Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminologists On Terrorism and Homeland Security
Criminologists On Terrorism and Homeland Security
A ND HOMEL A ND SECUR IT Y
Brian Forst joined the American University faculty after twenty years in
nonprofit research, including positions as research director at the Insti-
tute for Law and Social Research and the Police Foundation. He is the
author, most recently, of Terrorism, Crime, and Public Policy (Cambridge,
2009); After Terror (with Akbar Ahmed, 2005); Errors of Justice: Nature,
Sources, and Remedies (Cambridge, 2004); and The Privatization of
Policing: Two Views (with Peter Manning, 1999). He is a member of the
American University Senate and chairs the Department of Justice, Law,
and Society’s doctoral program. He is also a voting member of the
Sentencing Commission for the District of Columbia.
Editors
Alfred Blumstein H. John Heinz School of Public Policy and Management,
Carnegie Mellon University
David Farrington Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge
Edited by
Brian Forst
American University
Jack R. Greene
Northeastern University
James P. Lynch
John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
City University of New York
Cambridge University Press
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Mexico City
A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library.
vii
viii contents
Index 461
About the Authors
ix
x about the authors
and more than thirty articles and chapters on these and related
themes. He has been on the faculty at George Mason University and
the University of Nebraska and held positions at the U.S. Department
of Justice and the United Nations.
xix
xx preface
This book aims to fill that void. Its chapters are organized in three
parts. The first part focuses on the nature of terrorism and what it
has in common with, and how it differs from, aggression generally
and crime in particular. The second part addresses strategies and
policies for intervening against terrorism, with a focus on means of
preventing it by protecting targets and intervening against aspiring
terrorists. The third part looks forward, asking what sort of data and
thought are needed to advance our body of knowledge on the prob-
lem of terrorism.
INTRODUCTION
1
2 introduction and overview
works to prevent crime and intervene effectively against it. This book
aims to help address that deficit.
Terrorism – the use of force against innocent people, usually with
a political or religious motive, and typically aimed at producing
widespread fear – is fundamentally an extreme form of aggression.
Criminologists may not speak with the same authority as political
scientists on political aspects of terrorism, but terrorism manifests
in every civil society as crime. We would do well to attempt to under-
stand how assessments of policies aimed at preventing terrorism and
responding to it can benefit from the substantial body of knowledge
that has accumulated on the causes of aggression and crime – and
how terrorism differs from other expressions of aggression and types
of crime. In doing so, we can be aware of the limits of knowledge
about aggression generally and establish programs for building a
coherent and comprehensive base of knowledge about terrorism. The
more fundamental aspects of terrorism related to aggression may in
fact be more powerful and useful in helping us understand terrorism
and terrorists than the political and religious explanations that have
dominated the discussion to date.
OVERVIEW
The book is organized in three sections. The first addresses the nature
of terrorism and what it has in common with – and how it differs
from – aggression generally and crime in particular. The second
section addresses strategies and policies for intervening against ter-
rorism, with a focus on means of preventing it by protecting targets
and intervening against aspiring terrorists. The third section takes a
forward-looking perspective, asking: What sorts of data and thinking
are needed to advance what we currently know about the problem of
terrorism?
Any discussion of terrorism cannot escape the vexing definitional
question: Precisely what is terrorism? The simple fact is that there is no
single universally agreed-upon definition of “terrorism” or “terrorist”.
We have provided a fairly general definition – again, the use of force
against innocent people with a political or religious motive, typically
aimed at producing widespread fear – but we must emphasize that
introduction and overview 3
this does not settle the matter. Indeed, several of the chapters that
follow consider alternative definitions of terrorism, and each arrives
at a slightly different place. This might be unsatisfactory for an agency
with a particular responsibility for terrorism, but the consideration of
alternative definitions is a question of central interest to any thought-
ful inquiry into terrorism, same as with crime in general. Thorough
understanding of terrorism and the effects of responses to it must
include an inquiry into how agents responsible for protecting against
terrorism choose among alternative definitions of terrorism, how
those choices affect agency behavior, and how alternative interven-
tion strategies affect terrorism in different ways. Several of the chap-
ters address these questions, and it is both interesting and useful to
see what results from the various approaches.
In the next chapter, David Klinger and Charles “Sid” Heal set a
foundation for the volume by noting fundamental commonalities and
distinctions among various forms of aggression: crime, terrorism, and
warfare. They observe that indiscriminate use of the term “terrorism”
obfuscates meaningful discussion and jeopardizes the prospects for
effective policy. Klinger and Heal then draw on a range of examples –
from interpersonal conflict to conflicts between nation states – to
examine how different manifestations of aggression pose different
challenges for scholars who seek to better understand the nature of
aggression and for policy makers who aim to find ways of preventing
the various forms of aggression and minimizing its social harm when
it does occur. They recognize that terrorism has morphed into a form
of aggression that defies conventional frameworks for dealing with it,
and suggest that a serviceable old international framework for dealing
with violence be revitalized.
In Chapter 3, Wayman Mullins and Quint Thurman address the
meaning and causes of the pathology of terrorism and how to identify
it, which, they argue, are the first steps in assessing, predicting, and
ultimately intervening effectively against terrorists – much as the suc-
cessful physician treats medical pathologies by first identifying them
and understanding their sources. The problems in thinking about
terrorism begin with disagreement on definition; with variation as to
whether threats without actual violence should be included; whether
the emphasis should be on motives or behaviors, the selection of targets
4 introduction and overview
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Manifestations of Aggression
Terrorism, Crime, and War
David Klinger and Charles “Sid” Heal
INTRODUCTION
One of the key challenges of our time is dealing with the threat
posed by terrorism, and a key challenge when it comes to dealing
with terrorism is the absence of a single, widely agreed-upon defini-
tion of the term. All definitions of terrorism include some mention
of violence and the desire of those perpetrating the violence to influ-
ence the behavior of those they target,1 but there is limited agreement
beyond these points of commonality. The lack of clarity on the mean-
ing of the term is exemplified by Schmidt and Jongman (1988) report
that a survey of academics who studied terrorism disclosed more than
one hundred different definitions of it. The definitional problem
extends beyond the academic realm and into the realm of govern-
mental and international bodies, as exemplified by the following two
official definitions of terrorism, by the United States and the United
Nations, respectively:
1
Some commentators argue for a definition of terrorism that would include violence
directed at destroying entire populations (and even all of humanity) with weapons
of mass destruction (e.g., Laqueur, 1999).
2
This legal definition is not the only one used by the U.S. government, as many
different departments and entities within the federal government have different
definitions (see, e.g., Thomas, 2004: 92 for a discussion).
17
18 nature of the problem
3
See the discussion of the four generations of modern war.
20 nature of the problem
considerable ramifications for how our nation has (and will) respond
to these sorts of attacks, approach the threat posed by future attacks
by Islamist terrorists, and treat combatants (and their sponsors and
supporters) that we capture. The rest of this chapter is devoted to a
discussion of the competing perspectives of mass-casualty attacks such
as military-style assaults, suicide bombings, and other aggressions as
criminal incidents and as acts of war, and the implications of these
labels for both how scholars might approach terrorism as a topic of
study and how our nation might deal with the threat posed by Islamo-
fascist terrorism.
TERRORISM AS CRIME
The idea that mass-casualty terrorist attacks are crimes fits well with the
zeitgeist of Western industrial democracies such as the United States
because the rule of law is a pillar of the modern social order. As a mod-
ern nation-state, the United States has a well-developed legal system
that defines criminal conduct in written statutes, prescribes rules of
procedure for enforcing criminal codes, and dictates the treatment
of those adjudicated guilty of law violations. In our system of gover-
nance, the core actions involved in mass-casualty terrorist attacks –
such as killing, maiming, destroying property – have been forbidden
by various statutes since the dawn of the republic (and before that in
common law) and would currently violate both federal law and long-
standing provisions of the legal code of any state in which an attack
might take place.
State Laws
Each of the fifty states has numerous laws that could be violated in the
course of a terrorist attack within its borders. Given the scope of the
relevant law across fifty sets of law books, it is not possible to present a
comprehensive discussion of state law vis-à-vis terrorism. For simplic-
ity’s sake, we will limit our discussion of the criminal face of terrorism
to the statutes of a single state: California. The reader should keep in
mind, however, that the general legal principles involved are addressed
in the criminal codes of other states, and that we could have just as
easily chosen some other state as our exemplar.
22 nature of the problem
Given that the al Qaeda organization has clearly stated its intentions
to use mass-casualty attacks as a means to influence the foreign policy
of the United States (and other nation-states),4 it should be apparent
4
A collection of statements from al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden that lay out the
organization’s terrorist philosophy – including his “Declaration of War Against
manifestations of aggression 23
that any attacks by al Qaeda would be done with what California law
calls “express” malice. Should some other group that has not declared
its purposes carry out a mass-casualty attack (and does not do so after-
ward), the lack of concern for the welfare of the victims manifest in
the nature of the assault would, on its face, be sufficient to “show
an abandoned and malignant heart.” Thus, if anyone were to die in
a mass-casualty terrorist attack in California, both the actus reus and
mens rae requirements of the crime of murder would be present.
Further consideration of a hypothetical mass-casualty attack by al
Qaeda (or similar) terrorists in California indicates that any resulting
deaths would be considered instances of first-degree murder under
the relevant state statutes. First, it should be apparent, given al Qaeda’s
repeated declarations that they wish to kill people, that the deaths
would be instances of the general category of “willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killings” mentioned in Section 189. Second, the
fact that a mass-casualty attack would require some amount of plan-
ning means that an attack of this sort by any group would also meet
this standard. Finally, should the attackers utilize explosives (which
al Qaeda has done on numerous occasions)5 or a weapon of mass
destruction (which al Qaeda has threatened to use),6 the specific pro-
visions of Section 189 regarding such devices would obtain. In sum,
deaths from a mass-casualty terrorist attack – whether they resulted
from explosive devices, gunfire, weapons of mass destruction, or any
other instruments – would be considered first-degree murders under
California law.
Beyond the ultimate crime of murder, mass-casualty terrorist attacks
could involve several other crimes, such as assault, battery, and prop-
erty destruction. Sections 240, 242, and 245 of the California Penal
Code, for example, cover the crimes of assault, battery, and assault
with deadly weapons, respectively. Penal Code Section 240 reads, “[a]
n assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to
the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques” can be found at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/edicts.html.
5
Perhaps the most notable of these attacks were the twin bombings of the U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7th, 1998. See, e.g., http://www.
globalsecurity.org/security/ops/98emb.htm.
6
See, e.g., again, Bin Laden’s statements at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front-
line/shows/ binladen/who/edicts.html.
24 nature of the problem
Federal Law
In terms of federal law, recent decades have seen a massive increase
in federal criminal jurisdiction over the core behaviors involved in
mass-casualty attacks. During the first two centuries of our republic,
jurisdiction over crimes such as murder, assault, and property destruc-
tion were almost the exclusive province of the states. For a variety of
7
The act also forbids the use of these weapons.
26 nature of the problem
reasons, however, the federal government has exerted more and more
dominion over these (and other) so-called “common law” crimes
since the 1970s (e.g., Richman, 2000). Within the current federal
legal corpus are a variety of homicide statues that could be relevant in
a mass-casualty attack in which people died. In addition to the general
federal murder provision found in 18 USC 1111, there are specific
federal homicide laws covering murders during hostage incidents (18
USC 1203), as the result of purposeful train wrecks (18 USC 1992), as
the result of purposely destroying aircraft (18 USC 32–34), and many
other specific circumstances. And there are federal laws forbidding
other core crimes that might be involved in mass-casualty attacks, such
as assault (18 USC 113) and arson (18 USC 81).
As was the case with state law, the federal criminal code outlaws
a variety of actions that would be needed to carry out mass-casualty
attacks and has specific provisions that deal with terrorism. Federal
law, for example, includes both a general conspiracy statute (18 USC
371) and specific statutes forbidding the planning of particular acts
(e.g., murder, 18 USC 1117). Federal law criminalizes the possession
of specific weapons such as machine guns (18 USC 922) and certain
explosive materials and devices (18 USC 842) when the person in pos-
session is not among those few persons statutorily permitted to have
them. Where specific terrorism statutes go, the U.S. Code includes an
entire chapter (113B) that addresses a variety of matters including
the use of weapons of mass destruction (section 2332a), bombings
of public venues (section 2332f), harboring and concealing terror-
ists (section 2339), providing material support to terrorists (sections
2339a and b), and financing terrorism (section 2339c).
Chapter 113b of the U.S. Code has been in effect since the 1990s,
reflecting the fact that the federal government was concerned about
the threat of terrorism, and viewed it (at least partially) as a crimi-
nal justice problem long before the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Federal interest in anti-terror legislation peaked notably in the wake of
the attacks. Just over a month after the 9/11 attacks Congress passed
and President Bush signed into law H.R. 3162 – the USA PATRIOT
Act8 – a sweeping bill that revised many sections of federal law regarding
8
Officially titled “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.”
manifestations of aggression 27
TERRORISM AS WAR
The same modern mind-set that makes it easy for those in the West
to understand acts of terrorism as crimes can be a roadblock to
understanding terrorism as a form of warfare. Traditional Western
conceptions of warfare are rooted in the modern notion of national
militaries doing battle with one another as an application of foreign
policy. In this framework, war is something that uniformed soldiers
do on behalf of their nation in an international system that includes
a set of largely agreed-upon rules of combat (e.g., Clausewitz, 1976).
Suicide bombings, commandeering and then flying commercial
aircraft into buildings, taking over schools and slaughtering children,
and various other forms of mass-casualty attacks carried out by indi-
viduals and groups who do not don the uniform of any nation do not
fit well within this framework.
However, students of warfare have a well-developed framework
for viewing acts of terrorism such as these as acts of war (e.g., Lind
28 nature of the problem
et al., 1989; Lind, 2004). The starting point for this framework is a
recognition that the modern conception of war that animates most
Americans’ approach to the matter is a fairly recent development,
something less than four centuries old. Commonly referred to as the
“first generation” of modern war, it came into being in 1648 with the
Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War and marked the
advent of state monopoly on war fighting (at least in Europe). Warfare
of this sort was carried out by uniformed armies with strong and rigid
hierarchies, who faced one another in formation with individual
weapons (primarily crude firearms) on clearly defined battlefields.
First-generation warfare dominated armed conflict until the mid-
nineteenth century, when technological advances in small arms such
as the mini-ball, rifled barrels, and breech-loading firearms used in
the U.S. Civil War led to a level of carnage theretofore unseen, a result
that showed the inherent weakness of the first-generation approach to
warfare in the face of changes in the instruments of conflict.9 The full
implications of the problem of fighting wars with the first-generation
framework were not realized, however, until the First World War, when
the French used mass fire from artillery batteries to attack specific
points from afar, policed the battlefield with ground troops, and then
occupied the area that had been cleared of enemy troops. Although
this “second-generation” sort of war fighting represented a major step
toward the accommodation of new technologies into the tactics of
war, the tactics of massing fire, policing the battlefield, and occupy-
ing space require a high degree of coordination. It consequently left
largely intact the first generation’s emphasis on rigid hierarchy and
centralization of command.
Hints of a third generation of modern war were also observed dur-
ing the First World War. The German army, drawing on their Prussian
roots, moved away from the static firing platforms evident in second-
generation warfare and used mobility to try to out-maneuver their
adversaries. Maneuver warfare required a move away from a strong,
centralized command hierarchy that was characteristic of first- and
second-generation warfare, because officers and troops had to be
9
Some commentators date the unveiling of the weakness in first-generation war to
the Napoleonic Wars of the early nineteenth century (e.g., Hammes, 2005).
manifestations of aggression 29
and how much force the police should use to stop suspected terror-
ists (e.g., Bunker, 2005). Different people and groups have different
perspectives on each of these matters (as well as many others in the
realm of counterterrorism), so it is not at all clear how various institu-
tions of social control will react to terrorist activity. Given this state
of affairs, criminologists would do well to count social reactions to
terrorist activity as a topic worthy of study.
The second reason we should consider the definitional issue is that
how we define terrorism has substantial implications for public policy.
This matter is closely tied to the criminological issue of rule break-
ing, for among the key public policy issues are matters such as how to
deal with attacks when they occur, how to respond in the aftermath of
attacks, how to treat individuals that we capture (either in the wake of
attacks or when they are discovered in the planning stage), and the
methods to be used to try to prevent attacks in the first place.
How we define terror has major implications for which institutions
of government might be called upon to prevent attacks, deal with
attacks as they unfold, and seek out those responsible in the wake of
attacks. As a legal matter, if one were to view terrorist attacks on U.S.
soil as purely criminal matters, then only law enforcement entities such
as state and local police departments and the FBI could be involved
in attempting to interdict, take action against, and seek the capture
of those perpetrating mass-casualty attacks. A Reconstruction-era law
known as the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) generally forbids
the use of U.S. armed forces to enforce domestic laws, subjecting those
who violate it to both monetary fines and imprisonment for up to two
years.10 Investigating crimes in their incipient stages, responding to
them as they occur, and arresting perpetrators are all aspects of law
enforcement. It follows under the “terror as crime” conceptual rubric,
therefore, that under current federal law, military personnel are not
permitted to be involved in investigating terrorist plots, directly engag-
ing terrorists during unfolding attacks, or pursuing attackers (and/or
10
The law (18 USC 1385) specifies the Army and Air Force. Defense department policy
extends the prohibition to the Navy and Marines. There are some exceptions to
Act’s prohibition on military involvement in domestic law enforcement, but there is
presently no terrorism exception (Klinger and Grossman; Schmidt and Klinger).
34 nature of the problem
those who supported them) in the wake of attacks.11 Only civilian law
enforcement can legally do these things.
