The War on Domestic Terrorism: Implications for Social Policy - Term Paper Example

The War on Domestic Terrorism: Implications for Social Policy "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God has given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." John Philpot Curran, 1790 Introduction The ability to remain a free people, with the God given entitlements of freedom and liberty, has been critically tested in the United States as the war on terror has mandated a sense of escalating vigilance. However, when this vigilance takes the form of surveillance upon its own citizens, the government begins to be seen as a threat to our eroding liberty. There is a fine line to be walked when we make the distinction between domestic citizens engaged in social protest and domestic terrorist. While we may feel no remorse for using any means possible to gather the information necessary to prevent another 9/11, there is greater reluctance to allow the wholesale inspection of our communications in an effort to quell social or political dissent. The social forces of political influence, excessive abuse of constitutional rights, and the invasion of privacy become heated public issues as individual liberties are sacrificed for the protection of the greater collective. Curran warned the people that we must be on constant guard against those that would prey on our failure to remain vigilant. Yet, who are the greater perpetrators of the transgressions to our freedom Do the domestic terrorists who incite violent acts against domestic corporations, citizens, and local governments harbor a bigger threat to our way of life than our own government Indeed, in these extreme times, compromises must be made that balance our right to liberty against our right to public safety. This paper will examine the powers of recent legislation, the extent of domestic surveillance, its effect on our constitutional rights, and its impact on domestic social policy. Definitions This paper will confine the discussion of surveillance as it relates to domestic terrorism. Any intrusions into public privacy will have domestic terrorism as the target. It will not include any discussions of the impact on liberty that surveillance has had for the purpose of deterring international terrorism. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), domestic terrorism is defined 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). In general, domestic terrorism is confined to environmental activists, social issues such as abortion or globalization, political protest, and nationalist or separatist movements. It is important to note that it does not include US citizens who are acting on behalf of a foreign government or group. In addition, it must fit the definition of terrorism and exceed the standard for criminal activity. Typically the perpetrators of domestic terrorism have been pro-life groups, eco-terrorists, and animal rights activists, but may also include anti-war protestors or ideological extremists. These are US citizens operating within its borders to bring attention to, and effect, a social or political agenda. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, (ACLU), "Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism" (How the USA Patriot Act redefines, 2002). When a violent act is committed, the motivation for the act, or the connection to a group, differentiates it from criminal activity, and places it into the category of terrorism. This redefinition of terrorism is where the potential risk to liberty lies. The label of domestic terrorism gives the government and law enforcement broad and sweeping powers in regards to the use of wiretaps, sneak and peek searches, and the monitoring of electronic communications and records (IE computer use and e-mail) (Bergman and Berman-Barrette, 2007, p.275). It can additionally involve additional agencies with greater resources and expertise than a local law enforcement agency might typically have available. Impact on the Social Agenda One of the risks involved with undue government intrusion and intimidation of domestic activity is that it impedes the honest and well-intentioned dissent and political activity that is a part of American democracy. The US Patriot Act authorized law enforcement, without the intervention of a court, to use trap and trace orders on the electronic communications of private citizens if they believe it might produce information that is relevant to any crime (Doyle, 2002, p.2). For example, the crime could be civil disobedience. Trap and trace orders can reveal who the communication is from and who it is sent to, but does not reveal the body of the communication. Trap and trace technology reveals the network of people that a person communicates with, and "provides important leads for investigators, and may assist them in building the facts necessary to obtain probable cause to support a full content wiretap" (Comey, 2005, p.7). This could result in the eventual wiretapping of several innocent victims who come under suspicion of staging a protest merely because they have had a phone conversation with the initial target of the investigation. This is in contradiction to the previous Supreme Court ruling in Katz v. United States (1967), which ruled "electronic surveillance constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, cannot be conducted by the government without the showing of probable cause and a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate" (Varghese, 2003, p.387). The Patriot Act gives law