Introduction


Widespread terrorism has been one of the scorching issues to date and one of the most primary concerns amongst all nations. There go the bombing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the September 11 attack, the Abu Sayaf in the Philippines. It seems during this age, we are assailed with different terrorist acts.


But are the peoples in the world ready to combat such deadly menace? If so, are our terrorism laws that effective? Or are they, too, muddled with confusions, and in a way, back fire in the long run?


In recent years terror has become trendy, not only in the number of spectacular and often gruesome incidents but also as a subject for academic analysis and a concern to policy makers. Munich, Vienna, Rome, and Athens have been transmuted into a litany of massacres: a macabre grand tour. Diplomats have been kidnapped and murdered, ending their careers in as diverse sites as the basement of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum and an official limousine in the streets of Guatemala City. Transnational executives have been shot in Argentina, American military advisers in Iran, and unlucky tourists standing in the wrong line in various air terminals. And it has not been only the weak seeking to bomb their way into prominence if not power. The threatened have resorted to governing by torture or responding to provocation with authorized assassinations. Fanatics in the grip of some compelling fantasy mimicking revolutionary violence have hijacked aircraft while babbling half-digested political slogans, or shot at the President of the United States in the cause of the environment. Nor have those who employ the tactics of extortion or coercion for financial gain been absent—kidnapping in Italy has become a veritable cottage industry, exploited not only by criminals but by sound businessmen eager to sell potential victims insurance. To many we appear to live in an era of violence, a time of terror (K. Lee Bruse et. al. (1978)).


By definition terrorism is an act or threat of violence directed at civilians with the object of spreading terror among them. Terrorist breaches are, by virtue of their defining tactics and overarching strategy, inherently illegal. The irremediability of terror warfare lies in the fact that its tactics and overarching strategies rely on methods and means specifically prohibited under Part IV of Protocol I. Therefore, it is impossible to conduct terror warfare without intentionally committing criminal breaches of the Geneva Conventions (K., Davida (2005)).


Moreover, violence, and with it terror, goes back beyond the dawn of history: contemporary violence stands on the shoulders of earlier fanatics. Terrorism, however, belongs to our modern, sophisticated technological age. The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror and the Revolutionary Catechism of the Russian anarchists Bakunin and Nechaev, Dowling suggested, mark important steps in the development of modern international terrorism: terror as policy and terrorism as philosophy. Wilkinson found the first use of urban guerrilla warfare in the 1848 revolutions. Gros, who analyzed terrorism in literature, found the beginning of intellectual rationalization of violence at least as early as Rousseau and spoke of Sartre’s discussion of purifying and creative crime (K. Lee Bruse et. al. (1978)).


Terrorism is used as a strategy by groups out of power to attain their goals has a long history, as old as warfare itself. Thomas Schelling in Arms and Influence documented how the use of violence to terrorize and intimidate is an ancient tactic. He noted examples of violence used in this way in the wars between the Greeks and the Persians. The all too prevalent idea that terrorism is a totally novel phenomenon is a myth. However, while terrorism has a long history, the current wave of this form of violence has been given impetus by a series of new developments in the post-World War II period. Any analysis of terrorism in the contemporary world must begin with a discussion of these developments.


According to figures in a recently published research, in World War I some 95 percent of all deaths were suffered by soldiers. In those days armies fought against armies. In World War II the figure dropped to 50 percent. With the deliberate targeting of cities (London, Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki), this dramatic increase in the deaths of innocent civilians is not surprising. In the Korean War, 84 percent of those killed were civilians and in the Vietnam War it rose to 90 percent. In more than 100 civil wars since 1945, civilians were also the targets of war and the overwhelming number of deaths was suffered by civilians (G., Richard J. (2002)).


Terrorism Definitions


            According to Suter Keith the basic problem with trying to create an international regime against terrorism is that there is no agreed definition. Problem lies that one government “terrorist” is another’s “freedom fighter”. Another problem is that governments are themselves inconsistent on what they regard as terrorism. And another one is that the word “terrorism” is usually applied to only one-state actors and so ignores the role of governments in terrorism. Or to sum up, “terrorism” is far more a political term than a legal one and its use varies according to the political expediency of each government at the time.           