If one were to view mass-casualty attacks as acts of war, on the other
hand, the Posse Comitatus Act would not apply, and military assets
could be brought to bear to deal with terrorist attacks in the United
States. The U.S. Constitution and various federal statutes give the pres-
ident and military commanders a good deal of latitude when it comes
to using the military to deal with armed incursions, insurrections, and
other emergency situations that threaten life and limb (Schmidt and
Klinger, 2006). Under the “terror as a federal and military matter”
framework, both the military and civilian law enforcement could be
brought to bear to investigate, engage, and pursue terrorists.
A second key policy consideration concerns what to do with sus-
pected terrorists upon capture. The terrorism-as-crime model would
require that suspected terrorists be handled by the relevant (state or,
most likely, federal) criminal justice apparatus. The detention of the
suspected terrorist would be defined as an arrest, and the purpose of
the arrest would be to enable the state to prosecute the suspected ter-
rorist for the crimes allegedly committed and, ultimately, to mete out
a punishment consistent with the statute(s) that the state asserts were
violated. It would follow, therefore, that suspected terrorists taken
into custody would be granted all of the rights afforded any other
criminal suspect. They would have to be read their Miranda rights
prior to questioning about the acts they were suspected of having per-
petrated, they would be entitled to legal counsel, and their captors
would have to cease questioning if they invoked their right to remain
silent. They would have access to civilian courts, knowledge of the
crimes for which they are being held, trial by jury, the right to appeal
convictions, and all of the other rights all other defendants have in
U.S. courts. In short, the logical result of defining terrorist attacks as
crimes would be to treat those suspected of committing such crimes as
common criminals who are subject to sanction, but with all the rights
and privileges any other criminal suspect would enjoy before, during,
and after trial.
11
In Tennessee v. Garner (1985) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that shooting a suspect
constituted a “seizure,” subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
manifestations of aggression 35
CONCLUSION
13
In November of 2001, for example, President Bush issued a Military Order regu-
lating the “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War
Against Terrorism,” which holds that noncitizens whom the president has “reason
to believe” are involved in terrorism may be subject to military detention and tried
by military tribunals for violations of “applicable law.” This order was quickly con-
demned by various individuals and groups as running counter to long-standing
American (and international) legal tradition. U.S. Courts have yet to rule on the
legality of the order.
manifestations of aggression 37
and the public at large cast about seeking a way out of the conceptual
fog, we believe that it is appropriate to think outside the somewhat
narrow war/crime framework that has dominated consideration of
this matter.
One of the more creative treatments we have seen can be found
in Doug Burgess’s intriguing 2005 essay, “The Dread Pirate Bin
Laden: How Thinking of Terrorists as Pirates can Help Win the War
on Terror.” In it, Burgess argues that rather than trying to develop a
fresh framework for terrorism, we should look back into history where
we will find a well-developed legal framework for both defining and
dealing with terrorists: international law regarding piracy on the high
seas. We did not address international law in our discussion of terror
as crime for the simple reason that international law does not clearly
define terrorism as a crime. Burgess asserts that this situation should
be rectified, because international law is the place to properly legislate
against terror, as it truly is an international phenomenon.
In his argument for such law, he notes (a) that piracy was outlawed
under Roman law, with pirates defined as hostis humani generis, or
“enemies of the human race”; (b) that after the fall of Rome, piracy –
which by definition is carried out by nonstate actors – flourished for
several centuries as both a tool to express the political desires of pirate
groups and as an instrument of foreign policy by nations who spon-
sored pirates to act against their enemies; and (c) that it was outlawed
by the European powers in the Treaty of Paris in 1856 when they
realized that pirates presented a grave threat to international order.
He goes on to note that the international consensus against piracy has
driven the practice into the shadows to the point where it no longer
poses a major threat to international order. If international law were
similarly to forbid terrorism and hold to account nations who sponsor
it, Burgess argues, we would see the threat posed by terrorism abate
in a similar fashion.
It is an open question whether an international consensus against
terrorism can be developed and used to declare terrorists “enemies of
the human race,” and then to give rise to an international regime to
move against terrorists. Whatever the case, Burgess’s argument shows
that creative thinking can help us view terrorism beyond the narrow
confines of the war/crime box, and thus arrive at potential solutions
38 nature of the problem
to it. It is our hope that this chapter prompts others to engage in cre-
ative thought that will help us better understand the manifestation of
aggression known as terrorism, and ultimately to develop means to
massively reduce the threat that it poses to our way of life.
REFERENCES
CASES CITED
40
the etiology of terrorism 41
DEFINING TERRORISM
TERRORIST ACTORS
typologies are little more than loose descriptors that could apply to
a wide range of groups and people, terrorist or not. The problem
becomes even more acute when considering the individual as terrorist
(Arena and Arrigo, 2005; Corley, Smith, and Damphousse, 2005).
Thornton (1964) classified terrorists as enforcement (governmen-
tal terror) or agitational (organized group against a government).
Agitational terrorists conducted operations to right some perceived
wrong or to arouse a population against their government. May’s typol-
ogy (1974) considered terrorists as regime- (government conducted)
or siege-oriented (similar to Thornton’s agitational form). A typology
used by Hacker (1978) classified terrorists as crusaders (idealistic,
wanting political change), criminals (persons who commit terrorist acts
for personal gain), and crazies (emotionally disturbed). Schmid and
deGraaf (1982) considered terrorists as insurgents (terrorism against
a state), as having repressive or state origins (government terrorism),
or vigilantes (terrorism directed against nonstate persons). Further,
they distinguished insurgent terrorism according to social revolution-
ary (terrorism to cause worldwide revolution), separatist/nationalis-
tic/ethnic (terrorism against one part of society, not government as a
whole), and single-issue groups (terrorism to grant privilege to a spe-
cific group). Gregor (1983) argued that terrorists are instrumental
(impair functioning of state), demonstrative (fear in entire popula-
tions), prophylactic (preparatory for resistance or rebellion), or inci-
dental (criminal incidents that effect innocents). Wilkinson (1977,
2000) classified terrorists as criminal (for financial or material gain),
psychic (magic beliefs, superstitions, myths fed by fanatical religious
beliefs), oriented toward war (elimination of enemy by any means),
or political (political goals); and political terrorists could be subclas-
sified as revolutionaries (causing revolution), subrevolutionaries
(political motives other than government overthrow), and repressive
(directed against a specific group to suppress or restrain). Bolz et al.
(2002) developed a typology that included minority nationalists,
Marxist revolutionaries, anarchists, neo-fascists/right-wing extremists,
pathological groups/individuals, religious groups, and ideological
mercenaries. Poland (2005) classified terrorists as political, criminal,
pathological (motivated by some psychological aberration or other
emotional state), labor (workers against bosses or companies), and
the etiology of terrorism 51
war (military use of terrorism). Post, Ruby, and Shaw (2002) expanded
on a typology proposed by Schmid and Jongman (1988). They
classified terrorists as national-separatist or ethno-nationalist (estab-
lish state based on ethnicity), social revolutionary (left-wing), religious
fundamentalist (apocalyptic), religious extremist (closed cults), and
right-wing (racial supremacist). These represent only a fraction of
the typologies listed in the literature (see Mullins, 1997 for a more
comprehensive listing).
Many of the categories of terrorists in these typologies make little
sense in the abstract, and may even serve to obscure terrorist moti-
vations rather than illuminate them. Typologies are dependent in
large part on the definition of terrorism the writer has chosen. As
do terrorists, motivations change over time, which means even the
best of typologies are time limited. As terrorists change, the names we
use to identify them and the names they use to describe themselves
changes over time. Some names are chosen to signify a military affili-
ation (Army of God or 1st Brigade, Texas Militia), some to denote a
freedom or liberation movement (United Freedom Front), some to
signify a self-defense movement (White Aryan Resistance), some to
show a cause of righteous vengeance (Covenant, Sword, and Army
of the Lord), or some a neutral name (Shining Path) (Howard and
Sawyer, 2003). Some chose names to signify several “unified move-
ments” (Symbionese Liberation Army), some to show separation from
established states or governments (Aryan Nations), and some select
a name because of the fear it induces in future victims or the popu-
lation watching. Any group who adopts the KKK as part or all of its
name likely does so in part because of the violent historical connota-
tions the Klan name carries. The very name, even in the absence of
any violence, produces fear and panic.
Many of the typologies that have been developed are ones that indi-
cate the typology creator’s moral viewpoint. Terrorist and terrorism
are terms we give to enemies that do not fit a clear categorization of
criminal or war opponent. We label people and groups as terrorists
to simplify a complex problem and disparate group of enemies of the
United States. We use the term to understand a behavior that can-
not be understood, a set of motivations that are alien to our sense of
order, and a hatred of a way of life that we enjoy and take for granted.
52 nature of the problem
DATA ISSUES
The claim has been made by some that terrorism does not follow
any behavioral pattern. Accordingly, this unpredictability is the lim-
iting factor in our ability to analyze, plan, predict, and intervene in
terrorist activities. Though specific terrorist events are not predict-
able, absent reliable intelligence, they do tend to follow behavioral
patterns, and their actions can be analyzed and predicted to some
extent. The issue becomes one of how the analyzer defines terrorism
and the terrorist. This has been a significant, limiting factor in our
analysis of terrorist activity rather than our inability to analyze data. As
with definitional issues, the question of what exactly to analyze is a core issue.
For any of the published analyses of terrorist activities, the definition
adopted and subjective interpretations made by the researcher have
been the limiting factors in effectively organizing data. For exam-
ple, in an early chronology by Marcia McKnight Trick covering the
years 1965–76 (Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism [NACCJSG],
1976), she omitted any acts committed by individuals not associated
with a group and any acts where a group did not claim responsibility.
One of the better nongovernment chronologies produced by Hewitt
(2003) used various data sources, including Trick’s chronology, the
FBI Annual Reports, Annual of Power and Conflict, newspaper reports,
magazine articles covering terrorist and criminal activity, and other
published reports. He omitted acts of spontaneous mob violence and
trivial attacks of vandalism and arson of less than $1,000. His chronol-
ogy included acts committed by foreign and domestic groups. Foreign
groups were subdivided into international and émigré. Domestic
groups were classified by ideological type into antiabortion extrem-
ists, black militants, the Jewish Defense League, revolutionary leftists,
and white supremacists. He did not include acts by eco-terrorists or
animal-rights terrorists.
the etiology of terrorism 57
the passengers was Israeli) and did not meet the currently used defi-
nition of international terrorism. Because the other plane had at least
one foreign national on board, it did meet the criteria for reporting.
NCTC changed their definition of terrorism and then included the
other plane (Reid, 2005). Under the old definition, the Department
of State reported 651 international terrorist incidents for 2004, with
over 9,000 victims. Using their definition, the NCTC counted 3,192
worldwide attacks that injured, killed, or kidnapped 28,433 peo-
ple. The definitional change the NCTC made was to include politi-
cally motivated attacks conducted by an extremist group carried out
against citizens of their own country, and aimed at producing political
change in their own government’s policies (the Department of State
definition required at least one victim to be a citizen of another coun-
try). They also dropped a requirement that the act cause more than
$10,000 in damage or cause serious injury.
Each potential incident for inclusion in the NCTC database must
get approval from an Incident Adjudication Board, which is com-
posed of terrorism experts from the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Defense Intelligence Agency, the FBI, the Department of State, and
the Department of Homeland Security. This methodology reduces
the importance and impact of any specific definition of terrorism
or specific motivation or typology of the terrorist. A panel of review
eliminates any individual biases arising from definitional issues and
should make the resulting dataset the most useful and complete to
date. Using the NCTC database, researchers can search by region,
country, state/province, city, event type (i.e., armed attack, bombing,
hijacking, sabotage, etc.), perpetrator (Christian extremist, neo-Nazi/
fascist/white supremacist, tribal/clan, etc.), target, and/or victim
statistics (total victims, fatalities, wounded, hostages), or any combi-
nation of multiple variables. In a target search, the researcher can
specify facility type (aircraft, bus, checkpoint, etc.), facility character-
istics (Buddhist, Jewish, Western, American, etc.), facility nationality,
facility damage, victim type (ambassador, clergy, educator, etc.), victim
characteristic (Buddhist, Muslim, Sunni, not American, Western,
etc.), and victim nationality.
In sum, the NCTC database of terrorist incidents promises to
overcome many of the problems discussed previously. It is the most
60 nature of the problem
CONCLUSION
his framework would not account for the “lone wolf cell,” the model
Timothy McVeigh and many of the Middle Eastern suicide bombers
follow. It certainly is true that terrorist networks of communication
have become more sophisticated and less prone to intelligence inter-
ception. Communications via computers have presented their own set
of challenges for intelligence agencies. However, it is not necessarily
the case that terrorists have gotten more technologically sophisticated
(as individuals).
On one hand, defining terrorism remains problematic and just as
elusive as terrorists themselves. On the other, it may be that our lack
of ability to reach consensus on a common definition or typology of
terrorism may prove somewhat beneficial if this discourse eventu-
ally leads to a clear, usable, and common definition. Having a lot of
people approach the problem from a variety of viewpoints may ulti-
mately even produce a more comprehensive database than having
one “correct” data source that everyone can access. In addition, there
now is a much larger number of researchers interested in exploring
the problem of terrorism. After all, prior to 9/11 terrorism was not a
significant concern in research, military, or government circles, and
as a result, not much effort was expended on this topic. This lack of
interest and limited intelligence gathering contributed to our unpre-
paredness for 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. For a time since, we
have been involved with playing “catch-up” because initially there were
too few researchers involved in the game. Now that we are catching up
a bit, part of the solution to terrorism is to build an adequate database,
engage in accurate analyses, and establish predictive models. Doing
so requires getting more of the most talented players onto the field.
RE F E RE N CE S
Arena, M.P. & Arrigo, B.A. (2005). Identity and the terrorist threat:
An interpretative and explanatory model. In Snowden, L.L. &
Whitsel, B.C. (Eds.). Terrorism: Research, readings and realities. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Bolz, F., Jr., Dudonis, K.J. & Schulz, D. P. (2002). The counterterrorism hand-
book: Tactics, procedures, and techniques (2nd Ed.). NY: CRC Press.
Burger (2004). Threat analysis: Decoding the clutter. Time, March 29,
28–29.
the etiology of terrorism 63
Combs, C.C. (2000). Terrorism in the twenty-first century (2nd Ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cooper, H.H.A. (2004). Terrorism: The problem of definition revisited.
In Martin, G. (Ed.). The new era of terrorism: Selected readings. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Corley, S.H., Smith, B.L., & Damphousse, K.R. (2005). The changing
face of American terrorism. In Snowden, L.L. & Whitsel, B.C. (Eds.).
Terrorism: Research, readings, and realities. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Ellis, B. (2005). Countering complexity: An analytical framework to guide
counter-terrorism policy-making. In Bradey, T.J. (Ed.). Annual edi-
tions: Violence and terrorism (8th Ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw-Hill/
Duskin.
FBI. (2005). http://www.fbi.gov.
Freilich, Joshua D. (2003). American militia: State-level variations in militia
activities. New York: LFB Scholarly LLC.
Friedlander, R.A. (1981). Terrorism and the law: What price safety?
Gaithersburg, MD: IACP.
George, J. & Wilcox, L. (1992). Nazis, communists, klansmen, and others on
the fringe. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.
Gregor, A.J. (1983). Fascism’s philosophy of violence and the concept
of terror. In Rapoport, D.C. & Alexander, Y. (Eds.). The Morality of
Terrorism: Religious and Secular Justifications. NY: Pergamon Press.
Hacker, F.J. (1978). Crusaders, criminals, crazies: Terror and terrorism in our
time. NY: Bantam.
Hewitt, C. (2003). Understanding terrorism in America: From the Klan to Al
Qaeda. NY: Routledge.
Hoffman, B. (2004). Rethinking terrorism and counterterrorism since
9/11. In Martin, G. (Ed.). The new era of terrorism: Selected readings.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Howard, R.D. & Sawyer, R.L. (2003). Terrorism and counterterrorism:
Understanding the new security environment. Guilford, CT: McGraw-
Hill/Duskin.
Jenkins, B.M. (1975). International terrorism: A new mode of conflict. Los
Angeles: Cresent.
Krieger, D.M. (1977). What happens if? Terrorists, revolutionaries and
nuclear weapons. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences, 430, 44–57.
Laqueur, W. (1977). Terrorism. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
(1987). The age of terrorism. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
(1999). The new terrorism: Fanaticism and the arms of mass destruction.
NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Lodge, J. (1981). Terrorism: A challenge to the state. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
64 nature of the problem
INTRODUCTION
The authors thank Cynthia Morris and Lieutenant Stephen M. James of the Royal
Irish Rangers for helping us evolve this essay in rapidly changing times.
66
balancing counterterrorism strategies 67
using the same balanced approach that is most effective for countering
other types of crime. We argue that over-dramatizing terrorist threats
and over-emphasizing punitive and protective counter-strategies with-
out addressing the root causes of terrorism is counterproductive and
cannot succeed in the long run.
In particular, we argue that defining a contest as a “war” limits one’s
counter-strategic options to reducing the vulnerability of potential tar-
gets or deterrence. War is a short-term, destructive construct. In war,
one fights coherent enemies, protecting important assets from them,
denying them access to the resources they need to survive and thrive,
and punishing them mercilessly in order to destroy their motivation to
attack and, thus, to prompt surrender. Terrorism is a tactic, like amphib-
ious landing or airborne assault or carpet bombing; one does not war
against tactics – one counters them. One of the key insights that emerges
from our analysis is that choosing to war against terrorism prevents a
nation from employing a vital set of counterterror strategies.
1
It is beyond the scope of this discussion to cover human motivation in detail.
