What Is the Definition of a Political Aim

It is also useful to distinguish between terrorists and ordinary criminals. Like terrorists, criminals use violence as a means to achieve a specific goal. While the act of violence itself may be similar – kidnapping, shooting, arson, for example – the purpose or motivation is clearly not. Whether the criminal uses violence as a means of obtaining money, acquiring material possessions, or killing or injuring a particular victim for remuneration, he acts primarily through selfish and personal motives (usually material gain). Moreover, unlike terrorism, the act of violence committed by the ordinary criminal is not conceived or intended to have psychological consequences or effects beyond the act itself. The criminal can, of course, use a short-term act of violence to “terrorize” his victim, through .B. Waving a firearm in the face of a bank employee during a robbery to ensure the employee complies promptly. In these cases, however, the bank robber does not convey a “message” (political or otherwise) through his act of violence, which goes beyond facilitating the rapid delivery of his “loot”. The act of the criminal should therefore not have an effect that goes beyond the incident itself or the immediate victim. Moreover, violence is neither designed nor intended to convey a message to anyone other than the bank employee himself, whose prompt cooperation is the thief`s sole objective.

Perhaps more fundamentally, the criminal is not interested in influencing or influencing public opinion: he simply wants to flee with his money or accomplish his mercenary task in the fastest and easiest way so that he can reap his reward and enjoy the fruits of his labor. In contrast, the fundamental goal of the terrorist`s violence is ultimately to change “the system” – which, of course, the ordinary criminal doesn`t care about. The new definition distinguishes between the motivations of terrorism (religion, ideology, etc.) and the objectives of terrorism (“generally political”). This contrasts with the previous definition, which stated that objectives could be religious in nature. The current political landscape in America suggests that the definition of terrorism will continue to be controversial and that the controversy, in fact, cannot be resolved without the political will that would stop the urge to bend the definition of terrorism to fit a narrow partisan agenda or provide evidence of a growing terrorist threat. ignore. In the broader context of American society and politics, there is now an urgent need to question previous definitions of terrorism and to ask whether these definitions are really useful in the fight against terrorism. When this is not the case – either because they are wrongly applied to various groups that are considered a threat or are not applied at all – one must ask whether the U.S. government and law enforcement agencies stand idly by while domestic terrorism is perpetrated under their supervision, and why. The United States of America offers an interesting and multi-level case study on the complexity of defining terrorism; disclosure of definitions of persons implementing counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism strategies; and the inherent susceptibility of these definitions to partisan politics.

The real purpose of defining terrorism for law enforcement and those implementing counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism policies is to create a framework in which violent attacks are understood, plans to carry them out are thwarted, and those who plan them are captured and prosecuted. As Hewitt`s (2003) research shows, this is difficult when there is no consensus or consistent application of a definition. I would say that this impasse is not the result of chance, but that it is the result of policies influenced by the policies that dictate the definition. Although the reign of terror was imposed by the French government, “terrorism” in modern times generally refers to the killing of people by non-state political activists for political reasons, often as a public statement. Sergei Nechaev, who founded the People`s Retribution (Народная расправа) in 1869, described himself as a “terrorist”. [15] The German radicalist writer Johann Most helped popularize the modern meaning of the word by giving “advice to terrorists” in the 1880s. [16] The concept of terrorism is difficult to define because the policies associated with it are difficult to manage. In this article, I have tried to cross the difficult terrain that is the concept of a definition of terrorism. In doing so, I have examined some of the obvious political motives of the major interest groups that have invested in the so-called “war on terror” in order to define what the parameters of terrorism are and, therefore, who are the perpetrators of terrorism and who are not. One section of this paper illustrated how a shift in perspective in the course of modern political history has led to resolutions in different countries, with political will being the key determinant of the success of this process.

In order to understand whether such solutions are even possible in today`s global politics, the case study of the United States of America was examined. The conclusion of this article is that when political influence trumps factual evidence, the definition of terrorism and who constitutes a terrorist threat becomes even more complex and controversial, with little chance that this controversy will be resolved due to disagreement over the basic facts. Ultimately, this irregular application of definitions undermines the work that can and should be done with respect to counter-terrorism and counter-terrorism initiatives, leaving governments and populations exposed only more than protected from long-term harm. In the United States of America, terrorism is defined in Title 22, Chapter 38 of the United States Code § 2656f as “deliberate, politically motivated violence perpetrated by subnational groups or secret agents against non-combatant targets”. [5] The proposal to include this definition of terrorism in the Comprehensive Convention was rejected. Some States Members of the United Nations have argued that a definition such as that proposed by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change and endorsed by the Secretary-General does not qualify for inclusion in a criminal law instrument. Carlos Diaz-Paniagua, who coordinated negotiations on the proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, said a comprehensive definition of terrorism to be included in a criminal justice treaty “must have legal precision, security and fair labelling of criminal conduct – all of which result from the fundamental human rights obligation to respect due process.” [48] In 1985, when I was deputy director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my task force] was asked to develop a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout government. We produced about six, and each case was rejected because a careful reading would indicate that our own country was involved in some of these activities.

[…] After the task force completed its work, Congress passed Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 2331. the U.S. definition of terrorism. […] One of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that, and I quote, “appear to be aimed at influencing the conduct of a government through mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” […] Yes, of course, you can imagine a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. […] And so, of course, the terrorist is in the eye of the viewer. [62] A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the U.S. Army cited a source (Schmid and Jongman, 1988) that had 109 definitions of terrorism covering a total of 22 different definition elements. [10] Note continues: All of these examples suggest that terrorists clearly do not see or see themselves as others. “Above all, I am a family man,” described arch-terrorist Carlos, “The Jackal,” a French newspaper after his capture in 1994. Constantly put on the defensive and forced to take up arms just to protect themselves and their real or imagined voters, terrorists see themselves as reluctant warriors driven by despair – and without any viable alternative – to violence against a repressive state, a predatory rival ethnic or nationalist group, or an insensitive international order. This perceived characteristic of self-denial also distinguishes the terrorist from other types of political extremists, as well as individuals who are also involved in illegal and violent vocations.

A communist or revolutionary, for example, would probably accept and readily admit that he is in fact a communist or a revolutionary. Indeed, many would undoubtedly be particularly proud to claim one of these appellations. Similarly, even a person involved in illegal violent activities, totally unsavory or completely selfish, such as. B bank robbery or the carrying out of contract murders would probably admit to being a bank robber or murderer. .

Comments are closed.