Moreover, in his post-September 11 speech to the General Assembly, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British Ambassador to the United Nations, said “What looks, smells and kills like terrorism is terrorism.” As this is not exactly a legally serviceable definition, diplomats and international lawyers have until recently solved the definitional problem by writing conventions outlawing terrorist acts without ever mentioning the word “terrorism.” The official website entitled “UN Conventions on Terrorism ” (2) lists eight United Nations conventions and two protocols enacted between 1963 and 1991, dealing with such diverse offences as hijacking, attacks on diplomatic agents and other internationally protected persons, hostage taking, theft of nuclear material and unlawful acts against maritime navigation and fixed platforms located on the continental shelf. It requires no complex process of reasoning to realize that any of these prohibited acts can occur within or without the, context of terrorism. The taking of a hostage for the p urpose of obtaining the liberation of a political prisoner fits the definition of a terrorist act. The same crime committed solely for the payment of ransom does not. The hijacking of the four planes on September 11 was a mega terrorist act. It is questionable; however, whether the hijacking of a plane bound for Florida to enable the hijacker to land in Cuba fits the general view of terrorism (Weiss, Peter (2002)). Moreover, terrorism is a strategy whereby violence is used to produce certain effects upon a group of people. With special reference to sub-state terrorism, this strategy is one of four “ideal type” strategies whereby a group out of power can effect violent social change, the other three being coup d’etat, insurrection, and guerrilla warfare.


But whether the definition of terrorism is bucketful, countries of today are more than resolved that whatever inhuman attacks, like bombing of World trade center without a solid, objective political ground other than wreak havoc and somehow spread fear are to be considered as such.


 


International Terrorism Law


            To address the need to combat terrorism around the world, most countries of today set there laws with formidable terrorism bills – heightening and strengthening securities in their jurisdictions, collaborating with intelligence groups around the globe to track down terrorist elements in the society, feeding the public with the necessary information to raise vigilance and knowledge about terrorism. And indeed, international action against terrorism is one again on the top agenda.


            In Germany, for example, new laws were passed on December 20, 2001 to strengthen anti-terrorism measures. The Federal Council (Bundesrat) approved the so-called “Second Terrorism Package” only days after the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) did. They include, for example, expanded possibilities for exchanging information among government security departments, blocking the entry of terrorists, strengthening border controls, and investigating German residents suspected of terrorist ties. Also, Germany is introducing “sky marshals” on airplane flights (International Law Update 2/1/2002). In the Philippines Anti-Terrorism bill is considered urgent and necessary. As with all penal legislations, the foundation of an Anti-Terrorism Law would be the definition of the crime, and this could be the most tedious task in the legislative process because it must encompass all conceivable acts of terrorism while drawing the parameters to prevent possible abuses in its application. On this point, the definition provided by the U.S. Patriot Act might be a practical starting point, to wit: “Activities that (a) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (b) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (c) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.” It will be readily seen that this definition is more restrictive than those provided in a number of pending bills already filed in our Congress (R. Fidel Ramos (2006)).


 


In England, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s anti-terrorism law was approved by the House of Lords, ending a bitter standoff between the government and political opponents.


Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I are acknowledged as the pertinent provisions of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) (and not the misconstructions, opinions, and pronouncements of terrorist propagandists, anti-American leftists, cultural relativists, barracks lawyers, and NGOs that, however well-intentioned, have placed an unrealistic and unreasonable expectation of zero collateral damage on conventional fighters), then terror warfare is always irremediably illegal (Military Review 9/1/2005).


Moreover, Article 85 of Protocol (2005) I stated such characteristic acts of terror warfare as “making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack [and] the perfidious use … of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross [and so on] or of other protective signs … when committed willfully … shall be regarded as grave breaches.” This statement is significant because Article 85 also states that “grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.” And, according to Article 86, the High Contracting Parties as well as all Parties to the conflict are required “to repress grave breaches, and to take all measures necessary to suppress all other breaches, of the Conventions or of [Additional Protocol I], which result from a failure to act when under a duty to do so.” Arguments for terrorism, based on religion, politics, or frustration with the prevailing socioeconomic situation (the so-called root-causes arguments), which do not acknowledge the possibility of appeal to the Law of Nations, are not honest or exculpatory.


September 11 attack


            September 11 attack caused the death of almost 3,000 people in the attack was a loss to New York City and to the nation. The figure includes those who worked in the two World Trade Center towers, the fire fighters and police personnel who responded to the attack, and the tourists and other visitors who were in the World Trade Center complex that morning. In addition to the loss of lives, the attack on the World Trade Center had a dramatic disruptive effect on employment in New York City. The number of private-sector workers started to decline at the beginning of 2001 because of national and local business cycles.


The attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, traumatized New York City and the nation. Almost 3,000 lives were lost, and more than 30 million square feet of office space in Lower Manhattan was damaged or destroyed. The loss of workers, physical capital, and infrastructure reduced the productive potential of the city’s economy and disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Damage to the transportation and communications infrastructure depressed economic activity for a number of months, especially in Lower Manhattan (M., John (2002)).


The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have paid attention of the nation and it’s military on immediately combating this grave threat. The dominant National Military Strategy standard of the 1990s was in the process of being redone by the Bush administration prior to the attacks, but still gives a concise way of broadly describing the tasks the military must perform. Along with its sister Services, the Army is currently concentrating almost exclusively on responding and even more narrowly on actions to punish and prevent terrorism. President Bush and his cabinet have been transparent that this will be a long fight, however, and the Army must not neglect its many other important shaping and preparing missions during that time. A conquest over terrorism will be meaningless if it is not gone with the continuing of peace, safety, democracy, and liberated market ideas that those other military undertaking support.