We note here that the concept of natural selection is central to the evolutionary
perspective on behavior. The genes of individuals who behave in ways that are
consistent with survival, mating, and the promotion of offspring are passed on to
subsequent generations. Thus, characteristics associated with those behaviors are
selected by this process. It is believed that hunger, thirst, and libido evolved this
way. But it is also believed by many that the desire for resources, greed, and avidity
in learning methods for finding mates, sociability, and so on also evolved this way
because of their association with survival, mating, and promotion of offspring.
Thus, there may be genes related to delight or pleasure attained in sociable conver-
sation (Savage and Kanazawa, 2004) or annoyance at paying taxes. Such emotions
may occasion preferences for doing some things and not others – and motivations
for making money, dating, or confronting an antagonist.
balancing counterterrorism strategies 69
Biology
Temptation
Figure 4.1. The general paradigm for understanding crime and crime control
(Vila, 1994).
From this point of view, terrorist acts can be seen as a type of strategic
behavior that might develop in the same way that other strate-
gic behavioral styles do. Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted
70 nature of the problem
One consistency that emerges from news reports and the schol-
arly literature is that terrorists do not fit the typical profile for violent
offenders developed from American data on violent criminals, such as
serious violent offenders in the United States. These offenders tend to
share multiple risk factors, such as low socioeconomic status, low IQ,
illiteracy, poor social skills, and living in certain very disadvantaged
urban areas with families that also have multiple difficulties. Use of
drugs and alcohol also are frequently part of the profile.
Although some authors emphasize the “dim economic prospects” of
young male terrorists (Ehrlich and Liu, 2002), many such individuals
come from affluent families and are not described as having troubled
childhoods or problems with delinquency. Soibelman (2004) writes
that “Terrorists are not usually generalised criminals” (p. 185). Bueno
de Mesquita (2005) argues that though lack of economic opportunity
in nation-states is positively correlated with terrorism, actual terrorist
operatives are not poor or lacking in education because terrorist orga-
nizations screen the volunteers for quality.
A more likely commonality for terrorists is that they may live in societ-
ies or social groups that have experienced economic hardship, though
this is a matter of debate in the literature (e.g., Fields, Elbedour, and
Hein, 2002). It is clear that some noted terrorist groups live in eco-
nomically depressed societies such as Palestine, Chechnya, and the
Basque region of Spain. There is ample evidence that those commit-
ting terrorist acts often believe their groups are economically disadvan-
taged or oppressed, and that their strategic options are constrained.
For example, Mao argued that the Red Terror was absolutely necessary
to “free the masses from long years of oppression” (quoted in Garrison
2004, p. 263). The Hindustan Socialist Republican Association
(HRSA) manifesto, “The Philosophy of the Bomb,” argued that terror
“is birthed by humiliation and desperation” (quoted in Garrison,
p. 270). There are few studies on this topic. Hewitt (1984) did not find
correlations between terrorism and rising unemployment or increases
in the cost of living. Testas (2004) found an interaction such that low
income had a larger positive effect on terrorist activities in countries
with civil war. Clearly more information is needed on this issue.
With respect to education, there also is mixed opinion in the lit-
erature. Some authors have proposed that terrorists’ educational
72 nature of the problem
limits of belief systems that may be irrational” (p. 98). A few authors
do test the prevalence of specific beliefs. For example, Smith’s (2004)
content analysis shows that terrorism-practicing groups, compared
with controls, believed that enemies are more aggressive and danger-
ous. Fair reports that “grievances” turn Pakistani youths to religious
groups, which may in turn increase the base of potential sympathizers
of Islamist militant organizations. Unlike the irrational thinking of
psychotics, the belief systems of terrorists are shared by large numbers
of people. Justification for violence appears to be a very important
class of beliefs necessary for terrorism. Garrison argues that terror-
ists hold at least one of three basic concepts about society – that the
truth of their cause justifies any action that supports it. Other authors
have also discussed the issues of justification (e.g., Hastings, 2004)
and Jihad (e.g., Soibelman, 2004).
We see three common elements in the belief system of modern
terrorists:
see themselves as altruists. Garrison (2004) holds that the belief that
a cause is just provides fuel for violent acts, and he provides numer-
ous quotes taken from several centuries of writings that are consistent
with this observation.
THE EVOLUTIONARY-ECOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE ON COUNTERTERRORISM
the more attractive they are likely to find protective, deterrent, and
retributive counter-strategies (see Forst, this volume). Similarly, as
was discussed previously, among the disaffected people who form
the “ocean” in which terrorists swim, perceptions of extreme disad-
vantage, humiliation, and despair are used to justify desperate and
horrible acts. Thus, the interplay of terror/counterterror strategies
easily leads to vicious cycles that ignore or undervalue developmen-
tal strategies. Only developmental strategies that attack the roots
of criminal and terrorist motivation can dampen arms races that
raise the costs – and limit the effectiveness – of protective strategies
while also increasing the stake current terrorists have in conven-
tional society.
Retaliation
and protection
+ −
Retaliation
and protection − t+0
Development
+ −
−/+ t + n
2
Space considerations preclude a more thorough examination of the mathematical
processes driving these dynamics. See Vila (1997, pp. 48–52) for a more complete
discussion.
84 nature of the problem
DETERRENCE
3
Federal statutes most frequently used in the prosecution of American terrorists in
the 1980s, for example, were racketeering, automatic weapons, conspiracy, fire-
arms, explosive materials, stolen property, robbery and burglary, treason, mail
fraud, etc. (Smith and Orvis, 1993).
88 nature of the problem
ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIORS
However much we may wish it were not so, terrorism has been com-
mon throughout history; sometimes, it has even succeeded in bring-
ing about change. To imagine that it could be easily stigmatized out
of existence would be both ahistorical and naive. This is especially
so when dealing with people who are motivated to employ terrorist
tactics because they have no better instruments with which to pursue
their aims. Historically, rebellions against real or perceived oppres-
sion have routinely included the use of terrorism when the rebels did
not have the power to succeed otherwise. (pp. 3–4)
CONCLUSION
RE F E RE N CE S
Vila, B.J. and L.E. Cohen. (1993). Crime as strategy: Testing an evolu-
tionary ecological theory of expropriative crime. American Journal of
Sociology, 98(4), 873–912.
Vila, B. (1994). A general paradigm for understanding criminal
behavior: Extending evolutionary ecological theory. Criminology,
32(3), 501–549.
(1997). Human nature and crime control: Improving the feasibility of
nurturant strategies. Politics and the Life Sciences, 16(1), 3–21.
(1997). Motivating and Marketing Nurturant Crime Control Strategies.
Politics and the Life Sciences, 16(1), 48–55.
Weinberg, L., Pedahzur, A. and Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2004). The challenges
of conceptualizing terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 16(4),
777–794.
chapter five
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
97
98 nature of the problem
of terror have been offered (Forst, 2009, and other chapters in this
volume), Black’s theoretical model has much currency.
As noted, Rosenfeld (2002, p. 3) and LaFree and Dugan (2004,
p. 60) make passing but specific recognition of gang violence as shar-
ing a number of the features of terrorism. Gang members attacking
members of rival gangs often speak of their motivations as attain-
ing justice (self-help). The long-standing grievances between gangs,
particularly in locales where gangs are well organized, provide the
substance of social distance. Conflicts among gangs are frequently
intensified to the degree in which gangs are proximal in space. Hence,
Black’s geometry of terrorism may also represent a viable explanation
of gang violence.
Black’s (1989) definition of social control is a response to violations
of norms. Janowitz (1976, pp. 9–10) defines social control as “the
ability of a social group to engage in self-regulation.” Bursik’s (1993)
particular focus is the processes by which neighborhoods control
crime. From a model of social control suggested by Hunter (1985)
for the social control of neighborhood schools, Bursik developed a
systemic model of social control. Convenient for my intention here is
Bursik’s selection of the genesis and endurance of gangs in inner city
neighborhoods to demonstrate his model.
Prior to Bursik’s enhancement of social disorganization theory, a
problem for gang theorists had been the failure of structural models
to explain why well-organized gangs have endured and prospered in
communities where the personal ties within the neighborhood were
strong (Kornhauser, 1978). Strong neighborhoods are less likely to
be plagued by crime and delinquency including gangs. Bursik and
Grasmick (1993, pp. 31–38) observed that traditional social disorga-
nization theory (Shaw and McKay, 1942) focused on neighborhood
linkages at the personal level of social control – bilateral or multilat-
eral ties between individuals and families.
Bursik and Grasmick (1993, p. 17) note that neighborhoods that
control crime within their boundaries have linkages that transcend
the personal level of social control. Building on Hunter’s (1985)
model of the level of social control of schools, Bursik identified two
additional levels of social control that affect a neighborhood’s abil-
ity to control crime. The first of these two additional levels of social
gangs, crime, and terrorism 101
Gang Organization
A few gang researchers have argued that gangs are better organized
than most other researchers have found them to be (Sanchez-
Jankowski, 1991; Taylor, 1990). More generally, gangs have been
depicted as loosely organized confederations, subject to almost contin-
ual changes in structure, composition, and purpose (Decker and Van
Winkle, 1996; Hagedorn, 1998; Klein, 1995; Short and Strodtbeck,
104 nature of the problem
had leaders. Decker and his coauthors concluded that only the BGDN
showed emergent structures that might be associated with organized
crime, but had not developed at that time enough to be considered
organized an crime group. In other words, what may be the best-
organized gang in the nation may have only the “potential” of becom-
ing an organized crime group.
gang members are among the most visible offenders. It was naïve of
the El Rukn leadership to assume that their planning activities would
go unnoticed. Gangs not only lack the structure and resources that
make them appealing alliances for terrorist groups, but, maybe more
so than organized crime groups, gangs also draw unwelcome atten-
tion from authorities to terrorist activities.
A RECRUITMENT MODEL
Given the similar genesis of terrorist groups and gangs, why is it that
gangs appear so much weaker and less successful than terrorist groups?
One possible explanation is the grounding of Islamic terrorist groups
in a broader cultural belief structure. Individuals and even nations
often contribute or support terrorist groups. Gangs, on the other
hand, have no allegiance to a broader normative system. A search for
individual profits is not attractive to a wide range of supporters.
Another possible answer to the difference between terrorist groups
and gangs is in the decades-long reaction of U.S. law enforcement to
gangs. Beginning in the 1980s, law enforcement organizations have
concentrated on gangs. Greene and Decker (2007) point out that the
two major institutional reactions to gangs have been multiagency task
forces and gang-intelligence units. Despite the dearth of evaluations
of these kinds of gang suppression programs, Greene and Decker
(2007, p. 28) go on to suggest that “the fundamental reasons that
such interventions have not led to the outcomes that were expected
gangs, crime, and terrorism 109
REFERENCES
Decker, Scott H. and Frank Weerman (editors), European Street Gangs and
Troublesome Youth Groups (San Francisco, CA: Alta Mira, 2005).
Deflem, Mathieu, Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: Criminological Perspectives
(Amsterdam: Elsevier/JAI Press, 2004).
Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice, International Cooperation against Terrorism and Other Criminal
Activities in the Context of the Work of the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime (Bangkok: United Nations, April 2005), pp. 18–25.
Forst, Brian, Terrorism, Crime, and Public Policy (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2009).
Geis, Gilbert, “Forward,” in The Modern Gang Reader, 2nd Edition, Jody
Miller, Cheryl L. Maxson, and Malcolm W. Klein, editors (Los
Angeles: Roxbury Press, 2001).
Greene, Jack and Scott H. Decker, “Transforming Law Enforcement:
From Political to Administrative to Terrorism,” in Homeland Security,
P. Stockton, editor (New York: Oxford, 2007).
Hagedorn, John M., People and Folks: Gangs, Crimes, and the Underclass in a
Rust Belt City (Chicago: Lakeview Press, 1998).
Hunter, Albert J., “Private, Parochial, and Public School Orders: The
Problem of Crime and Incivility in Urban Communities,” in The
Challenge of Social Control: Citizenship and Institution Building in Modern
Society, Gerald D. Suttles and Mayer N. Zald, editors (Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1985).
Janowitz, Morris, Social Control and the Welfare State (New York: Elsevier,
1976).
Klein, Malcolm W., Street Gangs and Street Workers (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1971).
The American Street Gang (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
Klein, Malcolm W., Cheryl L. Maxson, and Lea C. Cunningham, “‘Crack’,
Street Gangs and Violence,” Criminology Volume 29, Number 4
(1991), pp. 623–650.
Klein, Malcolm W., Hans-Jürgen Kerner, Cheryl Maxson, and Elmar G.M.
Weitekamp (Eds.), The Eurogang Paradox: Gangs and Youth Groups in the
U.S. and Europe. (The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001).
Kornhauser, Ruth R., Social Sources of Delinquency (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1978).
LaFree, Gary and Laura Dugan, “How Does Studying Terrorism Compare
to Studying Crime,” in Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: Criminological
Perspectives, Mathieu Deflem, editor (Amsterdam: Elsevier/JAI Press,
2004), pp. 53–90.
Leet, Duane, Anthony E. Smith, and James M. Rush, Gangs, Graffiti, And
Violence: A Realistic Guide the Scope and Nature of Gangs in America
(Florence, KY: Cengage Publishing, 2000).
gangs, crime, and terrorism 111
Venkatesh, Sudhir, Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the
Streets (New York: Penguin Press, 2008).
“The Financial Activity of a Modern American Street Gang,” in Looking at
Crime from the Street Level, Volume 1 (Washington, DC: US Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1999), pp. 1–11.
Whitney, Mike. “Free Jose Padilla,” ZNet (May 23, 2005), http://www.
zmag.org/znet
chapter six
Women Terrorists
Rita J. Simon and Adrienne Tranel
INTRODUCTION
113
114 nature of the problem
Like the 1980 piece, this chapter is limited largely to anecdotal evi-
dence about female terrorists, which creates only a thin foundation
for sociological generalization. In addition, if the female terrorists are
successful – and they largely are – the women die without ever relay-
ing their reasons for joining the organization. Therefore, projections
about why those women chose to join terrorist organizations, with-
out direct evidence about their choices, are speculative at best. For
example, do they join for ideological reasons or because the opportu-
nity is open to them and they have personal motives such as revenge?
Several common themes do exist among the various women’s stories
as to the roles they have played within their organizations, the kind of
women who join terrorist groups, and the reasons they cite for becom-
ing involved in terrorist organizations.
Citing an incident in July 2007 in which a woman approached seven
Iraqi policemen at a checkpoint in Ramadi and blew herself up, killing
everybody in the vicinity, Peter Berger and Paul Cruickshank warned
that female participation in suicide attacks “have grown alarmingly
in recent years. And unless we come to terms with the phenomenon
female extremist militants might be an important part of our future.”
The thrust of this chapter supports that warning, and not only among
Islamist militants (Berger and Cruickshank 2007).
The data provide information on the roles that women assume when
they participate in terrorist groups and on the demographic charac-
teristics of the women who join these groups. With this research, some
conclusions can be drawn about the reasons why women join terrorist
groups, although limitations exist as to how far the generalizations
may reach, based on the limited number of stories available and the
anecdotal nature of those stories.
brothers in the fight against the Americans, and had married her fel-
low bomber less than a week before she went on the suicide mission.
The nationalist groups the PLO and the IRA remain active, although
Spain, Sri Lanka, and Chechnya now represent additional countries
with active revolutionary movements. In the nationalist groups,
there is remarkably little division of labor, and women are becoming
increasingly active in direct terrorist attacks. In particular, women are
especially active in suicide bombings (as opposed to car bombings,
planted bombs, etc.). Yet in organizations where women make up the
same percentage of members as men, it is more likely that women in
those groups obtain positions of leadership.
The Palestinian example illustrates female activism in terrorist
groups and women’s ability to participate in any level of the organi-
zations. As in other countries where nationalist terrorist groups are
prevalent, Palestinian women play a large role in the physical attacks,
and particularly in suicide bombings. Women have been used to assist
in planning the attacks as well as in carrying the bombings out.
In March 1985, Sumayah Sa’ad drove a car loaded with dynamite
into an Israeli military position in southern Lebanon. The attack
killed twelve Israeli soldiers and wounded fourteen others. Two weeks
later, another young Palestinian woman drove a TNT-laden car into
an Israeli Defense Force convoy that killed two soldiers and wounded
two more (Stern 2003, p. 311).
In January 2002, Wafa Idris carried out a suicide bombing that
killed one Israeli and wounded one hundred others. Since January
2002, roughly seventy Palestinian women have followed in her foot-
steps, though only eight succeeded in blowing themselves up.
In September 2005, female recruits were being trained by Hamas
in the Gaza Strip to carry out attacks on Israel. The women were being
trained to plant roadside bombs, fire rockets and mortars, and infiltrate
Jewish settlements. Some of the women said they were married and
had children. Their husbands knew of their activities, as did the fathers
and brothers of the unmarried women. The husbands and brothers
of most of the women were also members of the armed wing of Hamas.
Religion and culture play an important role among Palestinians as
to what status women may have among the terrorist groups. There
is no ban in Islam on women participating in jihad, and women can
women terrorists 119
the groups, and the need on the part of the organizations to have
more active members. Despite changes to the stage on which terror-
ism takes place today, women’s reasons for participating in terrorism
remain largely the same as they were thirty years ago. In the main,
they do not represent future leaders for gender equality or women’s
liberation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MacDonald, Eileen, Shoot the Women First (New York: Random House,
1991).
Manoharan, N., “Tigresses of Lanka: From Girls to Guerillas,” Institute of
Peace and Conflict Studies, available at http://www.ipcs.org (March
31, 2003).
MEMRI, Inquiry and Analysis Series No. 83 (Feb. 12, 2002).
Myers, Steven Lee, “Chechen Women’s Role in New Attacks a Disturbing
Sign of What War Has Done,” The New York Times, September 12, 2004.
Neuberger, Luisela de Catado and Tiziana Valentine, Women and Terrorism
(New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966).