enforcement almost unlimited authority to go on fishing expeditions, without probable cause, in hopes of uncovering something that they can later begin to build a case on. The Patriot Act was intended to help fight terrorism, not as a tool for law enforcement to increase their ability to intercept and monitor private citizens that are not involved with terrorism. The Patriot Act has legitimized the reframing of the public discourse and has been successful at labeling serious social dissent as domestic terrorism. The media, pundits, and politicians routinely refer to organizations such as anti-sprawl movements and anti-globalization as well funded terrorist organizations and "civilians as violent activists" (Wekerle and Jackson, 2005, pp.35, 40; Warren, 2004, p.227). Once these social movements are labeled as terrorists in the public mind, there is an official sanction to treat them as terrorists. Fair and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media watchdog group, reported that the mischaracterization of public protest as a terrorist activity gives local law enforcement agencies the necessary justification to use excessive force, such as would be expected to contain a riot (Wekerle and Jackson, 2005, pp.35-36). The reframing of social dissent as domestic terrorism has even caused some cities to be overly aggressive at stifling public gatherings. According to Wekerle and Jackson (2005), "A long-standing form of repression that is now normalized under the guise of protection from terrorism is limiting permits for public gatherings, or limiting access to public spaces (p.38). The ability to monitor people's communications and movements, the denial of the right to public assembly, and the threat of violent law enforcement action has placed a chill on the progressive social forces in the US. The penalties under the Patriot Act are substantial enough to intimidate free speech and hamper free political, social, and ideological expression. The Patriot Act "allows the confiscation of all of the property of any individual or entity that even plans an act of domestic terrorism" (Doyle, 2002, p.4). The vagueness of the definition of terrorism could threaten many people with the loss of all their savings, real estate, and personal belongings. In addition, states are free to implement their own, and often more restrictive, versions of the Act to further redefine domestic terrorism. Recently, a planned political protest at the Republican National Convention (RNC) was disrupted and the organizers were arrested on state charges of "Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism" when they planned to use civil disobedience to disrupt traffic and the RNC (Trimmer, 2008; Terrorism charges levied, 2008). It is important to note that the criminal complaint in the case alleged potential violence, but no evidence has ever been produced that meets the standard of violence. However, the threshold of interfering with the conduct of government is sufficient for arrest (Trimmer, 2008; Terrorism charges levied, 2008). The criminalization of political protest and the provisions of the Patriot Act hold the possibility that the 8 defendants could lose all their property, and to date the case is still pending in a Minnesota court. There is a great risk that the Patriot Act will be used to control, intimidate, and eliminate peaceful political protestors that have traditionally been a part of the American landscape. This would apply to organizers that may wish to protest the war, economic conditions, immigration policy, or gay rights. The Patriot Act has the potential to label almost anyone as a domestic terrorist and silent any minority political opposition. While the Patriot Act has reduced some constitutional protections, most importantly the Fourth Amendment rights, it has not been productive in the identification, disruption, or prosecution of domestic terrorism. The preponderance of arrests and prosecutions under the Patriot Act have been international in nature, and most of them have been for small crimes or financial transactions (Eggen and Tate, 2005). Many of the incidents of domestic terrorism have been due to a public disruption or outburst aboard airliners. Of the 200 people arrested on airline flights, most were due to "raised voices, foul language and drunken behavior" (Vartabedian and Pae, 2009). Homeland security arrested a veteran for making harassing phone calls to the Veterans Administration, and federal officials admit there was no threat of terrorism and only involved language that was "abusive and derogatory" (Brecht, 2004). However, the more violent acts of the religious right have generally escaped the label of terrorism, and they have continued to be portrayed as well intentioned citizens. The FBI and the media have consistently been reluctant to "treat anti-abortion bombings, assassinations and arson as terrorism" (Vallis, Yang, and Abbass, 2006, p.9). To some degree the war on domestic terror has been a reflection of the neo-conservative domestic policy. When the government can construct terrorism based on political beliefs, there is a danger of "turning the war on terror into a war on freedom and democracy" (Warren, 2004, p.226). The success of the war on domestic terrorism has not been the elimination of the threat of random violence against a large number of people, but has been the furthering of a social agenda based on conservative political ideology. Critics will contend that the Patriot Act and the increased scrutiny of domestic activity