FREE ESSAY ON TERRORISM:A MODERN SCOURGE

TERRORISM:A MODERN SCOURGE

Terrorism: A Modern Scourge 
Terrorism has become a part of modern life. Hijackings, bombings, and assassinations on
different continents of the world may seem like isolated attacks, but they reflect an
easy reliance on violence as a way to promote social, political, and religious change.
They are elements of a pervasive end justifies the means philosophy being followed to its
most perverse conclusions. International terrorism has become the scourge of all
democratic governments. These democratic governments are accustomed to dealing within a
legal structure, often find it difficult to deal with criminals and terrorists that
routinely operate outside of the law. However, deterrence is just as much a part of
justice as proper enforcement of the laws. Democratic governments that do not deter
criminals inevitably spawn vigilantism as normally law-abiding citizens who have lost
confidence in the criminal justice system take the law into their own hands. A similar
backlash is beginning to emerge as a result of the inability of western democracies to
defend themselves against terrorists. However, lack of governmental resolve is only part
of the problem. Terrorists thrive on media exposure, and news organizations around the
world have been all too willing to give terrorists what they crave, publicity. If the
news media gave terrorists the minuscule coverage their numbers and influence would
decline. But, when hijackings and bombings are given prominent media attention,
governments start feeling pressure from their citizens to resolve the crisis and
eventually capitulate to terrorists' demands. Encouraged by their latest success,
terrorists usually try again -Winston Churchill Recent successes have made terrorists
hungry for more attacks. News commentators have been unwilling to call terrorism what it
is, Blind criminal violence. They soften their barbaric acts by arguing that one man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. This illusion is simply not true. Terrorists
are not concerned about human rights and human dignity. In fact, they end up destroying
human rights in their alleged fight for human rights. A relatively new term for terrorism
has been coined, new warfare. Yet, terrorists turn the notion of war on its head.
Innocent citizens become targets in the devastating terrorist attacks. How do we define a
terrorist? Is a terrorist a common criminal? If terrorists are mere criminals, then with
reference to the Bible, they should be dealt with by their host governments. In Romans
13, the Apostle Paul says; He who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and
they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a
cause of fear for good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority?
Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to
you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid: for it does not bear the sword for
nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who
practices evil This passage of scripture helps us make an important distinction we will
use in our analysis of terrorism. It shows us that criminals are those who do evil and
threaten the civil peace. But, any outside threat to the existence of the country is not
a criminal threat but an act of war, which is also to be dealt with by the government. In
other words, criminals threaten the state from within. Foreign armies threaten the state
from outside. These evildoers should live in fear of government. However, terrorists do
not live in fear of the governing authorities in the countries where they live. Their
governments do not think of them as breaking civilian laws and thus do not prosecute
them. Let us look over an imaginary situation. If an anti-Syrian terrorist group was
based somewhere in North America, we would prosecute those terrorists as enemies of our
countries. This North American based terrorist group would be illegal because it would be
engaging in activities reserved for the governments of the North American countries. Why
wouldn't the Middle Eastern governments prosecute these terrorists? It's simple, because
the terrorists often carry out the policies and desires of such host governments. The
assumption that is made after studying a case like this is that both the terrorist groups
and their host nations are truly enemies of the North American governments. After
studying this imaginary case, it is possible to see that both the terrorist groups and
their host nations are truly enemies of North American government and people. When they
capture and kill innocent civilians for military and foreign policy purposes, it is not
simply civilian murder but, military warfare. What the world is facing is a new type of
military aggressor. As explained earlier, terrorists are not common criminals to be tried
in civil courts. They are military targets who must be stopped since they are armed and
military enemies of the governments whom they oppose. In the same way that it took
traditional armies some time to learn how to combat guerrilla warfare, so it is taking
Western governments time to realise that the rules for warfare have been revised in the
case of terrorism. Diplomatic efforts have failed to convince. Meetings and negotiations
haven't been able to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists. When we fight terrorism we
need to realise we are talking about war. Military warfare is different from civilian
peacekeeping. In civilian peacekeeping, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
A citizen can be arrested and detained before trial but must be released unless guilt is
proven. Military warfare is different. A trial is not held for each military action. In a
sense, in a just war, a trial of sorts is held before any action is taken. Discussion and
debates among government officials usually occur before war is declared. Fact-finding
studies, presentations, testimonies, and other kinds of forethought go into a declaration
of war. In a sense, when the use of the military is involved, the trial period comes
before anyone is confronted or arrested. But once war is declared, there are no more
trials until the enemy is defeated. And every one who aids and abets the enemy is guilty
by association. At present, terrorism is a one-sided war that the target governments are
loosing. Soldiers and citizens are being killed in the war. Unfortunately, the target
governments are not treating terrorism like the war it is. If we take the United States
as an example, the limited war powers granted to the president by Congress are not
powerful enough and are not used in a systematic way to defeat the enemy. If we are to
win the war against terrorism, we must realise that it is war. Until we see it as
military aggression, we will be unsuccessful in ending terrorism in this decade. If we
continue on with the example of the United States, The ability of these groups to carry
out their agenda is not the issue. The fundamental issue is how U.S. government leaders
should deal with this new type of military strategy. Terrorists have held American
diplomats hostage for years, blown up military compounds, and hijacked aeroplanes and
cruise ships. Although some hostages have been released, many others have been killed,
and the U.S. has been unsuccessful at punishing more than a small number of terrorists.