Ozment, Katherine, “Who’s Afraid of Aafia Siddiqui?” Boston Magazine
(October 2004). Available at http://www.bostonmagazine.com,
Archives.
“Spain Hails ‘ETA Leaders’ Arrest” October 4, 2004. Available at http://
www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/Europe/10/04/france.spain.eta.
Stahl, Julia, “Palestinians Using More Children, Women for Terrorism,”
January 6, 2005. Available at http://www.cnsnews.com.
Stern, Jessica, Terror in the Name of God (New York: ECCO Harper Collins,
2003).
Stroggins, Deborah, “The Most Wanted Woman in the World,” Vogue
(March 2005).
“Terror Alert Spurs Worldwide Hunt” CBS News. May 27, 2004.
Available at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/27/terror.
Townshend, Charles, Terrorism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002),
p. 18.
Tsai, Michelle, “How God Rewards a Female Suicide Bomber,” Slate
(March 1, 2007).
“Women of Al Qaeda.” Newsweek ( December 12, 2005).
Part two
INTRODUCTION
129
130 strategies for Intervention
Tonge, 2002). Some have argued that, in the end, political power-
sharing structures established by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998
as well as the IRA’s own de-legitimization were the most effective
mechanisms in reducing IRA terrorism (Reynolds, 1999). These were
political rather than criminal justice remedies. The extreme rarity
of terrorism may mean that many crime prevention techniques are
either irrelevant or even dangerous to counterterrorism efforts due to
unacceptable levels of false positives and the risks of civil and human
rights violations.
At the same time, parallels between crime and terrorism suggest that
crime-prevention theory and practices can be relevant to countering
terrorism (see LaFree, Yang, and Crenshaw, 2009; Kennedy, 2009;
and Lum, 2009a). Terrorists engage in illegal activities – including
murder, assault, property damage, theft, money laundering, and con-
spiracy – all of which have been studied by crime prevention scholars.
As with other types of crime and violence, routines, opportunities,
and criminogenic commodities that facilitate terrorism could be suc-
cessfully blocked (Clarke and Newman, 2006). Criminal justice agen-
cies are responsible for dealing with the perpetrators and victims of
terrorism, arguably making the justice arena the most appropriate
place for prevention strategies to be developed. Furthermore, many
crime prevention researchers study individual, social, psychological,
and economic backgrounds and life-course patterns of individuals
to predict their later criminality. The same approach could be used
to study, for instance, why some juveniles are recruited into terror-
ist activities or what motivates an individual toward terroristic vio-
lence. The multi-disciplinary tradition of criminology matches well
with the study of terrorism; a few criminologists with the knowledge
and skill sets to study terrorism have already done so from varying
perspectives.
Ultimately, the question of whether crime prevention techniques,
perspectives, theories, and institutions are relevant to counterterror-
ism requires exploring the parallels between crime and terrorism,
the potential for applying crime prevention strategies to address-
ing terrorism, the legal and constitutional concerns about applying
preventive techniques to counterterrorism, and the costs and ben-
efits of such an effort. Further, the application of crime prevention
is crime prevention relevant to counterterrorism? 131
H roa
ig ct
p
hl iv
y e
General
ity
Pr
iv
oa
ct
ct
a
ive
ro
R
ea
fp
ct
s
n
ps
n
ac ro
od r-
lo
al
io
io
ho bo
ive
pl Mic
u
es
”
du
ct
at
ro
ve
gh
di
N
vi
is
ei
Le
di
r
“N
In
Ju
Z:
X: Type or scope of target
Figure 7.1. A crime prevention matrix.
But such a sweeping assumption does not pinpoint what type of crime
prevention perspectives and strategies apply to counterterrorism or
the scientific justifications for such applications. A better approach
may be to conceptualize crime prevention through an organizing
framework, then determine if counterterrorism fits such a framework
and what principles would justify such a fit.
To do this, we present one such framework in Figure 7.1, a three-
dimensional matrix of crime-prevention-program characteristics.
Initially inspired by Rosenberg and Knox’s (2005) Child Well-Being
Matrix, we developed this more broadly for crime prevention pro-
grams and have used it for policing evaluations.1 Each axis represents
varying degrees of a common categorizing trait of many crime preven-
tion programs – the scope or type of target, the specificity of the pre-
vention mechanism, and the level of proactivity of the intervention.2
The dimension on the X-axis represents the scale or scope of an
intervention’s target, and ranges from individuals at one end to
larger social aggregations of individuals and the spaces they occupy,
up to the national (or even international) level, at the other end.
1
The Matrix is available online at http://gemini.gmu.edu/cebcp/matrix.html
2
One could hypothesize other dimensions that could characterize crime prevention
programs, such as type of institution responsible, level of effectiveness, legitimacy
and legal challenges, and so on.
is crime prevention relevant to counterterrorism? 133
Guiding Principle (1): Use (and/or develop) knowledge about the nature
of terrorism to hypothesize about the areas of the Matrix (and thus the types of
strategies) that are most applicable to counterterrorism.
Arguably, we should begin by considering what is known about the
nature, etiology, and sociology of terrorism from existing research
(some of which is probably unknown to many criminologists). For
starters, we might consider research that addresses questions such as:
3
The Campbell reviews are designed to search systematically for rigorous evalua-
tions of social interventions (e.g., in the fields of education, psychology, and crimi-
nal justice) and then combine similar findings to allow generalizations about what
is known about effectiveness of the programs evaluated, often using meta-analytic
techniques.
is crime prevention relevant to counterterrorism? 145
RE F E RE N CE S
Newman, G., Clarke, R. & Giora Shoham, S. (Eds.). (1997). Rational choice
and situational crime prevention: Theoretical foundations. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Newman, O. (1973). Architectural design for crime prevention. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Post, J. (2006). The mind of the terrorist. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Reynolds, A. (1999). A constitutional pied piper: The Northern Irish
Good Friday Agreement. Political Science Quarterly, 114(4): 613–637.
Roach, J., Ekblom, P. & Flynn, R. (2005). The conjunction of terrorist
opportunity: A framework for diagnosing and preventing acts of ter-
rorism. Security Journal, 18(3), 7–25.
Rosenberg, M. & Knox, L. (2005). The Matrix Comes to Youth Violence
Prevention: A Strengths-Based, Ecologic, and Developmental
Framework. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29: 185 – 190.
Rosenfeld, R. (2004). Terrorism and Criminology. In Deflem, M. (Ed.).
Terrorism and counter-terrorism: Criminological perspectives. Sociology
of Crime, Law and Deviance, Volume 5. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Elsevier.
Sherman, L.W. & Berk, R. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest
for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2): 261–272.
Sherman, L.W. & Eck, J. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In
Sherman, L.W., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B.C. and MacKenzie, D.L.
(Eds.), Evidence based crime prevention. London: Routledge.
Sherman, L.W., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B.C. & MacKenzie, D.L. (Eds.).
(2002). Evidence based crime prevention. London: Routledge.
Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D.L., Eck, J., Reuter, P.
& Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t,
what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
Sherman, L.W., Strang, H. & Woods, D. (2000). Recidivism Patterns in
Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiment (RISE). Center for
Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Science. Australian
National University.
Stafford, M. & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and
specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
30(2): 123–135.
Telhami, S. (2002). The stakes – America and the Middle East: The consequences
of power and the choice for peace. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tilley, N. (Ed.). (2005). Handbook of crime prevention and community safety.
Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
Tonge, J. (2002). Northern Ireland: Conflict and change. 2nd Edition.
Harlow, England: Pearson Education, Prentice Hall.
150 strategies for Intervention
INTRODUCTION
1
The term “opportunity theory” is used to refer to a group of theories that address
the occurrence of crime rather than the motivation to commit crime. It includes
routine activity theory, lifestyle theory, defensible space theory, situational crime
prevention, and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).
These various theories differ in many respects, including the relative emphasis
given physical as opposed to social aspects of environments, to intentional as
opposed to naturally occurring variation in opportunity, and to macrosocial as
opposed to situational sources of opportunity.
151
152 strategies for Intervention
Felson and Clarke, 1998). Under the latter paradigm, crime could
be affected only through the psychological and sociological processes
that affected motivation. This was a long-term process that was impre-
cise in its outcome, and largely out of the control of criminal justice
agencies that are often held accountable for crime and its distribu-
tion. OT gave these groups a way to understand the occurrence of
crime that could be immediately translated into action.
Practitioners were quick to use this theory to formulate policies,
and applied criminologists, in turn, studied these policies (and
other instances of opportunity reduction) to test the basic tenets of
OT. These efforts have produced a body of empirical literature that
demonstrates the effectiveness of opportunity reduction for control-
ling common law crime (Clarke, 1995; Guerette, 2009). This essay
addresses the issue of whether OT can be as usefully applied to terror-
ism, as it has been to ordinary street crime. The first of the following
sections describes OT, and the second considers its applicability to
the problem of terrorism. In the third section, we assess the extent
to which OT can be used to understand where and when acts of
terrorism will occur. This is done by comparing the nature of terror-
ist acts to the assumptions underlying OT, as well as to the assump-
tions required to employ the methodologies used to test opportunity
theories of street crimes. The matter of applicability revolves largely
around the question of whether OT can be useful for understanding
and preventing terrorism. We find that although OT provides a very
useful framework for thinking about preventing terrorist acts, it can-
not yet offer an empirically based understanding of where and when
terrorist acts will occur, and of how these acts can be prevented on a
consistent basis. Existing knowledge about the relationship between
opportunity reduction and fear of street crime, as well as the study of
opportunity reduction and its effect on fear of terrorism, may be, as
Forst suggests in Chapter 12, of more use in managing the fear engen-
dered by terrorism.
OPPORTUNITY THEORY
activities, and times that are conducive to crime (Clarke and Cornish,
1985). Interventions have been designed to change these attributes
and thereby influence the prevalence and incidence of crime across
times, places, and activities (Clarke, 1997) The validity of OT has been
assessed by examining the effects of these manipulations of opportu-
nity as well as the naturally occurring variance in opportunity on the
occurrence of ordinary street crime.2
Defining Opportunity
OT subsumes a number of more specific attempts to define attributes
of situations that can affect the opportunity to commit crime. Lifestyle
theory, routine activity theory (RAT), and situational crime preven-
tion all attempt to identify the opportunity to commit crime. These
specific formulations of OT are similar in the concepts that they have
used to define opportunity, but differ with regard to the empirically
observable attributes of situations that they use to identify the subdi-
mensions of opportunity.
Cohen et al. (1980) argue that opportunity for crime exists when
attractive targets are exposed in the absence of guardianship. Targets
of crime are attractive if they have monetary or symbolic value to
an offender. So on average, a Bugatti will be more attractive than a
Dodge, because the former costs more than the latter and it is also
more prestigious to own. Exposure refers to whether the target of
crime is visible and accessible to the offender. If your Bugatti is kept
in a garage in a remote location, then potential offenders will not
select it as a target because they do not know it is there. Accessibility
means that the offender can physically get to the target either directly
or through a proxy. These two dimensions of exposure are additive
and independent. A target that is visible is more exposed than a tar-
get that is not, and a target that is both visible and accessible has even
greater exposure. Guardianship refers to the presence of guardians
who can intervene to prevent or interrupt the crime. Security guards,
2
“Ordinary street crime” refers to serious crimes of assault and/or theft such as those
captured in the Uniform Crime Reports index crime classification as opposed to
vice crimes such as gambling, prostitution, and drug use; more minor crime such
as loitering, simple assault, status offenses, and trespassing; or crime perpetrated
by deception rather than force, such as fraud or identity theft.
154 strategies for Intervention
Strategies
Increase perceived Increase Reduce anticipated Remove
effort perceived risk reward excuses
Techniques
Target hardening Entry/exit Target Rule setting
screening removal
Steering locks Merchandise Removal of Customs
tags car radio declarations
Access control Formal Identifying Stimulating
surveillance property conscience
Fenced yards Security guards Property marking Roadside
speedometers
Deflecting Surveillance by Reducing Controlling
offenders employee temptation distributors
Street closures Park attendants Off-street parking Drinking
age laws
Control Natural Denying benefits Facilitating
facilitators surveillance compliance
aspects of the situation that “neutralize” the moral binds of laws and
mores, and that allow people to “drift” into crime (Becker, 1963;
Matza, 1964). Making rules clear reduces “neutralization” by making
appropriate behavior unambiguous, and reinforcing this message
by featuring these rules prominently. Excuses for ignoring rules
such as inefficient service or drugs should also be removed to make
“neutralization” more difficult.
In his earlier formulations, Clarke conveyed the idea that poten-
tial criminals are rational actors who will look at crime in a cost-
benefit framework. By reducing the benefits and increasing the costs
in a particular situation, one can reduce crime. In his more recent
formulation, Clarke acknowledges that many potential offenders
are also irrational. They are influenced by affective states that can
be aggravated or ameliorated by the situation. This evolution also
marks an attempt to broaden the applicability of OT beyond the
explanation of property crimes to the understanding of violence.
Although OT has increased in complexity, it still has not reached
the level of specificity necessary to serve as an unambiguous guide
to the opportunity for common law crime in a given situation. What
will constitute target hardening, for example, in one situation may
not in another. This increased specificity will come as more work is
done on OT but the theory is not there yet. Moreover, some of the
concepts in the frameworks offered by Clarke and his colleagues
are not easily distinguished from others. Under “increase the risk,”
for example, Clarke lists “taxi driver IDs,” and under “reduce the
rewards,” he lists “licensed street venders.” The mechanism seems
similar in that both reduce the anonymity of potential offenders or
facilitators, and thereby increase the chance of apprehension. There
may be a distinction between these specific instances of opportunity
reduction strategies, but the concepts are not defined clearly and
extensively enough to know what this distinction might be. Some
of this ambiguity comes from the very applied nature of most of
the more recent work in opportunity reduction. Applying OT in a
specific instance requires adaptation of general concepts, and this
adaptation is so great and so unique to a specific situation that there
is no sense torturing a concept to make it clearer. Once a general
strategy has been chosen, the clinicians in the situation can give the
158 strategies for Intervention
3
The opportunity framework offers a well-developed process of crime analysis to
be applied to a particular situation – isolate the problem, review the literature,
analyze the problem, list potential interventions, implement the intervention, and
evaluate the outcome.
implications of ot for combating terrorism 159
Evaluations of Interventions
The initial tests of OT took advantage of incidental and even acciden-
tal manipulations of opportunity. The detoxification of natural gas in
England, for example, removed the instrument of choice for suicide.
The result was that the rate of suicides with natural gas decreased
substantially whereas the rate of suicides by other means did not
change (Clarke and Mayhew, 1988). This supported the general
idea that reducing opportunity can reduce crime. Another instance
of incidental variation in opportunity was the motorcycle helmet law
in Germany (Mayhew et al., 1989). Here, a law was passed requiring
the use of helmets when riding a motorcycle. Since most motorcycle
thefts were not premeditated, potential offenders were not likely to
come equipped with a helmet. As a result, they were much more likely
to be stopped by the police when they were riding the stolen motor-
cycle, thereby increasing the guardianship on motorcycle thefts. After
the law was passed, the theft of motorcycles decreased dramatically
with no increase in the theft of other vehicles.
As opportunity reduction became more popular as a crime con-
trol strategy, the evaluation of self-conscious opportunity reduction
programs became a good source of data for testing OT. Evaluations
of the effect of the installation of wheel locks on motor-vehicle
theft, for example, showed that vehicle theft was reduced as a result
(Webb, 1997). A burglary intervention program in Huddersfield,
England was implemented and evaluated, demonstrating that
increased surveillance of repeat victims of burglary substantially
decreased burglary rates in the area (Anderson and Pease, 1997).
Similar evaluations of street lighting (Painter and Farrington, 1997),
closed-circuit television (Brown, 1997), and tagging of merchandize
160 strategies for Intervention
Summary
Opportunity theories of common law crime have developed substan-
tially since their inception in the late 1970s. The basic proposition that
crime can be reduced (and not just displaced) by reducing opportu-
nity in specific situations has been firmly establish with empirical test-
ing. Theories of what constitutes opportunity for crime in a particular
situation have become increasingly more complex over time, and it
is a worthwhile approach to understanding and controlling street
crime. This theory has not reached the level of specificity whereby it
can provide detailed guidance to efforts to control crime.
4
This is not to say that personal motivations do not affect terrorists, but that in the
case of terrorists, there is a corporate entity with interests that will constrain the
personal motivations of individual terrorists. Simon and Tranel (in this volume)
provide evidence of both the individual and organizational forces operating on
individual terrorists. This corporate entity is usually not a factor in the case of
street crime.
implications of ot for combating terrorism 165
5
This is not to say that violent crimes are irrational. Tedeschi and Felson (1994)
make a good argument that violence often has a purpose such as (1) getting others
to comply, (2) restoring justice, or (3) protecting one’s self image. My contention is
that valuations of what constitutes insult or injustice in the population will be more
variable than what constitutes a desirable car or computer.
6
Clarke and Newman (2006) make a creative and serious attempt at identifying
the utility function of terrorists in target selection with their EVILDONE frame-
work. However creative this framework may be, it is, and probably will remain,
speculation.
166 strategies for Intervention
The complexity of the crime-fear link can also be seen in the variety
of terrorist strategies that can be successful in generating fear. The
attack on highly visible symbols such as the World Trade Towers gen-
erates fear, but so too does suicide bombings in neighborhood shop-
ping centers or random shots by snipers in major metropolitan areas.
The complexity of the crime-fear link makes it difficult to understand
the utility function of terrorists. Understanding the terrorist utility
function is crucial to identifying the opportunity for the occurrence
of terrorist acts in a specific situation or place.
Opportunity theory and opportunity reduction strategies are most
useful in the case of “crimes of opportunity.” This term, “crimes of
opportunity,” generally means that the offender did not approach
the crime with forethought or intense motivation. If the offender is
highly motivated, then he or she is more likely to adapt to limitations
of opportunity, or to search for an alternative target or technology.
