation of these right wing groups and have uncovered a myriad of plots. 2.) The Approach to Political Violence International terrorism has been highlighted by the ideologies of Mao, Che Gueverra, Marighella, and Frantz Fanon. Marxist ideology and class struggle drove all these political terrorists. As in the case of right wing domestic groups, they used the moral justification of equality to justify their violence. All four of these activists not only promoted violence, they contended that revolution, and change, was impossible without widespread killing. This moral acceptance of violence resulted in the killing of millions of innocent people in China, South America, and Central America (Thackrah, 2004). The motivations of both the domestic groups and these infamous international terrorists rests in the same faulty logic, but differ in their level of violence. They promote the means as justifying the end in much the same way that the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) did in the United States during the 1960s when they advocated and committed assassinations, kidnappings, and bombings (The rise and fall, 2005). The SLA came to national attention and some limited popularity based on their anti-war stand, but were discredited for their own use of violence. This can be attributed to our orderly society and the efforts of law enforcement. While they claim their actions are morally justified, our society places great responsibility on ensuring that we do not advocate or use violence. 3.) Earliest Forms of Terrorism Terrorism has been used as a military and social tactic since the beginning of recorded history. The occupied Jews launched an attack in 6 AD against the Roman occupying forces that resulted in sporadic riots and acts of violence against the Roman forces. The Jews were crushed and the Romans crucified 2000 of their number as a "...psychological blow strong enough to dissuade the populace from further rebellion. It was the first use of terror in a war that was to last several decades" (Chaliand & Blin, 2007, p.55-56). Terrorism was used against the Jews in response to their anti-colonial feeling and desire for independence and self-representation. Throughout history mankind has used riots, assassinations, property damage, and mass killings to further their political and social ideals. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but the ability to inflict harm has grown tremendously. Since the first settlers came to America's shores, there has been domestic terrorism. By the middle of the 17th century witches were being executed out of religious hatred, fear, and suspicion and Catholics were being denied basic human and civil rights (Vohryzek-Bolden, Olson-Raymer, & Wharmond, 2001, p.76-77). Since these initial acts of terror and their accompanying uprisings, the United States has had a long history of domestic terrorism. The occupation of the Colonies by British forces initiated a number of terrorist acts in the early history of the country. Ethan Allan's Green Mountain Boys held an uprising against the political and economic elite in 1770 (Vohryzek-Bolden, Olson-Raymer, & Wharmond, 2001, p.88). Though their targets were local farmers, their motivation was against the rule of the King of England. Many actions that took place during the American Revolution could be viewed as domestic terrorism in context with today's modern definition. As America gained more form and organization in the 19th century, domestic terrorist acts were more easily defined. When John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln he shouted, “Sic semper Tyrannis! (“Ever thus to tyrants!”) (Chaliand & Blin, 2007, p.9). His act of violence was a targeted act against what he perceived as a tyrannical government. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) has practiced a reign of terrorism since the late 19th century that continues today. They were notable as terrorists for their ability to spread fear and intimidation through a wide spectrum of the population. They would indiscriminately destroy private property and execute innocent victims. That they were US citizens operating on US soil against a domestic policy qualifies them as domestic terrorists. While the KKK targeted blacks and US racial policy, Ted Kaczynski (known as the Unabomber), targeted the advancement of technology and his extremism used university professors as his victims. In all these cases, the criminals and victims were US citizens and the motivation was a disagreement with domestic policy and social structure. 4.) The Common Bonds of Domestic Terrorism The common bonds that run throughout domestic terrorism are government resentment, racism, and religion. These are all issues that can be emotionally charged, which makes the movement open to attracting disaffected citizens. The Bible or the constitution can justify their actions, no matter how twisted the argument. Extremists will use these documents to attract followers in the belief that they are obeying a higher law or a duty to individual freedom. The bombing of abortion clinics by pro-life groups, often religious based, has resulted in the deaths of doctors and patients. White supremacist groups will use the Bible and the constitution to attempt to justify their extremism as morally acceptable. In these cases the groups use the documents in a cafeteria style, using the portions that fit their dogma while ignoring the intent of the writings. This can be seen as domestic terrorists target ethnic groups and social policy based on the constitution. This propensity to interpret the constitution as a literal document has been used by domestic terrorists to acquire guns and maintain large arsenals. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Yet, the constitution does little to define who should be allowed to bear arms and what type of weapons the public should be allowed to hold. While local militias may have been necessary in 1776, modern weapons, mobility, and mass communication have placed this right in a new light. The constitutional right needs to be viewed in a modern context and tyranny needs to be strictly defined. Taxation that may be viewed as unfair may not be the tyranny that the constitution allows the citizenry to violently revolt against. These extremist views and the misinterpretation of the intent of the law have given additional fuel to the domestic terrorist movement. 5.) Eco-Terrorism In addition to the above issues is the modern issue of eco-terrorism. PETA and Greenpeace have both fallen under the watchful eye of the FBI as having a potential for terrorist activity. According to the FBI's definition, they fulfill the requirements for a terrorist organization. They are domestic groups that use unlawful violence against a segment to further their political and social ideologies. According to John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, “…animal and environmental rights extremists have claimed credit for more than 1,200 criminal incidents since 1990. The FBI has 150 pending investigations associated with animal rights or eco-terrorist activities, and ATF officials say they have opened 58 investigations in the past six years related to violence attributed to the ELF and ALF” (cited in Frieden, 2005). Frieden also reports that the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has been connected to PETA. This connection makes PETA especially troublesome as a terrorist organization. The ALF, an international organization, has been accused of using, "...letter bombs, acid attacks and beating people with baseball bats [which] successfully scared off Cambridge University from building a centre for animal research" (Protest Match, 2006). While PETA publicly disavows violence, their tie to a known terrorist group diminishes the validity of their claim. Greenpeace has gone beyond the act of peaceful protesting and fits the FBI's definition of a terrorist organization. Greenpeace has sabotaged economic concerns that range from logging to fishing and according to Marc Levin, president of the American Freedom Center, "Greenpeace members have forcibly boarded a cargo vessel carrying Brazilian wood to Florida, [and] have blockaded a U.S. naval base...". (cited in Lehr, 2003). America has a long tradition of social unrest and protest. Henry Thoreau and Martin Luther King both advocated violating the law in cases of extreme oppression. However, they were both careful to point out the difference between civil disobedience and violent criminal acts. It is the component of criminal violence that moves these environmental advocacy groups from protestors to terrorists. Conclusion In conclusion, domestic terrorism is a growing threat fueled by public outrage and discontent. These disaffected groups have access to weapons that have the potential to kill indiscriminately as shown in the Oklahoma City bombing. The domestic terrorist groups may be the result of extremist and faulty logic, or may stand on a higher moral ground such as protecting our environment. In either case, the use of violence to commit a criminal act to further their political and social agendas is an act of terrorism. Public opinion does not tolerate domestic terrorism and the law does not allow for it. The attempt to construct a philosophical ideal outside the norms and values of society has created an atmosphere for extremist terrorists to operate. References Brzezinski, Z. (2007). Zbigniew Brzezinski quotes. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/z/zbigniewbr341965.html Chaliand, G., & Blin, A. (2007). History of terrorism: From antiquity to Al Qaeda. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Frieden, T. (2005, May 19). FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism. CNN. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/index.html Jarboe, J. F. (2002, February 12). The Threat of Eco-Terrorism. Retrieved October 4, 2007, from http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm Lehr, J. (2003, November 21). Eco-Terrorists stepping up attacks across America. Environment News. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13698 Protest Match. (2006, February 26). Telegraph. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.calvin.edu/library/knightcite/index.php Thackrah, J. R. (2004). Dictionary of Terrorism. New York: Taylor & Francis. The rise and fall of the Symbionese Liberation Army (2005, February 16). Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/guerrilla/peopleevents/e_kidnapping.html Vohryzek-Bolden, M., Olson-Raymer, G., & Wharmond, J. O. (2001). Domestic Terrorism and Incident Management: Issues and Tactics. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Read More