Terrorism in Mississippi Burning - Book Report/Review Example

Terrorism in Mississippi Burning In the case of “Mississippi Burning,” in the movie, the Ku Klux Klan exhibited tactics of basically running the rural Southern town through the local police force. They had infiltrated the local police force, which effectively ran the branch of the KKK. This is what made it so difficult to work together for the police and the FBI in the case; the police on a local level were totally corrupted and aligned with the Klan. The agents deteriorate in their communication because they have different approaches to dealing with the KKK’s hold on the town. The Mississipi town is therefore presented as deeply corrupt, with the KKK using tactics of what basically amounts to totalitarian rule or martial law over this part of Jessup County. In the same case, the tactics of the FBI centered on two fronts: the agents who didn’t get along, and the infiltrator, and their problems in working towards the common goal of bringing down the KKK in the town. They switch tactics and the FBI gets involved with the mayor’s abduction. The agents then have a pipeline of information that they can get from the mayor, and this proves to be an important tactic to their eventual triumph in the case. The special ops man who acts as the hostage taker also has the infiltrator’s role to play. The FBI also involves the physical beating of the Deputy who beat his wife. Then, the FBI use the tactics of disguise to infiltrate the Klan, and are successful in the end. In terms of differentiating terrorist and criminal actions of the KKK in the Mississippi Burning case, the actions of corruption that undoubtedly accompanied the branch of the local police force being a branch of the KKK are indisputable. But from a different perspective, definitional problems still arise even within this perspective of protection when the question arises: is terrorism an act to be dealt with by the FBI, or a criminal act to be dealt with by the police and tried in criminal court? The problem with defining the KKK’s actions in “Mississippi Burning” as terrorism in a criminal way is that in a freedom-loving society, courts and laws are playing a different game than terrorists. If the judiciary can be seen in a democratic society as a middle-ground in which fairness, duality, and moderation are held in esteem, the KKK in this case is the diametrical opposite of this system, and therefore terrorist in nature through its extremism: the KKK in the movie seeks to ignore and/or eliminate any middle ground or hope of compromise. Defining terrorism as criminal behavior is a problem because the terrorist will most likely think of themselves as being above the law (or, as in this case, a part of the law). I believe that the KKK, in this case, exhibited terrorist acts. I’m sure the Deputy in the movie would disagree from his perspective, and claim that he is some sort of patriot, though. There are descriptions from those who practice terrorism, and descriptions given by those who are its victims. From the perspective of terrorism’s victims, then, one can cull a history of often-vituperative definitions by people who have been hurt by the fear and violence engendered by terrorism. For example, James M. Poland defines terrorism as “The premeditated, systematic, deliberate murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage…” (TRC 2009). Definitions of terrorism from the perspective of the victim also stress the unlawful and illegitimate nature of the crime. From an American perspective, the most widely accepted definition of terrorism is the classification used by the FBI: “Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (TRC 2009). But from the alternate perspective of a practitioner of terrorism, these unlawful acts of murder and mayhem may be described as acts of freedom and resistance. In fact, the practitioner may not even think of him/herself as a terrorist, perhaps preferring the term “freedom fighter.” This matter of perspective makes even approaching a universal definition of terrorism very difficult. In the light of the greater good of society, the FBI actions in the “Mississippi Burning” case were ethical because they reduced the total harm that the KKK was doing to Jessup County in Mississippi. They reflected the values of the outside society on a federal level, which was to stamp out discrimination and promote Civil Rights, and they did it by all means necessary. The nobility of their goals excused their actions because, as the proverb says, one must break a few eggs when making an omelette. It becomes clear that the working environment or organization of the FBI and local police, as they are shown in the movie, must function in a larger societal space as a greater microcosm than the individual, but a lesser one than the society, and this is particularly true in the case of organizations like the Jessup police and the FBI, that provide a vital service with a lot of shareholders at stake. Therefore, the rules and codes of the society in terms of generalized drives towards ethics are followed by these organizations and the individual, in descending order of relative size, to be a reflection of the greater society of which both are a part, in an optimal setting. REFERENCE “Terrorism Resource Center—TRC.” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/profiling.html, 2009. Read More