This is the case, even within ordinary street crime, where professional
burglars are more likely to respond to limitations on opportunity
with new technologies than casual burglars. To the extent that terror-
ists are more motivated than criminals who commit ordinary street
crimes, opportunity reduction strategies will be less effective, because
their effects will be short-lived as terrorists employ new technologies
or select new targets.
Opportunity theory and opportunity reduction are less applicable
to organized criminal activity, because the utility function of a corpo-
rate entity can be different from that of an individual offender. OTs
of ordinary street crime are based on the rational calculus of the
individual offender. In such a framework, concerns about the safety
of the offender loom large in the selection of targets. Corporate
entities are willing to pursue activity that is not in the best interest
of the employees doing the work, but is in the long-range interest of
the organization. Suicide bombers are a perfect instance of the pre-
eminence of corporate rationality over individual rationality. This is
not to say that the utility function of corporate crime entities can-
not be understood, but that it is different from that of individual
offenders who have been the main focus of OT based on common
law crime. Moreover, the utility function of the corporation may
be different from that of the individual, and both must be taken
implications of ot for combating terrorism 167
into account. This is an added layer of complexity that has not been
explored much in studying opportunity reduction strategies in com-
mon law crime.7
Most terrorist acts involve organizations; the corporate pursuit of
innovation is more likely to develop successful adaptations to reduc-
tions in opportunity or to find new targets. The cost of searching
for alternative targets or technologies in response to opportunity
reduction can be borne by a group more easily than by an individual.
Moreover, the group can reinforce the motivation to search for alter-
native targets and technologies because of the commitment to group
goals or to colleagues in the group. Search behavior that would have
been abandoned by the individual will be pursued for the group. This
increases the likelihood that terrorists would engage in displacement
and substitution.
Terrorism is different from ordinary common law crime in ways that
make it unlikely that OTs or opportunity reduction strategies devel-
oped for common law crimes will be directly applied to terrorism.
Although it is intuitively appealing that limiting access or increasing
guardianship for a particular target will reduce the chance of terror-
ist attacks on that target, OT helps us very little in identifying likely
targets that a terrorist will choose, and the chances of displacement
and substitution are very high. Conceptual frameworks based on OT
such as those developed by Clarke and Newman (2006) are useful for
thinking about opportunity reduction, but there is little direct empir-
ical evidence indicating that one strategy will be more effective in pre-
venting terrorism than another in a specific situation.
7
It is interesting that none of the many case studies of natural and engineered var-
iation in criminal opportunity have distinguished between organized and nonor-
ganized crime. This is consistent with minimizing the role of offenders in OT but
it would be a useful distinction in determining when OT can most fruitfully be
applied and when it cannot.
168 strategies for Intervention
Summary
Opportunity theory developed from the study of ordinary common
law crime cannot be readily applied to terrorism. The “utility function”
of common law criminals, especially those engaged in property crime,
is reasonably well understood. As a result, criminologists are able to
identify targets that would be more or less attractive to potential crimi-
nals. The same is not the case with terrorism. The utility functions of
terrorists are not as well understood. It is also reasonable to assume
that the problem of displacement and substitution will occur much
more often in terrorism than it does in common law crime, in large
part because terrorism is more likely to be an “organized” crime. The
organized nature of terrorism also complicates understanding the
utility function of terrorists, because the rationality of the individual
terrorist can be quite different from that of the organization. Both
theoretical and empirical treatments of OT have not addressed the
relative applicability of the theory to organized and nonorganized
crime. Finally, building an OT of terrorism empirically cannot be
done as easily as it has been for ordinary common law crime because
terrorism is so much rarer.
1990). Relatively little work has been done on the effect of opportu-
nity reduction on fear of crime per se.
social order in the area (Taylor, 1999). Terrorism is much too epi-
sodic to be affected by the same forces that influence common law
crime in residential communities. Negotiating an acceptable social
order will reduce routine street crime in a residential community,
but not more episodic events perpetrated by persons from outside of
the community. Moreover, a large proportion of terrorist acts occur
in nonresidential communities, where there are no residents whose
persistent patterns of interaction can be changed.
Evaluations of community intervention programs may have more
relevance for understanding the effects of opportunity reduction
on crime, because the interventions were policies of police agencies
that could presumably be applied in many different types of places.
Increased police surveillance, for example, can be implemented in
residential communities, but also at airports, train stations, monu-
ments, and other public, nonresidential places. The results of these
evaluations are mixed both in terms of the relevance of opportu-
nity reduction strategies to nonresidential communities and the
effects of these interventions on the fear of crime. Skogan found that
community-policing initiatives reduced fear of crime in six communi-
ties where he studied the effects of the policy. The effects of these pro-
grams on street crime itself were less evident and consistent. Skogan
(1990) and his colleagues found that reductions in fear were not
uniform across community-policing programs. In those places where
the police retained traditional patrol practices but increased their
intensity, there was no affect on fear. Where the police employed less
traditional modes of interacting with the public, such as conducting
door-to-door canvasses of communities or creating storefront drop-in
centers, the reductions in fear were much greater. Skogan specu-
lated that this difference was due to the increased visibility of police
engaged in these nontraditional activities. At this point, the lesson
from community-policing evaluations is: The greater the increases in
the visual presence of the police, the greater the reductions in fear of
street crime.
The community-policing literature may have more specific things
to say about the effects of opportunity reduction on fear of terrorism
when the various programs that were created during the mid- and late
1990s are parsed in terms of their specific components, and these
implications of ot for combating terrorism 177
CONCLUSION
RE F E RE N CE S
Skogan, Wesley and Michael Maxfield. Coping with Crime: Individual and
Neighborhood Reactions (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1981).
Taylor, Ralph. “Crime, Grime and Responses to Crime: Relative Impacts
of Neighborhood Structure, Crime, and Physical Deterioration on
Residents and Business Personnel in the Twin Cities.” In Steven
Lab (ed.) Crime Prevention at the Cross-roads (Cincinnati: Anderson
Publishing, Co., 1990).
“Crime, Grime, Fear and Decline: A Longitudinal Look.” NIJ Research in
Brief (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1999).
Tedeschi, J. and R.B. Felson. Violence, Aggression and Coercive Action.
(Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1994).
Tseloni, Andromachi. “Personal Victimization in the United States: Fixed
and Random Effects of Individual and Household Characteristics.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 16, Number 4, 2000,
pp. 415–442.
Warr, Mark “Fear and Victimization: Why Are Women and the Elderly
More Afraid?” Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 65, Number 2, 1984,
pp. 681–702.
Warr, Mark and Mark C. Stafford. “Fear of Victimization: A Look at the
Proximate Causes,” Social Forces, Vol. 61, 1983, pp. 1033–1043.
Webb, B. “Steering Column Locks and Motor Vehicle Thefts: Evaluations
from Three Countries.” In Ronald V. Clarke (ed.) Situational Crime
Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd edition) (Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press, 1997).
Weisburd, David, Laura Wyckoff, Justin Ready, John Eck, Joshua Hinkle,
and Fran Gajewski. “Does Crime Just Move Around the Corner? A
Controlled Study of Spatial Displacement and diffusion of crime con-
trol benefits.” Criminology, Vol. 44, Number 3, 2006, pp. 549–592.
Wortley, Richard. Situational Prison Control: Crime Prevention in Correctional
Institutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
“Situational Crime Prevention and Prison Control: Lessons for Each
Other.” Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 16, 2003, pp. 97–117.
chapter nine
INTRODUCTION
183
184 strategies for Intervention
Military
If we learned only one thing from our experience in Vietnam, it
should be never to underestimate the determination of a culture to
resist forced change from a foreign power. Relentless opposition and
uncompromising resistance over the long term eventually rendered
U.S. goals illogical in the face of the military and political costs,
no matter how disparate the relative strength of the opponents actu-
ally were.
A second lesson that we should be learning now is that future armed
conflicts are not likely to pit the world’s “superpowers” against each
other. Wars in the future (and perhaps in the present) will probably
arise from attempts by developed, technologically advanced nations
soldiers and spies, police and detectives 189
Police
Beginning in the middle 1960s, American law enforcement experi-
enced several changes in its external environment. These changes
were not merely in magnitude and frequency because of the dramatic
population growth after World War II, but they were also changes
in kind that fundamentally altered the way in which police services
were delivered.
Perhaps the most divisive issue to be confronted by the people of
the United States since the Civil War was the American involvement
in Vietnam. Thirty years after the withdrawal of military forces, the
conflict still remains a controversy, as major players in that debate are
still trying to justify their perspectives and actions (McNamara, 1996;
Fonda, 2005). On one hand, it was law enforcement’s responsibility
to ensure that the antiwar demonstrators were able to exercise their
First Amendment rights to free assembly and free speech in a safe
manner. On the other hand, the demonstrators could not be allowed
to violate others’ constitutional rights, civil rights, or destroy the prop-
erty of others. To complicate the issue, dissidents from other causes
often joined the antiwar demonstrators. Initially, the civil rights and
antiwar movements converged in the 1960s. Later they were joined by
a myriad of other causes ranging from environmentalism to abortion
rights advocates and opponents of the death penalty. For a variety
190 strategies for Intervention
Coinciding with the growth of the illegal narcotics trade has been
the marked increase in violent encounters by perpetrators within
the drug trade. Members of traditional organized crime groups had
been much more discreet in their use of violence as a disciplinary
tool or as a means of dealing with competitors. They simply wished
to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to their illegal activities. As
novices entered the drug marketplace, such caution was not applied.
Fatal force directed toward police officers by members of traditional
organized crime groups was generally the result of escape attempts.
Accidental shootings of innocent bystanders were often met with
organizational internal discipline, and were occasionally followed
by monetary apologies to families to discourage formal complaints
through the criminal justice process. However, the newly emerging
groups are less discriminate in their use of force and have incurred
the ire of much of the public.
Abadinsky (2007) attributes the increase in violence by organized
crime in particular to the corresponding rise in numbers and power
of non-Sicilian organized crime groups who have not yet learned
the “rules” of behavior. Specifically citing Russian organized crime
groups, Abadinsky suggests that the newly emerging groups have not
yet been in the United States long enough to have developed a proper
work ethic. Abadinsky also cites La violencia of the Latin American
groups wherein criminal drug traffickers come from areas where
they have totally discounted the legitimacy of political and economic
institutions, and thus embrace extreme violence with an indifference
to death.
There has been an emerging body of evidence that a symbiotic rela-
tionship is developing between Middle Eastern terrorists and Latin
American drug dealers who are peddling their wares in the United
States (CSIS, 1997; see also Abadinsky, 2007 and Mallory, 2007). The
arrests in July of 2005 of several illegal immigrants with connections
to both al Qaeda and the Latin American organized crime groups
exemplify this phenomenon.
In addition, anecdotal information from various drug-enforcement
personnel indicates that many former members of the now-defunct
Soviet military have found lucrative employment performing security
and training for various elements of the Columbian drug cartels. The
combination of the opportunity provided by organized crime with the
192 strategies for Intervention
1
This case requires the prosecution to demonstrate the scientific basis of any tech-
nology used to obtain and analyze evidence, and that the technology has gained
recognition among experts before the evidence is introduced.
2
Whereas normal photography makes images of differences in light waves, thermal
imagery makes images of differences in temperature. The thermal imagery used
in military and law enforcement surveillance was initially developed for industrial
uses to detect heat losses and structural defects.
194 strategies for Intervention
Military
Since the end of the Cold War, our military has gradually placed
increasing priority on readiness for encounters such as operations in
3
Chapter 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code specifically states, “Every
person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of
any state or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected,
any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to
the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress.”
196 strategies for Intervention
Police
Law enforcement has adjusted to the changes in its external envi-
ronment in several ways. First, immediately after the passage of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, local law
enforcement agencies were given substantial block grants to improve
and increase their inventories of equipment. Admittedly, some of
these innovations and acquisitions may have been extravagant, and
in some cases irrelevant to the real needs and mission. In terms of
material purchases, most of the allotted funds were spent to obtain
weapons, protective equipment, personal communication devices,
and vehicles.
Simultaneously, the American military was upgrading its own inven-
tory for its increased role in Vietnam by reducing its inventory of
outdated equipment still in use from World War II and the Korean
War. Consequently, many surplus and obsolete items were made avail-
able to local law enforcement through various programs. In the early
stages of this program, a local law enforcement agency was required
to be quite active in the pursuit of this surplus military equipment to
supplement existing stocks of equipment and resources.
A second reaction by law enforcement to changes in the external
environment was the establishment of specialized units. With the
exception of the extremely large police departments, local agencies
had historically specialized only in terms of general patrol and crim-
inal investigation (i.e., detectives). Shortly after the end of World
War II, sub-specialties were initiated within these two general catego-
ries. This development was largely due to the dramatic growth in the
nation’s population after World War II and to the increasing complex-
ity of overall society. As problems have arisen, local law enforcement
agencies have specialized in response. The development of local spe-
cialized units for antiterrorism in the United States is a normal part
of this police evolutionary process; it saw its structural beginning with
the Kefauver Committee in the 1950s in a move to unify the frag-
mented approaches to intelligence gathering and sharing in the par-
ticular area of organized crime.
Through an improvement in technology, the patrol function
saw the development of areas such as traffic-enforcement units,
198 strategies for Intervention
initiated by the British SAS and the German GSG-9 have well demon-
strated the efficacy of national-local cooperative efforts.
Perhaps the most significant and important means by which the gap
in coordination during large-scale events continues is the informal
basis among the responders themselves. For example, the response
by local law enforcement officers to contain the Branch Davidian
incident after the first assault by the ATF was initiated spontane-
ously, independently, and simultaneously. According to discussions
with these officers,4 the response was conducted without the need
and interference of formalized agreements by elected politicians
and politically appointed agency heads. The relatively well-coordi-
nated response was viewed largely as the product of these officers,
who were members of the tactical units in their departments, having
trained together through conferences and coursework developed by
the Texas Tactical Police Officers Association. These courses are also
attended by military police units from the many Air Force and Army
bases located in Texas.
Similarly, when rescue workers realized the magnitude of the situa-
tion at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and requested
assistance, firefighters and emergency medical service personnel lit-
erally from around the country did not wait for political permission
or public funding to allow them to render aid. They drove through
the night, usually at their own expense. The actions of the officers
were based on the recognition that the magnitude of the situation
would require additional personnel. Their response was not based
on predetermined formal arrangements or on any agenda, but fully
on the belief that it was the proper and humane thing to do. Finally,
as the storm clouds grew over the Gulf of Mexico prior to Hurricane
Katrina in 2005, approximately two hundred police officers from
around Texas had gathered in Pasadena for the annual SWAT com-
petition sponsored by the Texas Tactical Police Officers Association.
The four-day competition was cut short when the officers volunteered
to drive approximately two hundred miles to provide security during
4
Eight of the first responding officers were students at Southwest Texas State
University (now Texas State University). Three were assigned to the Austin Police
Department, two others were from the Texas Department of Public Safety, and
three were from the Travis County Sheriff’s Office.
soldiers and spies, police and detectives 201
CONCLUSIONS
collapse of the buildings settled and the operation shifted from one of
rescue to recovery, public safety personnel from around the country
poured in to help.
Even in the absence of a formalized agreement of mutual assis-
tance, emergency response personnel are noteworthy for their ability
to come together to resolve a critical situation and then return to
some measure of normality once the emergency is over. Though cynics
may claim that the success of military and public safety personnel to
deal with a problem on an as-needed and impermanent basis is the
result of Constitutional safeguards, an equally important and accurate
explanation may be found in the character of the individuals perform-
ing these tasks, and in the freedom enjoyed to use their resources and
abilities properly and appropriately.
From a more constructive perspective, it should be recognized
both formally and informally that each entity has something to
gain from the other. Events such as the Detroit Riot of 1967, where
members of the 101st Airborne were sent to assist the Detroit Police
Department, demonstrate how this principle has effectively worked
after the situation had been federalized. The law enforcement com-
munity benefited from the extra personnel, and the military learned
the importance of cultivating good relations with the local people.
Similarly, during the natural disasters of Hurricane Katrina in 2005
and Hurricane Ike in 2008, members of the United States Coast
Guard and the United States Air Force – with a federal mandate –
provided immediate law enforcement, rescue, and medical assistance
to the affected areas. The success to date has largely been a function
of their mutual ability to recognize both their organizational indepen-
dence and their operational interdependencies. Many state and local
large-scale events would have resulted in even greater numbers of
casualties if the understaffed, under-equipped, and often untrained
local, county, and state responders did not have immediate federal
military assistance.5
5
Some critics claimed that the military was slow in responding to the storm. However,
in anticipation that there would be many casualties, the United States Navy had sev-
eral ships ready to assist, but were kept out of the storm’s path to prevent damage
to the rescuing assets. In addition, units from the United States Air Force Reserve
responded from bases in Texas as soon as the storm had passed.
204 strategies for Intervention
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
208
community policing and terrorism 209
community and other public and private agencies who serve a local
community and who have some impact on community quality-of-life
issues (Skolnick and Bayley, 1986). Partnerships with schools, civic
and religious organizations, other government agencies, and the pri-
vate sector are seen as necessary for mobilizing public and private
resources and support for crime prevention, as well as building trust,
and hence legitimacy, of the police.
Though it might be argued that partnerships in policing are more
rhetorical than real, there is some evidence that the police have
indeed begun the process of horizontally integrating themselves with
other local social, cultural, and economic institutions (Roth, 2000).
Moreover, it is also possible that those in the community now see the
police as more legitimate in the advent of community- and problem-
oriented policing approaches.