Even though international diplomacy has been the primary means used by The United States
against terrorism, we should consider what other means may be appropriate. In the past
American leaders have responded to military aggression in a variety of ways short of
declaring war. The U.S. Constitution grants the following powers to Congress: To define
and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high Seas, and offences against the law
of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules
concerning captures on land and water. Terrorist acts fall into at least two of the
congressional provisions for dealing with attacks on the nations. They are: (1) to punish
offenses against the law of nations, and (2) to declare war. In either case, there are
strong constitutional grounds for taking action against terrorists. The difficulty comes
in clearly identifying the enemy and being willing to risk offending many Arab nations
whom we consider allies. Congress must identify the enemy and call that group a military
target. Once that has happened, many of the other steps fall into place with less
difficulty. It can be seen that, through diplomatic channels we must make two things very
clear to the leaders of the host country. First, they should catch and punish the
terrorist groups as civilian criminals. Or, second, they should extradite the enemy
soldiers to an international court for trial. If the host country fails to act on these
two requests, we should make it clear that we see it as in complicity with the terrorist
groups. By failing to exercise their civil responsibility, these countries leave
themselves open to the consequences of allowing military forces hostile to the target
government, to remain within their borders. Although diplomacy has its place, it is easy
to see that diplomacy and negotiation do not strike fear in the hearts of terrorists. In
most cases, diplomatic efforts have failed to bring terrorists to justice. It has been
shown that Romans 13 acknowledges the government's right to bear the sword to protect its
citizens from criminal threats within the country and military threats outside the
country. We have also shown that military action is sanctioned by Congress to punish
piracies and felonies and to punish offence against the law of nations. With these facts
as background, we should now focus on the issue of just punishment. The principle here is
that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. A judge could not chop off a man's
hand merely because he scratched another man's hand in a fight. The punishment should be
burn for burn and wound for wound. In saying this, it does not mean that the target
government should not go off and start to bomb the host countries' cities if the do not
do anything to stop a terrorist group that had for examples sake, kidnapped the target
government's governmental officials. However, just and proportional punishment also means
that we should not apply too light a punishment. Countries that harbour terrorists and
refuse to punish or extradite them should be pressured. Punishment could come in the form
of economic embargoes, import-export restrictions, the serving of diplomatic relations,
or even military actions. Any excessive reaction in a situation like this would not only
be unjust, bit it would also fuel the fires of an even stronger retaliation from the host
country. In the most desperate cases, a strike force of counterterrorists might be
necessary where the threat is both real and imminent. This however, should be considered
only as an option of last resort. Some examples of such actions are, in 1989, an Israeli
special forces team successfully captured a man by the name of Sheik Obeid, and no doubt
put a dent in the terrorist network by bringing one of its leaders to justice. Another
example is, in 1985, United States Air Force planes were able to force down an Egyptian
airliner to prevent the escape of another terrorist leader. These are acts which should
be done rarely and carefully. But, they may be appropriate means to bring about justice.
In conclusion, terrorism must be recognised as a new type of military aggression that
requires governmental action. It involves an undeclared war and government officials must
take the same sort of actions that they would if threatened by a hostile country. There
must be changes in order to prevent further terrorist aggression in this decade and in
the future. There has to be a line drawn if we are too completely eradicate this modern
scourge of terrorism. Works Cited Quotation: Winston Churchill The Apostle Paul, Romans
13, The New Student Bible. Grand Rapides: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. Madison,
George. (Recorder), The United States Constitution. New York: 1791. Bibliography Gueke,
Adrian. The Age of Terrorism and The International Political System London: Tauris
Academic Studies, 1995. Info-Warfare, (Internet), Available: Error! Bookmark not defined.
Laqueur, Walter. The Age of Terrorism. Boston: Brown, 1987. Long, David. The Anatony of
Terrorism. New York: Collier Macmillan, 1990. Terrorism, (Internet), Available: Error!
Bookmark not defined. Terrorism, (Internet), Available: Error! Bookmark not defined.
Terrorism Statistics, (Internet), Available: Error! Bookmark not defined.