The recent terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have focused the attention of the nation and its military on immediately combating this serious threat. The dominant National Military Strategy paradigm of the 1990s—“shape, respond, and prepare”—was in the process of being redone by the Bush administration prior to the attacks, but still provides a concise way of broadly describing the tasks the military must perform. Along with its sister Services, the Army is currently concentrating almost exclusively on responding and even more narrowly on actions to punish and prevent terrorism. President Bush and his cabinet have been clear that this will be a long struggle, however, and the Army must not neglect its many other important shaping and preparing missions during that time. A victory over terrorism will be meaningless if it is not accompanied by the continuing spread of peace, security, democracy, and free market ideas that those other military missions support (M., John (2002)).


The other side of the coin


            And while international terrorism laws are being well and molded, its negative effects against innocent civilians can also be felt.


            Picking up suspected terrorists that turned out to be just innocent people and blatant infringement of rights are just among the bad effects of the law. Not only it can be viewed as paranoia by most, people could also think that it reflects how desperate and helpless the governments of the world in combating sly terrorists. So much so Greens senator Bob Brown says new anti-terrorism laws are a serious infringement on the rights of Australians. In Australia, it turned out that police has the power to detain a terror “suspect” without charge for two weeks. This was largely denounced by labor leaders in the country.


In hotels, terrorism laws can also be felt. American Hotel and Lodging Association monitored the situation, requesting input on what the hotels would like to see enacted to provide the coverage needed. The USA Patriot Act of 2001, commonly referred to as the Anti-Terrorism Act, was passed within a month of the attacks. The 242-page statute grants law enforcement officials broad rights to investigate potential terrorist threats, and broad rights to shut down those operations. With respect to hotels and hotel companies, several provisions offer guidance to the industry when faced with legitimate investigative requests (Westchester County Business Journal2/11/2002).


First, the Act provides specific authority to the FBI to request from a judge on an emergency and secret basis an order requiring the production of any tangible object, including books, papers and records, to investigate a terrorist threat. Because the order is designed to be obtained easily and will not compromise any investigation because it is secret, no hotel should be uncomfortable insisting an order be obtained before it turns over information other than registration records. The law protects a person or hotel from civil liability if information pursuant to such an order is given to authorities. Second, the Act specifically gives authority to the FBI to seize by an easily obtained warrant telephone records, email records and other electronically generated records. Moreover, it appears, a hotel with access to e-mails sent or received by guests can honor FBI requests to turn the records over without fear of liability if it reasonably believes there is an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person. To sum up, here are some rules to follow as a guide: 1. If an FBI agent requests only guest registration records, require the agent provide proper identification that can be recorded by photocopy or otherwise. A subpoena is not required, although you might wish one to be absolutely safe, particularly if no emergency is being cited by the agency If you don’t ask for a subpoena, ask that the request be put on agency stationery and sent to you; 2. If asked to provide any information other than registration information, ask for a subpoena or a warrant; 3. If asked to permit a search of a guest room, ask for a warrant. Again, this should be easy enough for the FBI to get. Moreover, in a true emergency, the FBI will search the room with or without your permission. These provisions of the law should remove discomfort hoteliers feel when approached by the FBI with requests to obtain information. If the information sought is anything more than registration records, the hotel should ask for a warrant or a subpoena without a guilty conscience, since the law makes it fairly easy for the FBI to get such documents processed expeditiously without compromising its investigations (Westchester County Business Journal2/11/2002).


Conclusion


            Terrorism nowadays poses a deadly threat to every nation. Worse, it is not only being carried out by single person, a group of people but a network of violent people who hold grudges against another race brought about by discrimination, poverty, and hopelessness.


            It is more than combat, taking over the power of terrorist elements that the problem of terrorism however will be squelched, but taking into the root of the problem. In order for the grass not to grow and wilt forever, its roots must be taken out. And this is the case of terrorism.


            However, the problem of terrorism is more than societal and political and religion differences. It is more sweeping and complex than that. But perhaps racial discrimination, of being poor and helpless that drove these terrorist elements to sow fear and chaos.


            Case in point is the September 11 attack. While it is unforgivable what the terrorist did to the heart of America, it should not be taken as an epitome to launch attack to other country, especially when it is not yet known the true group who are responsible for the bombing.


The effectiveness of terrorism laws around the world might squelch terroristic acts, and in a way, save millions of citizens from these gruesome ways. But the laws should not be done to the point of extreme paranoia that innocent civilians are being picked up and picked on and that lives are imperil because of carelessly judgment.



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top