Under the broad umbrella of community policing, paying attention
to community fear and disorder, and preventing it by organizing the
community, speaking with offenders (particularly for minor crimes),
and changing the physical environment within which crime occurs
are interventions that focus on the broader problems and issues asso-
ciated with such behaviors. Moreover, though community policing is
a generalized model of policing, in contrast to problem solving (see
later), it is rooted in notions of community sociology and social psy-
chology, where individuals’ identity and affiliation with a commu-
nity is a precursor to reducing social disorganization and increasing
individual and community social capital.
ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICING
Prior to September 11, 2001, local policing in the United States had
little to do with homeland security (then called national security)
or terrorism, although the police have for nearly three quarters of a
century developed criminal and other intelligence1 used to address
organized crime, drug trafficking, and gangs (Greene and Decker,
unpublished). In the interim, the police have continued to respond
to community calls for service, organize communities for crime
1
Here the intelligence functions of the police beginning in the 1920s and continu-
ing intermittently to the present include the collection of information on orga-
nized crime, gangs, drug syndicates and networks, political subversives, and those
exercising political dissent. Though some of these activities are not particularly
well sanctioned by the public, they do represent evidence of the capacity of the
police to collect information and use it for intelligence purposes.
community policing and terrorism 219
2
Ironically, in a post–September 11, 2001, world, much of the federal effort has
been redirected to homeland security, and resources for local-police personnel
have effectively ended – at the very moment when police agencies took on a terror-
ism-prevention role, and when local governments were least able to afford more
police officers. Most of these resources have been redirected to federal initiatives.
220 strategies for Intervention
community policing are also mixed, owing in part to the wide array
of programs and interventions that fall under the COP umbrella, and
the rather weak research designs to evaluate these programs.
Though the crime and social-disorganization findings relative to
the impact of community policing are mixed, there is broader sup-
port for a COP effect on community fear of crime. As the National
Research Council reports:
from the COP and POP literature is that the police are more engaged
with their communities than ever before, that this engagement is rela-
tively well accepted by the community, and that community concern
and fear of crime are potentially ameliorated by police strategies that
insist on community-police involvement. In point of fact, it may be
this platform (community engagement) that policing terrorism most
vitally needs – one focused on fear management, response, and miti-
gation, rather than prevention. Interestingly, in the “war on terrorism”
in Iraq, the military broadened its strategies from the “attack” mode
to include a “nation- or community-building” mode, reflecting its
understanding that long-term success in dealing with terrorism is as
much tied to reducing community fear, establishing community ties,
and engagement, and otherwise linking more directly to the commu-
nity in matters of social control (Fukuyama, 2006). Other nonmilitary
U.S. agencies have also expanded their nation- or community-building
roles as well. USAID, for example, implemented an Iraqi Community
Based Conflict Mitigation Program that reflects many of the precepts
of community policing.3
3
This program emphasizes community conflict assessment and peace building, the
implementation of an Iraqi Peace Foundation engaging academic and civic lead-
ers, and a series of youth peace-building initiatives carried out through the cre-
ation and facilitation of youth groups (see www.usaid.gov/iraqi).
224 strategies for Intervention
That is to say, local policing (state, county, and municipal or town) has
for a number of reasons been less successful with primary interven-
tions, mostly those associated with prevention. In fact, policing in the
United States and elsewhere, though espousing a prevention rhetoric,
has in reality been most focused on rapid responses (a secondary inter-
vention) and the mitigation of harm (a tertiary intervention). This is
the case largely because local policing in the United States and else-
where was first organized as a “watch and ward” reactive system that
has been consistently criticized when local police took on too vigor-
ously a criminal intelligence role (Greene and Decker, unpublished).
Nonetheless, much of the success attributed to community policing
and problem solving can be associated with building relationships with
external others (for a model of police interventions and discussion of
the roles that the police can effectively play in addressing terrorism,
see Figure 10.1).
Partnerships remain complicated for the police, particularly in light
of their emerging homeland security and terrorism-response roles.
This results from the position local police find themselves relative to
usable information about potential terrorist acts, and the range of
actions that the local police can take in these processes. Let’s briefly
consider three issues concerning partnerships and their impact on
policing for terrorism: directionality, horizontal and vertical integra-
tion, and concerns with privacy and secrecy.
In many of the relationships the police have developed, the direc-
tion of interactions is from the police to the focal partner, whether that
partner be a community group, other government agency, or private-
sector interest. This has largely resulted in unidirectional relationships
and communications that are often characterized by asymmetric
communication and power. In respect to community groups, the
police have all but directed the activities of these groups, shaped the
community agenda, and often controlled access to information and
decision making within police circles. At the local level, this is also
the case for police relationships with other local government agencies
and with the private sector.
The historical reason for such asymmetry in the relationships
between the police and external others is that the police have, gener-
ally speaking, been unwilling or unable to share power. As information
community policing and terrorism 231
COP/POP Roles
Community awareness Emergency response Community reassurance
Fear reduction Coordination of Order maintenance
Information gathering Resources, evacuation
routes, quarantine, etc.
Building partnerships
Figure 10.1. Community- and problem-oriented interventions for terrorism.
From its initial formation, the U.S. police have continuously struggled
with issues of legitimacy – first in their initial formation, and subse-
quently for how much their activities intrude into the private lives
of citizens (Donner, 1990; Theoharis, 1990; Klinger and Grossman,
2002; Giroux, 2004; Greene and Decker, unpublished). To the
extent that local policing deviates from its public-place safety mission,
234 strategies for Intervention
concern for police spying and the broader surveillance of public space
gives rise to questions of police institutional legitimacy. In the new era
of homeland security, intelligence gathering and the general cloak of
secrecy that wraps around these matters create the possibility for the
processes of the police and other government actors to become less
visible and, consequently, more subject to public concern.
Community policing especially seeks to improve police transpar-
ency in decisions and actions, thus helping to improve public accep-
tance of the police and their institutional legitimacy. Processes to
engage and include the community (Greene, 2000), a hallmark of
community policing, will be threatened to the extent that homeland
security matters move the police away from such civic transparency.
Balancing the need for information collection and assessment with
the legitimate concerns of the community that certain individuals or
groups will not be targeted as terrorists is a challenge if COP and
POP are to become a platform for preventing terrorism, particularly
as exercised by the local police. Recent immigrants to local communi-
ties will especially need assurance that they are not the focus of police
intelligence-gathering and terrorism interventions.
Moreover, how the community is to be engaged in terrorism preven-
tion is not particularly clear. Historically, the police viewed the public
as passive “eyes and ears” to observe and report suspected crime (or
criminal behavior) and then to wait for a police response. In many
respects, the same role is ascribed to the public in their engagement
in homeland security. The difference, however, is that whereas “sus-
pected crime” may be a somewhat vague term to the public, “suspected
terrorism” is even more elusive.
Beyond obvious situations where someone is overheard discussing
or directly seen in an act that involves a crime or act of terrorism,
expecting the public to discern terrorist activities may be wishful
thinking. Instead, cultural and other stereotypes will likely underpin
public reporting of suspected terrorism, further complicating the
police response to immigrant or culturally sensitive communities.
Given current assessments of terrorism networks, it is not clear that
terrorism will actually reveal itself to community residents in ways that
are observable, and hence capable of being amplified.
Perhaps most important is the maintenance of a police posture that
supports constitutional provisions and lawfulness. The moral panic
community policing and terrorism 235
(Cohn, 1972) that is associated with events like terrorism can exac-
erbate relationships between social groups. Since 9/11, persons of
Arabic heritage have felt that they are subject to greater police intru-
siveness, singularly because of their customs and/or language. Local-
police legitimacy often rests on such perceptions. Police adherence to
constitutional protections – not engaging in racial or religious stereo-
typing – is a central concern in such communities. Local-police pro-
tection of perceived out-groups and their constitutional liberties will
become an important tool in maintaining community engagement,
particularly in marginalized communities.
Taken together, it does not appear that stretching COP or POP con-
cepts or tactics to terrorism is likely a smooth transition, most especially
when the focus is on intelligence gathering. If specific terrorism prob-
lems could be identified, then local police might engage in problem
solving, but given Eck’s (2004) critique, it is more likely the case that
(1) terrorism problems may be more difficult for the police to specify
and understand; ( 2) scanning for terrorism will be equally problem-
atic, given its secrecy and low-visibility prior to terrorist events; and (3)
the application of traditional police responses to terrorism is unlikely
to fully address these situations, except in the way that the police are
prepared for emergency response to catastrophic incidents.
the extent that the lessons learned and analyzed can provide useful
information for future strategies and programs aimed at prevention.
The roles that COP and POP might suggest for local policing are
yet emerging, but they have import for balancing the response to
such events while at the same time keeping an established trust of the
police – something central to democratic policing. As police informa-
tion, analytics, and technical systems continue to improve, the local
police may have a broader role in the prevention of terrorism. And cer-
tainly local-police actions that result from intelligence provided by both
the public and private sectors to disrupt terrorism planning or execu-
tion are indeed positive. Having said this, it must be remembered that
local policing is constrained by many factors including jurisdiction, fis-
cal resources, analytic capacity, and public acceptance, among others.
Such constraints do not preclude a local-police role in terrorism
response; rather, they condition the range of effective responses that
can be implemented. Building on the limited successes of COP and
POP can nevertheless provide a foundation for local-police participa-
tion in terrorism responses.
CONCLUSION
RE F E RE N CE S
Donner, Frank. 1990. Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression
in Urban America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Eck, John. 2004. “Why Don’t Problems Get Solved?” In Wesley G. Skogan
(ed.) Community Policing: Can it Work? Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,
185–206.
Eck, John E. and Dennis P. Rosenbaum. 1994. “The New Police
Order: Effectiveness, Equity and Efficiency in Community Policing.”
In D.P. Rosenbaum (ed.) The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing
the Promise. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fogelson, Robert M. 1977. Big City Police. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Fukuyama, Francis (ed.) 2006. Nation-Building: Beyond Afghanistan and
Iraq. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in
Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giroux, Henry A. 2004. “War on Terror: The Militarizing of Public Space
and Culture in the United States.” Third Text, Vol. 18, 4: 211–221.
Goldstein, Herman. 1977. Policing a Free Society. Cambridge: Ballinger.
1990. Problem-Oriented Policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greene, Jack R. 2000. “Community Policing.” In J. Horney (ed.) Criminal
Justice 2000. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
2004. “Community Policing and Police Organizations.” In Wesley G.
Skogan (ed.) Community Policing: Can it Work? Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Greene, Jack R. and Scott H. Decker. (unpublished). “Transforming
American Law Enforcement: From Political, to Administrative to
Community to Terrorism?”
Harcourt, Bernard E. 2001. Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken
Windows Policing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hayslip, David and Malcolm Russell-Einhorn. 2003. Evaluation of Multi-
Jurisdictional Task Forces. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc.
Henry, Vincent E. 2001. The COMPSTAT Paradigm. Flushing, NY: Looseleaf
Law Publications.
2002. The COMPSTAT Paradigm: Management Accountability in Policing, Busi-
ness and the Public Sector. New York: Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.
Klinger, David and Dave Grossman. 2002. “Who Should Deal with Foreign
Terrorists on U.S. Soil?: Socio-Legal Consequences of September 11
and the Ongoing Threat of Terrorist Attacks on America.” Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy, 25th Anniversary. Volume 25 (2),
815–834.
Klockars, Carl B. 1985. The Idea of Police. Beverely Hills, CA: Sage.
Kraska, Peter B. and Victor E. Kappler. 1997. “Militarizing American
Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units.” Reprinted
community policing and terrorism 243
Roth, Jeffrey A., Jan Roehl, and Calvin C. Johnson. 2004. “Trends
in Community Policing.” In Wesley G. Skogan (ed.) Community
Policing: Can it Work? Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 3–29.
Roth, Jeffrey A., Joseph F. Ryan, Stephen J. Gaffigan et al. 2000.
National Evaluation of the COPS Program – Title I of the 1994 Crime Act.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Sampson, Robert J. and W.B. Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and
Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of
Sociology 94: 774–802.
Schwartz, A. and S. Clarren. 1977. The Cincinnati Team Policing Experiment: A
Summary Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute and Police
Foundation.
Sherman, L., C. Milton, and T. Kelly. 1973. Team Policing: Seven Case Studies.
Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Sherman, Lawrence. 1992. “Attacking Crime.” In M. Tonry and N.
Morris (eds.) Crime and Justice, Volume 15. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Silverman, Eli B. 1999. NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing.
Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Skolnick, Jerome and David Bayley. 1986. The New Blue Line. New York:
The Free Press.
Sparrow, Malcolm K. 1991. “The Application of Network Analysis to
Criminal Intelligence: An Assessment of Prospects.” Social Networks
251–274.
Theoharis, Athan C. 1990. “Research Note: The FBI and the Politics of
Surveillance, 1908–1985.” Criminal Justice Review 15, 2(Autumn):
221–230.
Tyler, T. 2001. “Public Trust and Confidence in Legal Authorities: what
Do Majority and Minority Group Members Want from the Law and
Legal Institutions?” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19: 215–235.
Tyler, T. and Y.J. Huo. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation
with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Walker, Samuel. 1977. A Critical History of Police Reform: The Emergence of
Professionalism. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
1980. Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Williams, Phil. 1998. “The Nature of Drug-Trafficking Networks.” Current
History, April: 154–159.
Wilson, James Q. 1968. Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
chapter eleven
Go Analyze!
(Connecting the Dots)
Jean-Paul Brodeur
245
246 strategies for Intervention
of these, but far from the only one, was the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks against the United States (United States, 2004).
Prior to it, a joint congressional committee had considered the same
issues. A valuable source of information concerning the difficulties
encountered by the U.S. intelligence community in preventing 9/11
is provided by an appendix to the latter committee’s report compris-
ing the additional views of one of its members, Senator Richard C.
Shelby, who was then Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence (United States, 2002). Despite their usefulness, these
reports are often written by those with little field experience in polic-
ing and in counterterrorism. They tend to overestimate the value
of processing intelligence in preventing terrorism. More particularly,
a careful reading of these reports shows that the analysis of intelli-
gence – connecting the elusive dots – is viewed as the new panacea
for all that went wrong in the failure to prevent 9/11. The general
argument of this chapter is that improving our capacity to prevent ter-
rorism requires that reforms should be made at levels that are more
basic and more concrete than the processing of intelligence. Sound
judgment is much more needed than analytic sophistication.
Intelligence is an important instrument – perhaps the most impor-
tant – in preventing terrorist attacks. So it should come as no surprise
that the agencies responsible for collecting and analyzing security
intelligence would be subject to such extensive scrutiny and, when
failures occur, to criticism. This can be summarized in a single phrase
that has become a catchphrase in intelligence studies: The U.S. intel-
ligence services are said to have failed to “connect the dots” before
9/11. Such failure of analysis was to be remedied by increasing the
analytic capacities of the various agencies involved in counterterror-
ism. “Go analyze!” became the new mantra (Levine). Before proceed-
ing further, it must be emphasized that we do not share a common
definition of intelligence or of analysis. In many dictionaries on
policing (Wakefield and Fleming) or on terrorism (Thackrah) and in
encyclopedias on terrorism (Combs and Slann; Kushner), there are
no specific entries defining either intelligence or analysis. Intelligence
is not defined in itself, but in context – for instance, in the context of
intelligence-led policing – and the definition varies according to con-
text. Tentatively, I would define intelligence as confirmed information
go analyze! 247
1
My analyses are based on a review of all U.S. governmental reports published since
9/11, with particular attention to the additional views of Senator Shelby.
248 strategies for Intervention
A Lapse of Surveillance
Before presenting this counterexample, I want to deal briefly with
the 20–20 hindsight fallacy. As is well known, a terrorist from Canada,
Ahmed Ressam, driving a car filled with explosives, was intercepted
by a customs officer in 1999. Ressam had planned a bombing at the
Los Angeles International Airport for the advent of the new millen-
nium. Although he had been under surveillance by various Canadian
policing agencies, notably by CSIS, he skipped out of the country to
train in Afghanistan in 1998, and came back undetected to Canada
carrying a valid (nonforged) passport under the name of Benni
Antoine Norris in February 1999. He prepared his terrorist attempt
go analyze! 249
without being hampered by CSIS or any police force, and left for
the United States, where he was arrested before succeeding with his
plan. In its review of the Ressam affair, CSIS’s oversight committee,
the SIRC concluded that it saw “no evidence that it was a lack of vig-
ilance on the part of the service that contributed to Ressam’s ability
to escape detection after his return in 1999” (SIRC: 2002–2003, pp.
6 and 71). SIRC’s assessment surely lacked a critical edge. Yet as far
as we know, lacking any indication that they might be the same per-
son, it was nearly impossible for CSIS to connect the dots between
Benni Antoine Norris and Ahmed Ressam. The situation, as we shall
see, was quite different in the case of Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi, who
never changed their identity and lived under their own names in
the United States, where they took part as two of the 9/11 suicide
bombers. This case is probably the only one on which all critics of
the U.S. intelligence community agree that there was unexplained
negligence.
The U.S. State Department has what it calls a “tip-off list” of indi-
viduals subject to special scrutiny when they apply to obtain or renew
a visa to the United States. The list mainly consists of names supplied
by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security
Agency (NSA). These two agencies, in particular the CIA, are said to
have gravely neglected their task of updating the tip-off list before
9/11. Shelby’s figures (United States, 2002: 26) are striking: In the
three months prior to 9/11, the CIA added 1,761 names to the
list, whereas in the three months following 9/11, this number rose
to 4,251.