are necessary to keep the threat of terrorism in check. While the provisions of the law may seem excessive the implementation of it has not been, and its enforcement is well regulated by our reasonable judicial system. However, history has shown that the government will act, at times, in a way that exploits every tool available to suppress public opposition to their policies. We need only recall the events of the 1960s and the government's excesses that were aimed at the anti-war protestors during the Vietnam era. In today's political climate there is a renewed "opportunity for law enforcement and the intelligence community to return to an era when they monitored and sometimes harassed individuals who were merely exercising their First Amendment rights" (Martin, 2002, p.7). Taken one at a time, the effects of the war on domestic terror may seem minimal. However, there is a cumulative effect that has sent a silent chill over the progressive liberal social movement that is difficult to quantify. Henderson (2002) warns that "American history teaches that insufficiently checked executive power to conduct electronic surveillance is dangerous" (p.208). When this is coupled by a public climate of fear, a sensationalizing media, and over zealous agencies it strips us of our legal protections and blockades any legal avenue of protest. Conclusion The war on domestic terrorism has not resulted in massive arrests of citizens carrying out violent acts against society or its political ideals. Instead, it has served to be a political tool used to promote a social agenda and silence any meaningful minority opposition. Civil disobedience, a traditional means of public political protest, has now been framed as domestic terrorism in the minds of the public and law enforcement agencies. The Patriot Act has given law enforcement almost unlimited authority to spy on private citizens, as well as confiscate their most personal records and possibly their property. The threshold for the definition of terrorism has been lowered and the standards of probable cause and judicial oversight have been eliminated. Warrantless trap and trace technology runs the risk of ensnaring large numbers of innocent citizens into what the government may mistakenly perceive as a terrorist network. The disruption of political dissent, the denial of public assembly, and the criminalization of social protest has been aimed at the progressive social movements, while the more conservative factions have largely escaped the label of terrorism. The war on domestic terrorism has not made the public significantly safer, but has substantially eroded their constitutional rights and has systematically reduced the ability to engage in any form of meaningful social protest. References Bergman, P., & Berman-Barrette, S. J. (2007). The criminal law handbook (9th ed.). South Berkeley, CA: Nolo. Brecht, T. (2004, November 5). Agents arrest man in threats. Quad City Times. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/hs_arrest_vet.htm Comey, J.B. (2005, June 8). Statement of James B. Comey Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Curran, J. P. (1840). Speech of Mr. Curran on the right of election of Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin. In Irish Eloquence: The speeches of the celebrated Irish orators Phillips, Curran, and Grattan. Philadelphia, PA: Edward C Biddle. Doyle, C. (2002). The USA PATRIOT Act: A sketch. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Eggen, D., & Tate, J. (2005, June 12). Terror arrests devolving to charges on lesser crimes. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgif=/c/a/2005/06/12/MNGJND7G531.DTL&hw=terrorizing&sn=002&sc=909 Jarboe, J. F. (2002, February 12). The Threat of Eco-Terrorism. Retrieved October 4, 2007, from http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm Henderson, N. (2002). The Patriot Act's impact on the government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance of ongoing domestic communications. Duke Law Journal, 152(1), 179-209. How the USA Patriot Act redefines "Domestic Terrorism" (2002, December 6). Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html Martin, K. (2002, December). Intelligence, terrorism, and civil liberties. Human Rights, 5-7. Terrorism charges levied against RNC protesters. (2008, October 4). Workers World. Retrieved March 31, 2009, from http://www.workers.org/2008/us/rnc_1009/ Trimmer, T. (2008, September). County Attorney Complaint Number 2073788-1, Ramsey County, MN. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.nlgminnesota.org/node/66 Vallis, R., Yang, Y., & Abbass, H. (2006). Disciplinary approaches to terrorism: A survey (Working Paper). Canberra, AU: University of New South Wales. Varghese, G. P. (2003). A sense of purpose: The role of law enforcement in foreign intelligence surveillance [Electronic version]. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 152(1), 385-430. from JSTOR. Vartabedian, R., & Pae, P. (2009, January 21). In-flight incidents magnified under Patriot Act. Honolulu Advertiser. Retrieved March 31, 2009, from http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090121/BREAKING/90121086 Warren, R. (2004) 'City streets-the war zones of globalization', in S. Graham (ed.) Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics, pp. 214-230. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Wekerle, G. R., & Jackson, P. S. (2005). Urbanizing the security agenda: Anti-terrorism, urban sprawl and social movements. City, 9(1), 33-49. Read More