Should We Fight Terror?
Repost This ArticleTerrorism is bad. OK. But how bad? And is it all bad? Or is it more like saying bacteria is bad — in other words, dependent on the situation?
First we need to look at what terrorism really is. Yes, it is the intent to cause terror, but it’s actual definition is widely accepted to be the intention of military groups to cause terror amongst a civil populace. Occasionally the definition is modified to include state military action against an enemy populace (eg: the RAF aircrew were referred to by the Germans in WW2 as “Terrorfliger†or terror flyers). However, when looked at analytically, terrorism is merely a means to an end, a weapon in conflict; usually (but not invariably) employed by small groups against a vastly more powerful foe — as a last or only method of attack.
Therefore, anyone faced with terrorism is seemingly justified in fighting it with all means at their disposal — from direct military action, to financial action, to the passing of new legislation to prevent terrorism.
However, history also teaches us that definitions change, and that the ‘terrorists’ of the French Resistance are today seen as freedom fighters; just as the Afghan mujahideen have had their designation changed from ‘freedom fighters’ to ‘terrorists’. So are we justified in clamping down on terrorism per se, knowing full well that in the future terrorism might very well be a means we need to utilize in order to gain some justifiable end?
The JVP that now advocates the harshest measures against the Tamil separatist terrorists once relied on those self same terror tactics themselves. The terror tactics now being fought worldwide by the US and the UK were first put into action by the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) when they trained resistance groups in German-occupied Europe.
Today we see much legislation being passed worldwide in order to make it harder for terror groups to arm and finance themselves. Should such laws be supported by us? Is it not logical that one day we might very well need such freedom in order to overthrow a dictatorial regime? Shouldn’t we preserve some of our alternatives? Right now we’re handing over the powers of revolt to the state, and removing the possibilities of successful revolution in the future. It’s sort of like helping to outlaw union action. Should we really be doing this?
confusion in logic is astonishing .
if we accept that terrorism is a morally relative concept ( good or bad depending on the time,the place and the motive) why bother what the laws say? crimes defined by them are then relative as well. realistically speaking in such a situation one has to expect that those who will lose due to terrorist tactics ( if they believe terrorism is morally relative) will do every thing in their power to protect themselves including enacting laws beneficial to them. and they will be just as ‘correct’ at that time and place. similarly if one expects to use terror tactics in the future and want to create the legal climate for it now, expect the other side to do the exact opposite ( by enacting laws to prevent those terror tactics) from now as well.
in other words if one accepts moral relativism one has to accept a free for all. ‘justifications’, ‘laws’ ‘good’, ‘bad’ etc do not have any meaning then. ppl will do what they can to get/preserve their interests. relative self interest without any regard to others’ interest will be the only criteria by which they will evaluate their actions.
so if anyone thinks that is how terrorism should be considered, do not complain if some ppl decide the answer to above question by uniting and enacting laws aimed at furthering their self interest ( including draconian anti terror laws ) and do not care what will happen to others as a result. what else can you expect?
-
on the other hand if human rights etc are absolute ( non relative) universal values it stands to reason that there be laws to prevent violations. in that case acts of terrorism will also be considered violations of human rights. in fact terror will be defined by the acts involved not by the who does it for what reason, and where. and anti terrorism laws will be judged not by whether they will prevent us from using terror tactics in future or whether they facilitate furthering of our individual interests, but on how far they violate or preserve those absolute human rights.
-
curiously in both cases one would probably end up with anti terror laws of some kind. difference will be in their severity.
-
personally i believe that ppl should be free to act as they wish as long as they allow others to act as they wish. if some interfere with others freedom ( as terrorists do ) i would accept restrictions to be places on those ( including the application of violence if needs be) as sanctioned by democratically expressed will of the public.
War against terrorism is hardly about fighting terror attacks per se. There are hardly any mutually or objectively justifiable goals to any insurgency regardless of their employing terror tactics, and whether if it’s “bad” or “good” does not depend on the situation as you say, but solely on whose side *you* are on.
There’s a good piece here – http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/09/un_diplomats_dr.html – on the UN’s difficulties with the definition of terrorism. As the article notes:
“The absence of a terrorism definition seriously hinders any effort to coordinate an international response to terrorism. Without a common definition countries remain free to interpret their own obligations and define for themselves which groups are terrorists and which are “freedom fighters.†Saudi Arabia uses this distinction, for example, to get away with funding Hamas, while Iran and Syria use it to provide funds and support to Hezbollah. But, many other countries have also used it to avoid taking steps to freeze funds or take other civil or criminal action against those individuals or groups which they support.”
David’s post is a good one and brings up the issue of anti-terrorism regulations in Sri Lanka, with no mention of the LTTE in it, perhaps with a view to curtail any and all “terrorist” activities that are seen to be detrimental to “national security” and “territorial integrity”. As David hints, this brings up the question on how to deal with a State that also uses terrorism (state sponsored terrorism is old news in Sri Lanka, and continues to this day). As Sittingnut points out, it’s often self-interest that propels the creation and enactment of anti-terrorism laws, and we see that in the US / UK / India / Australia and other countries that after 9/11 have enacted such laws, human rights have really taken a battering.
How much of this is inevitable? For sure, the primary target of terrorism is a way of life that they seek to subvert. By bringing in anxiety, fear and raising the fear of fellow citizens (EVERYBODY is a suspect, EVERYONE is a potential enemy, NO-ONE can be trusted) terrorism’s usual response from the State is the creation of an Orwellian blanket that smothers all dissent.