Two of the terrorists on board the plane that hit the Pentagon on
9/11 were Khalid Al-Mihdhar (KAM) and Nawaf Al-Hazmi (NAH). In
early March 2000, the CIA learned that KAM and NAH had attended
a meeting with numerous al Qaeda–linked terrorists in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia. The CIA also knew that NAH had entered the United States
in December 1999 and that KAM held a multiple-entry visa for the
country. On March 15, 2000, less than two weeks after the Kuala
Lumpur meeting, the CIA learned that KAM had just entered the
United States. His name had not been added to the tip-off list, nor
did the CIA consider his presence in the United States to warrant
any particular action. The decision not to keep NAH and KAM under
250 strategies for Intervention
surveillance allowed the two to live under their own names in San
Diego until December 2000. KAM used his name to obtain a vehi-
cle registration and rent an apartment, while both attended a flight
school in May 2000. In July 2000, NAH obtained an extension of his
visitor’s visa under his own name. KAM, and perhaps also NAH, left
the United States on December 15, 2000.
The next month, the CIA learned that one of the terrorists at the
Kuala Lumpur meeting, attended by KAM and NAH, had later taken
part in the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of
Aden on October 12, 2000; the al Qaeda network claimed responsibil-
ity for this attack. In June 2001, KAM applied for a U.S. visa in Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia. Following the usual procedure, the State Department
authorities in Jeddah searched the Consular Lookout and Support
System (CLASS) database, linked to the tip-off list. Because the CIA
had not added KAM’s name to the list, they found nothing out of the
ordinary. Likewise, in June 2001, when CIA agents met with their FBI
counterparts, they did not relay any intelligence on NAH or KAM.
Both men returned to the United States that same month and went
about preparing the 9/11 attacks. It was not until August 2001 that
the CIA decided to put them under surveillance and to alert the FBI
to their presence in the United States, but by then it was too late. The
rest is history – the terrible history of 9/11, in which NAH and KAM
played their deadly part.
2
Not to be confused with the Islamic studies scholar Abdal-Hakim Murad of the
University of Cambridge.
3
Ramzi Yousef was one of the perpetrators of the 1992 attack on the WTC. He was
arrested in 1995 and brought to justice in the United States.
4
The full text of the memo is available at www.thememoryhole.org/911/phoenix-
memo. The 9/11 report is a paraphrase of the memo.
go analyze! 253
4. The fourth item in this case was the August 16, 2001, arrest
of Zacarias Moussaoui, because of his suspicious behavior at a
Minnesota flight school. Following his arrest, Minnesota FBI
agents made sustained efforts to obtain a search warrant for
Moussaoui’s computer, but those efforts were squelched by
superiors, who went as far as to call the agents alarmists. Yet,
as was revealed at Moussaoui’s trial in March 2006, one of the
Minnesota agents had defended himself against this accusation
by stating that he was trying to prevent someone from flying
254 strategies for Intervention
By this time (the summer of 2001), the FBI was aware that
Moussaoui had briefly, and unsuccessfully, taken flying lessons at
the Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma before going to
Minnesota for further training. The FBI also knew that Osama bin
Laden’s personal pilot had been trained at Airman two years earlier.
Among Moussaoui’s friends was Richard C. Reid, who would become
notorious in December 2001 when he tried to blow up a plane with
explosives hidden in his shoes. As alarming as they were, these clues
were not the only ones. After Moussaoui was arrested, FBI agents
determined that he had not only taken flying lessons, but also pur-
chased box cutters of the type later used on 9/11, received money
from Germany (the origin of 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta), and
frequented the incendiary Finsbury Park mosque in London (whose
activities gave the city the moniker “Londonistan”). All this informa-
tion was entered in evidence at Moussaoui’s trial.
5
Senator Shelby closes the section of his additional views devoted to the FBI by reit-
erating this assessment: “As one former director of the National security Agency
(Gen. William Odom) has suggested, ‘cops’ cannot do the work of ‘spies’” (United
States, 2002, 74).
go analyze! 257
These results are in line with the research literature. Although his
U.K. sample was limited (twenty cases), Martin Innes found that
half the cases he examined were “self-solvers” (Innes, 2003, p. 292).
Recent research conducted in the United States on a sample of 589
cleared homicide cases found that the key determinant for solving a
case was information provided by eyewitnesses and other informants
(60.5 percent of cases; Wellford and Cronin, table 9, p. 27). They also
found that half the homicide cases in their sample were solved in less
than a week.
The importance of police patrols in solving criminal cases was rec-
ognized early by Richard v. Ericson in his study of general crime investi-
gations (p. 136). He characterized the role of investigators as limited
to processing suspects already made available by the patrol officer.
The upshot of these findings on police investigations is that the police
are much less dependent on intelligence to succeed in their actions
than are agencies involved in protecting national security. The intel-
ligence units of police forces are generally very small and staffed
by civilians who do not enjoy a high degree of acceptance from the
sworn police personnel (according to my own research, they rarely
mix outside the working hours). The RCMP is in Canada the main
police force that is charged with protecting Canada’s national secu-
rity. Its intelligence unit is composed of one senior civilian analyst
assisted by as many as four junior staff members. At a 2009 meet-
ing held with national security officials from the RCMP, I asked if
there was a procedure for centralizing in some RCMP fusion center
(e.g., at headquarters) all the local information on national security
that was collected by the regional detachment of this police force.
The answer was that the implementation of such a procedure was
go analyze! 259
under way, but it was only in its initial stage. Police forces seem to
compound the bureaucratic impediments to change with the lack of
flexibility of militarized organizations (see Greene, and Maguire and
King, this volume).
The police cult of evidence impedes their cooperation with secu-
rity service agents. However, it is not the cult of evidence as such that
impedes the sharing of intelligence, but rather one of the implications
of proving one’s case in court. Court proceedings are governed by an
ethos of publicity. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to
be done. This requirement implies that all witnesses must testify in
public, including police and security service informants. As the follow-
ing example will show, it is this prerequisite that informants testify in
public – thus potentially revealing their identity – that is the real bone
of contention between the police and the intelligence community.
A bomb hidden on board Air-India flight 182 from Montreal to
New Delhi via London exploded when the aircraft was flying over the
coast of Ireland in 1985, killing 329 people (another bomb exploded
on the same day at Narita airport, killing two persons, apparently as
part of the same plot). This was by far the most murderous terrorist
attack in all of Canadian history. Although the event also triggered
the costliest investigation in Canadian history, it was never solved;6 two
Sikh nationalists were indicted in 2005, but they were later acquitted
for lack of evidence (Bolan, 2005). In 2000, a CSIS agent admitted in
an interview to the Toronto newspaper The Globe and Mail that he had
destroyed up to 150 hours of taped interviews with key informants
on the case (Mitrovica and Sallot; also Mitrovica). The agent claimed
that he was ordered in 1986 to turn over his tapes and his informants
to the RCMP, and that he destroyed the tapes because he felt morally
obliged to do everything within his power to protect the identity of
his sources. He is quoted as saying, “unless we could get an ironclad
6
The RCMP announced in 1999 that the investigation had already cost them 26
million in Canadian dollars (Mitrovica and Sallot). The investigation resulted
years later in the indictment of two members of the Canadian Sikh community,
who were acquitted in 2005. We must then assume that the investigation is still
going on (2010) and involves more police organizations than just the RCMP. At
the end of 2006, the Canadian government established a commission on the Air-
India bombing and its aftermath.
260 strategies for Intervention
different from each other, there is one common thread strongly run-
ning through them. COP, POP, and Broken Windows approaches all
involved moving away from the narrow and crippling definition of
policing as criminal law enforcement. It would seem that TOP would
imply a refocusing of policing on crime through the struggle against
homegrown terrorism. Will such refocusing generate distortions? I
will tentatively examine this question with respect to the two issues
connected with the central subject matter of this chapter, the process-
ing of security intelligence.
The first of these issues is local knowledge. There is a consensus
among researchers that community policing is an invaluable source of
firsthand information about neighborhoods, which is presently under-
utilized (Innes, 2006; Peterson; Simonetti Rosen, 2004b; Greene, this
volume). This information is so valuable because community policing
means, by definition, policing in symbiosis with the community. There
is, however, another name for this close relationship that is much more
ominous: infiltration. As terrorist expert Brian Jenkins emphasized in
the interview he gave Law Enforcement News (Simonetti Rosen, 2004a,
p. 11): “[The police] don’t want to do things that are going to alienate
the very community that they set out to help, and want to have help-
ing them do their police job. And one can see that. There’s not an
easy answer to this. Domestic intelligence gathering is going to be an
extraordinarily sensitive topic, as it should be in a democracy.”
A second issue is related to possible distortions of the meaning of
intelligence as it transits between police and security intelligence agen-
cies. In a public talk given in 2005, RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli
remarked that ILP “reeks of secret service, spy agency work – the capi-
tal “I” in “Intelligence” (Zaccardelli). At the time, the RCMP and its
commissioner were under investigation by a federal commission of
inquiry – the O’Connor inquiry – for having shared with their U.S.
counterparts unchecked intelligence on the involvement of Canadian
citizen Maher Arar and others in terrorism. The information – which
turned out to be false – led to the extraordinary rendition of Mr. Arar
to Syria, where he was detained and tortured for several months. The
RCMP was blamed by the commission for its insensitivity to the conse-
quences of sharing incriminating intelligence with U.S. security agen-
cies for an individual suspected of terrorism (Canada, 2006, vol. III).
262 strategies for Intervention
(1) If Mary is a mother, then Mary has given birth to at least one
child.
(2) If Socrates is man, then Socrates is mortal.
(3) If KAM met with al Qaeda members, then KAM is plotting
against the United States.
7
The logical connective symbolizing a conditional (if … then) is usually expressed
by a sign resembling a horseshoe or by a small arrow.
8
Expressed as a conditional, sentence (1) logically derives from a universal analytic
judgment: “All mothers have children.” For some logicians, no conditional of the
form “if … then …” expresses a valid inference, even if it embodies an analytic
statement – a statement where the predicate (having a child) only explicates what
is already implied in the meaning of the subject (mother).
264 strategies for Intervention
signs – the various languages – that we use. They do not tell us any-
thing new about the external world. For that, we need field research
and fresh information.
The implications of this discussion for the processing of intelligence
are immediate. First, if we require that the analysis of intelligence
measure up to the canon of logical demonstration, rather than to the
trial-and-error process that characterizes probabilistic inference, the
only dots that will be connected through analysis will be mirror images
of each other – statements that are merely synonymous – and we will
learn little that is new. Second, and more important, the linguistic
sequence “if P, then Q” is never valid when purporting to say some-
thing about the external world, unless it is also backed by a set of facts
that are not automatically given as part of the meaning of either “P”
or “Q”. It may well be that an analyst already has under his sleeve the
factual statements that will allow him to complete his probabilistic
chain of inference. Going back to conditional (3), it may be that the
analyst already has at his disposal the information that one of the al
Qaeda members that met with KAM was involved in the bombing of
the destroyer USS Cole. This would allow him to progress further in
connecting the dots. It may also be that this information or some other
that is vital to completing the picture beginning to emerge through
connecting the dots is not yet available to the analyst. In this case,
there must be a way for him to reach out to some field agent to com-
plete and check out the limited but promising intelligence he is pro-
cessing. If analysis is dichotomized from field work, as is often the case
in policing and security intelligence agencies, it will only go round
in circles. Some of these circles may be informative, but many will be
empty and redundant. Third, the most frequent procedure used in
processing intelligence – particularly criminal intelligence – has little
to do with analysis. This procedure consists of linking photographs of
suspects by variously oriented arrows in order to depict a criminal or
a terrorist network. Technically, this procedure has little to do with
analysis, and each link between suspects should be validated by exter-
nal empirical evidence.
The post-9/11 critique of the intelligence community was based on
the fact that unanalyzed raw data was next to useless. Such criticism
now appears to be the “new normal,” or better still, the new common
266 strategies for Intervention
sense. But the reverse is no less true: Analysis that is not continuously
buttressed by fresh facts only begets diminishing returns and ends
up preying on itself. As the philosopher Kant famously said: Sense-
data without concepts are blind, but concepts without sense-data
are empty.
Finally, I will make a case for the hunt of redundancy. Two things
should be done to separate the signal from the noise. First, informa-
tion should be validated, that is, confirmed by more than one source
whenever possible. Security intelligence services are well aware of
this need. There is however a second requirement that must also be
met: putting aside the mass of information that may be accurate but
useless for action, from relevant “actionable” intelligence that meets
operational imperatives. Redundancy may be a guide for this second
task. The discovery of modus operandi and more generally of patterns
is essentially a search for repetition in the flow of information. Hence,
there is a point, even urgency, in perusing what appears at first to be
semantic tautologies, but what may reveal on closer examination to be
invaluable pointers for the prevention of acts of terrorism. This is the
upshot of the “flight lessons” negligence.
PROPOSED REFORMS
Analysis
I did not put analysis above collection in Figure 11.2 to show that
analysts should be in the commanding seat over data collectors, but
rather to emphasize that they should be able to task field collectors to
check out and complete information needed to connect the dots. This
was the point made in the previous section of this chapter: Collection
and analysis must be a two-way street with intense traffic.
CONCLUSION
preparing for yet another trip, from the Arctic of data collection to
the Antarctic of data processing. As much as the previous intelligence
motto was “Go collect! (signal intelligence or SIGINT),” the new word
would now be “Go analyze! (human intelligence or HUMINT).” In
this chapter, I left aside for future treatment the important topic of
SIGINT vs. HUMINT. Moving from the concrete to the abstract, no
intelligence icecap was going to be melted unless we blended intelli-
gence collection with intelligence analysis and developed a feedback
process looping them together.
The first “don’t” examined here was not a failure of intelligence, but
a failure of acting on the clear and present danger revealed by intel-
ligence. Putting intelligence into action meant in this case sharing it
with others, which was not done to a puzzling degree. Intelligence
divorced from common action is an exercise of the mind without
benefit to security.
The second “don’t” discussed was intended to show that intelligence
is generally not the painful mind-slashing exercise that tries to extract
a needle from a pile of glass. One guideline should be: Look for the
obvious! The obvious is what recurs in the data and keeps popping
back through field verification.
Because the counterexamples examined here involved a failure of
communication between the CIA and the FBI in the first case, and
a neglect of pursuing a police lead in the second one, it is essential
to give further thought to the relationships between cops and spies.
Two issues are of utmost importance. The first is that policing and
security agencies will not share intelligence as long as: (1) the police
fail to develop a culture of prevention with the attendant rewards for
preventionist cops, and (2) the police are refused the security clear-
ance needed to contribute to national security to the extent of their
capacity. The second issue is that there is a threshold beyond which
the past is transformed into something else that perverts it. With
respect to that great police capital – trust – there is truly a world of
difference between community policing and community infiltration
policing. Promoting ambiguity between these policing strategies will
have destructive consequences for democratic policing (See Greene,
Chapter 10, this volume). Infiltration policing will supersede com-
munity policing only at the cost of bastardizing it in the same way that
270 strategies for Intervention
REFERENCES
Bolan, Kim, Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away with Murder,
(Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2005).
Brodeur, Jean-Paul and Geneviève Ouellet, “L’enquête criminelle,”
Criminologie, Volume 38, Number 2 (2005), pp. 39–64.
Canada, Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Freedom and security under the law –
Second report (Ottawa: The Commission, 1981a).
Canada, Commission of Inquiry Concerning Certain Activities of the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Certain R.C.M.P. activities and the
question of governmental knowledge (Ottawa: The Commission, 1981b).
Canada, Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials
in Relation to Maher Arar, Report of the Events Relating to Maher Arar –
First Report (Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing, 2006).
Cléroux, Richard, Official Secrets: The Story behind the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1990).
Combs, Cindy C. and Martin Slann, Encyclopedia of Terrorism (New York:
Facts on File, 2002).
Cope, Nina, “Intelligence Led Policing or Policing Led Intelligence?
Integrating Volume Crime Analysis into Policing,” The British Journal
of Criminology, Volume 44, Number 2 (2004), pp. 188–203.
Hersch, Seymour, “Huge C.I.A. operation reported in US against Anti-War
Forces,” The New Times, December 22 (1974), p.1.
Ericson, Richard V., Making Crime, 2nd edition (Toronto: Butterworths,
1993[1981]).
go analyze! 271
Innes, Martin, Investigating Murder: Detective Work and the Police Response to
Criminal Homicide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
“Policing uncertainty: countering terror through community intelli-
gence and democratic policing,” The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, Volume 605, Number 1 (2006),
pp. 222–241.
Innes, Martin, Nigel Fielding, and Nina Cope, “The Appliance of Science?
The Theory and Practice of Crime Intelligence Analysis,” The British
Journal of Criminology, Volume 45, Number 1 (2005), pp. 39–57.
Kalish, Donald and Richard Montague, Logic: Techniques of Formal
Reasoning (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964).
Kushner, Harvey W., Encyclopaedia of Terrorism, (Thousand Oaks: Sage,
2003).
Lacayo, Richard and Amanda Ripley, “Persons of the Year: Sherron
Watkins of Enron, Coleen Rowley of the FBI, Cynthia Cooper of
Worldcom,” Time, week of December 30, 2002/January 6, 2003.
Lemmon, Edward J., Beginning Logic (London: Thomas Nelson, 1969).
Levine, Robert A., “Go Analyze! Lessons for the War on Terrorism,” The
Herald Tribune and New York Times, August 26 (2002), p. 6.
Manicas, Peter T. and Arthur N. Kruger, Essentials of Logic (New York:
American Book Co., 1968).
Mitrovica, Andrew, Covert Entry: Spies, Lies and Crimes Inside Canada’s Secret
Service (Toronto: Random House, 2002).
Mitrovica, Andrew and Jeff Sallot, “CSIS agent destroyed Air-India
evidence,” The Globe and Mail, January 26 (2000), pp. 1–2.
Nislow, Jennifer, “As clear as glass: With the ‘Broken Windows’ thesis,
George Kelling puts things into focus for policing,” Law Enforcement
News, Volume 29, Numbers 611/612 (2003), pp. 1–3.
Peterson, Marilyn, Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture,
(Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance of Clearinghouse,
2005).
Québec, Ministère de la Justice, Rapport de la Commission d’enquête sur
les opérations policières en territoire québécois (Québec: Ministère de la
Justice, 1981).
Rieber, Steven, Better Intelligence Analysis through the Scientific Study of
Human Judgement, Paper presented at the Annual Conference of
the Canadian Association for the Study of Intelligence and Security
(Ottawa: 2004).
Reichenbach, Hans, Elements of Symbolic Logic (New York: The Free Press,
1966).
Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), Annual Report
2002–2003 (Canada: Minister of Supply and Services, 2003).
272 strategies for Intervention
It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we
make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger
is that we’ll get hit again.
– Vice President Dick Cheney (2004)1
I approved this message: “I want to look into my daughter’s eyes and know
that she is safe, and that is why I am voting for John Kerry.”
– Senator John Kerry (2004)2
Prior to September 11, 2001, people in the United States were espe-
cially fearful of rapists and robbers, airplane crashes and cancer, hur-
ricanes and sharks. On that day, and for years afterward, terrorism
became Public Fear Number One. Although the 1993 bombing of
the World Trade Center and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of
the Murrah Federal Building were sensational events, they did not
shake ordinary citizens to their core, as did the 2001 attack. Two great
oceans had insulated the United States from serious acts of violence
by foreign sources, and its citizens were protected by the strongest
military on earth. The jet hijacking and suicide bombings that killed
nearly 3,000 people, brought down the twin towers of the World Trade
Center in New York, and inflicted major damage on the Pentagon in
Washington raised fear in the United States to a new level entirely. In
the days that followed, people throughout the United States bought
1
Milbank and Hsu
2
Shapiro.
273
274 strategies for Intervention
millions of dollars worth of duct tape and gas masks, puzzled over
the meaning of terror alert color codes, and became extremely suspi-
cious of men in turbans and women covering their heads with scarves.
Four days after the 9/11 attack, a Sikh gas station owner, Balbir Singh
Sodhi, was shot and killed in Phoenix by a local resident who thought
Sodhi was a Muslim.
This chapter inquires into the nature and sources of the fears that
drive such behaviors. Fear of terrorism is clearly understandable, but
to what extent is it useful and reasonable, and to what extent is it harm-
ful and irrational? How are our fears related to objective risks? How is
fear influenced by media and politicians? What can be said about the
social costs of excessive fear? What, if anything, should public officials
do about the public’s fear of terrorism? What can ordinary citizens do
about them? These are the issues taken up in this chapter.
Such questions about the fear of terrorism have received much less
attention from media, politics, and the academy than have facts and
speculations about terrorists: the dangers they present, the immorali-
ties of and justifications for their behaviors, how we may be able to
deter them, how we should respond to them, how to obtain infor-
mation from them and sanction them, how to protect targets against
their attacks, and how to destroy them and keep others from enlisting
in their causes and doing more of what they do. Attention to these
considerations is useful and necessary, but they deal only with what
economists would refer to as the “supply side” of terrorism. They tell
us nothing about the importance of our behavior as past and prospec-
tive victims of terrorism, and they ignore the public’s fear of terror-
ism, and how fear tends to aggravate the problem of terrorism.
Criminologists have learned that fear of crime can impose costs
on society that exceed those of crime itself – manifesting as reduced
quality of life, wasteful expenditures on resources and measures that
do little to prevent crime, stress-related illnesses and health costs, and
related social costs – and that it is manageable (Cohen; President’s
Commission; Warr). Terrorism is crime in the extreme, and fear plays
a substantially more central role in terrorism than in conventional
crime. Although fear is often used instrumentally to obtain compli-
ance in rape, robbery, domestic violence, and a few other crimes, it is
not an end in itself. In the case of terrorism, instilling fear is a primary
managing the fear of terrorism 275
goal of the act. It serves the larger political aim of the terrorist.
Accordingly, our ability to understand terrorism and determine how
best to deal with it publicly and privately depends critically on our
ability to understand the nature and sources of fear and the harms
that it imposes on society. Strategies for dealing with offenders and
protecting targets against conventional crime have been found to be
effectively complemented with strategies for managing the public’s
fear of crime (Skogan; Warr). In the case of terrorism, the stakes may
be much higher and the prospects much greater for complementing
strategies that deal with terrorists and targets of terrorism by find-
ing and implementing equally effective strategies for managing the
public’s fear of terrorism.
Fear is not all bad. As with fear of crime, reasonable levels of fear
of terrorism are helpful to generate the sort of concerns that help us
to develop coherent approaches to preventing terrorism in the first
place and dealing with it effectively when it does occur. There are
ample reasons to conclude, however, that the public’s fears of terror-
ism are inflated well beyond reason, and that inflated fears tend to
harm us both in the short and long term. In the short term, acute
fear diverts people from productive activities; it induces them to con-
sume resources that may do little to provide real protection against
harm; and it can produce severe stresses and reduce social capital and
quality of life over an extended period. It can create detachment and
distrust, and can harm emotional and physical health and economic
well-being. In extreme cases it can produce public panics, severe
social and financial disruptions, and sharp spikes in accidental deaths
and injuries and suicides. New Yorker essayist Adam Gopnik puts it suc-
cinctly: “Terror makes fear, and fear stops thinking.”
Over the longer term, fear can induce politicians to pander to
the public’s fears, reduce freedoms, and invoke responses at home
and abroad that may serve more to alienate prospective allies, rather
than to reduce the sources of the threats and thus enhance security.
There can be good reason to fear fear itself, as President Franklin D.
Roosevelt warned in his 1933 inaugural address. Today the public’s
fear of the fear of terrorism appears to be too small, and the con-
sequences of this lack of concern for the hazards produced by fear
could be considerable.
276 strategies for Intervention
Terror is very much a matter of fear: Terrorism gets its traction from
the public’s fear. Its power lies “almost exclusively in the fear it creates”
(Martin & Walcott). The word “terror” means fear in the extreme. It
is derived from the Latin verb terrere, to cause trembling. Acts of ter-
ror are most successful from the terrorist’s perspective when they cre-
ate mass hysteria and induce target populations to implode, imposing
much greater harms on themselves as a consequence of misplaced
fear than from the immediate harm of the acts of crime. Receiving a
substantially larger payoff than from the initial attack thus rewards the
terrorist, providing incentives for further such acts. This cycle could
be broken if prospective terrorists understood that their acts, even
substantial ones, drew limited attention and had little subsequent
impact on the target population. In our current fear-obsessed culture,
however, this prospect seems unlikely. In the words of the legendary
cartoon character, Pogo: “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”3
3
“Pogo” was a popular comic strip created by Walt Kelly in 1951. The strip ran in
hundreds of newspapers throughout the United States in the latter half of the
twentieth century. Pogo was a naive possum with keen powers of observation who
hung out in the Okefenokee swamp with his friends: Albert Alligator, Howland
Owl, Porky Pine, Beauregard the houn’ dog, Mallard de Mer (the seasick duck),
Deacon Muskrat, Wiley Cat, and others.
managing the fear of terrorism 277
public places” (p. 50). Similarly, Gary Kleck et al., have found that
perceptions of punishment are unrelated to actual levels of punish-
ment. They speculate that these misperceptions are a product of the
low relationship between highly publicized punishment events and
the actual rate of routine, largely unpublicized punitive activities of
the criminal justice system (p. 654). The challenge of discouraging
the public from overreacting to prospective acts of terrorism thus has
a clear parallel to the challenge of discouraging prospective offend-
ers from committing criminal acts: Both involve the widespread
misperception of threats.
Inflated perceptions of threats are often exacerbated by vivid media
images of victims of rare disasters. When people see the photograph
of a victim of a one-in-a-million event on the evening news – a per-
son killed by lightening or a shark attack, or by a suicide bomber in
Madrid or London – their first reaction is typically not that it is virtu-
ally impossible for them also to be victimized by such an event. Even
when they are told that the risk is less than one in a million, they tend
to distort the risk when confronted with the incontrovertible image
of a real victim of disaster. The photograph of a death scene accom-
panied by a photo of the previously live victim offers more palpable
information about a threat, thus it is more compelling than the infor-
mation that such episodes actually occur at an extremely low rate.
Finucane et al. refer to this as the affect heuristic – the tendency for
perception and behavior to be excessively influenced by images that
trigger emotional responses.
Cass Sunstein (2002) refers to the tendency for people to suspend
rational inference in the face of the affect heuristic as “probability
neglect.” He notes that the tendency for people to ignore prob-
abilities and behave less rationally is particularly great in the case of
terrorism:6
6
It must be noted that the risks of some threats defy objective assessment. It is one
thing to observe precise miscalibrations between actual and subjective rates of
mortality associated with shark attacks, tornadoes, commercial jet crashes, and
lung cancer – about which we have a wealth of empirical information – and quite
another to talk about excessive weight that a person gives to the risk of a nuclear
terrorist attack, given the absence of any such event to date. Still, there are enough
terrorist events about which ample evidence does exist to make such assessments of
many sorts of terrorism. For example, the RAND Corporation and the U.S. State
Department have collected data on terrorist attacks, and such data have been ana-
lyzed by Bruce Hoffman, Brian Jenkins, Robert Pape, and others.
managing the fear of terrorism 281
Can the media find a way of controlling itself more responsibly and
effectively in the face of these pressures? If it fails, what recourse can
the public take? Philip Meyer argues that the only way to save jour-
nalism is to develop a new business model that rewards community
service, one “that finds profit in truth, vigilance, and social responsi-
bility.” He observes that the nonprofit sector may be more amenable
to responsible public service journalism, that support from founda-
tions can be a more than suitable complement to conventional com-
mercially supported media. Meyer regards National Public Radio
(NPR) as a suitable model for nonprofit journalism:7
7
Some commentators see NPR and public television as biased (see, e.g., Farhi;
Novak). These criticisms are valid largely to the extent that foundation support
comes disproportionately from either the left or the right and with strings attached,
explicitly or otherwise. Meyer’s argument for the nonprofit model recognizes this
problem; it aims primarily to deal with the problem of commercial pressure for
sensational reporting.
managing the fear of terrorism 289
Some of the blame for the death of nuance must be laid to the mind-
less divisiveness of those cable news outlets that treat politics as a
blood sport. It’s hard to acknowledge that the other guy maybe has a
point when he is determined to prove to the world that you have no
point whatsoever. Nuance starts to sound wimpy.
Clearly, there are many ways to strengthen the ability of media to serve
the public more effectively in the era of terrorism. Paul Wilkinson,
director of the St. Andrews University Centre for the Study of Terrorism
and Political Violence, reminds us that the stakes are high and advises
that the media should strive not to serve the interests of terrorism. He
recalls Margaret Thatcher’s metaphor: “Democratic nations must try
to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of
publicity on which they depend.” He concludes that this can be done
without sacrificing the high standards of professional journalism.
The media are not alone in feeding and inflating our fears. Politicians
have learned as well that playing to the voters’ fear of crime and
290 strategies for Intervention
to treat their citizens in much the same way, blowing some risks out
of proportion and enacting overly protective laws – Furedi (2002b)
and Sunstein (2005) refer to this as the “precautionary principle”8 –
and underplaying others, especially when special interest groups (the
tobacco lobby is a prominent example) make such distortions attrac-
tive. One of the characteristic strengths of an established free society
is a bond of mutual trust and responsibility between the elected and
the governed: Government ensures that the information the public
has about domestic and foreign threats is accurate and balanced, and
it trusts them to handle the information responsibly. Terrorism can
erode this cohesion, and politicians who use terrorism for political
ends may accelerate the erosion.
Clearly, effective political leadership is the critical alternative to
political pandering, especially in the face of threats to national secu-
rity. One has only to consider Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s
effective exhortations to the people of England, and Londoners in
particular, to be courageous in the face of brutal and incessant blitz-
krieg bombings by the Germans in World War II. He led both by both
word and example, holding cabinet meetings at 10 Downing Street
rather than in bunkers, often well into the dangerous nighttime as
bombs exploded nearby. The people followed Churchill’s lead, and
the courage of the British helped first to enable them to survive the
attacks and carry on, and eventually to contribute in significant ways
to the defeat of Germany. (On the occasion of his eightieth birth-
day, in 1955, Churchill remarked that it was Britain that “had the
lion’s heart,” that he merely “had the luck to be called upon to give
the roar.”) A memorable display of fear-reduction leadership echoing
Churchill’s was revealed by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the hours
and days following the 2001 attack on the World Trade Towers.
RE F E RE N CE S
Judith Rich Harris, No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality
(New York: W.W. Norton, 2006).
Linda Heath, “Impact of Newspaper Crime Reports on Fear of Crime: A
Methodological Investigation,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Volume 47 (1984), pp. 263–76.
Jim Hoagland, “Politics as Theater,” Washington Post (August 18, 2005),
p. A21.
Daniel Kahnemann, Paul Slovic and Amos Tversky, Judgement Under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1982).
Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Choices, Values and Frames (Cambridge
University Press, 2000).
Gary Kleck, Brion Sever, Spencer Li and Marc Gertz, “The Missing Link
in General Deterrence Research,” Criminology, Volume 43, Issue 3
(August 2005), pp. 623–59.
Brian M. Jenkins and Janera Johnson, International Terrorism: A Chronology,
1968–1974, report prepared for Department of State and Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation Report R-1597-DOS/ARPA, 1975).
Joseph Ledoux, The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of
Emotional Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998).
David C. Martin and John Walcott, Best Laid Plans: The Inside Story of
America’s War Against Terrorism (Harper-Collins, 1988).
L. John Martin, “The Media’s Role in International Terrorism,” Terrorism,
Volume 8 (1985), pp. 44–58.
Andrew Mayes, “The Physiology of Fear and Anxiety,” in Fear in Animals
and Man, edited by W. Sluckin (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1979).
Philip Meyer, “Saving Journalism: How to Nurse the Good Stuff Until
it Pays,” Columbia Journalism Review, Issue 6 (November–December
2004).
Dana Milbank and Spencer S. Hsu, “Cheney: Kerry Victory Is
Risky: Democrats Decry Talk as Scare Tactic,” Washington Post
(September 8, 2004), p. A1.
Robert Novak, “Public Air Wars,” Chicago Sun-Times (July 21, 2005).
David L. Paletz, Peter A. Fozzard and John Z. Ayanian, “The IRA, the
Red Brigades, and the FALN in the New York Times,” Journal of
Communication, Volume 32 (1982), pp. 162–171.
Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (New
York: Random House, 2005).
Norman Podhoretz, “The Subtle Collusion,” Political Communication and
Persuasion, Volume 1 (1981), pp. 84–89.
managing the fear of terrorism 299
INTRODUCTION
The use of racial profiling as a crime control measure is not new, nor
is it a sophisticated or unique approach to controlling or preventing
crime. Since the beginning of law enforcement in the United States,
people, groups, and societies have sought ways to distinguish crimi-
nals from others.
One of the most significant and stark examples of racial profiling
in the express interest of national security was the internment (i.e.,
imprisonment) of Japanese and Japanese Americans living in the
United States during World War II. The day after the December 7,
1941, attack of the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by military
forces from Japan, the United States entered the war. All Japanese
people residing in the United States were seen as potential threats to
the security of the country because it was believed that they would aid
the enemy Japanese. The threat was felt more acutely on the Pacific
coast, prompting legislators in California, Oregon, and Washington
states to forcefully advocate that something be done to reduce or
remove the threat of future attacks by any Japanese (Nagata; Ng).1
1
Both Nagata and Ng discuss not only the internment of Japanese and Japanese
Americans during the Second World War, but also what internees were feeling at
the time. For example, according to Nagata, even though civil liberties of Japanese
Americans were violated, this did not immediately result in a call for justice from
those who were interned. To be considered loyal Americans, most would not openly
oppose any policy that would go against a presidential or congressional order in
time of war, even though the order clearly violated the Constitution that the war
seemed so desperate to protect.
300
should profiling be used to prevent terrorism? 301
who are Muslim but not affiliated with any terrorist group. Accordingly,
this discussion of profiling will touch on the fairness and legitimacy of
ethnic and racial profiling, and it will discuss the effectiveness of such
profiling as a crime control and counterterrorism tool.
In this commentary on ethnic profiling and terrorism, I will present
several hypotheses that attempt to explain or establish a point of ref-
erence for the practice of racial profiling. The hypotheses presented
may be tested using past and present experiences and knowledge and
anticipated future experiences. It is important to recognize, along the
way, the legal and ethical side of racial and ethnic profiling. This is of
such overarching significance that the U.S. Congress, in 1868, rati-
fied the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
guaranteeing individuals due process of the law and equal protection
under the law. More recently, the U.S. government has explicitly stated
that neither race nor ethnicity should be used as a sole factor in deci-
sions to stop, search, detain, or arrest individuals, and that doing so
constitutes a violation of one’s constitutional rights.4
4
Racial profiling is not an officially accepted practice by the United States govern-
ment. A June 17, 2003, six-page Fact Sheet on Racial Profi ling by the United States
Department of Justice contains a quote from Attorney General John Ashcroft that
states, “This administration … has been opposed to racial profiling and has done
more to indicate its opposition than ever in history. The President said it’s wrong
and we’ll end it in America, and I subscribe to that. Using race … as a proxy for
potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforce-
ment by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement.”
The fact sheet further states, “Racial profiling sends the dehumanizing message to
our citizens that they are judged by the color of their skin and harms the criminal
justice system by eviscerating the trust that is necessary if law enforcement is to
effectively protect our communities.”
304 strategies for Intervention
States. (2) Most young black males are seen as potential criminals,
especially violent ones. (3) After September 11, 2001, all Arab- or
Middle Eastern-looking males were viewed by many as terrorists or
potential terrorists. Interestingly, after the bombing of the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in April 1995 – which was,
until the 9/11 attack, described as the “worst domestic terror attack
in U.S. history” (Henderson, p. 123) – there was no public outcry to
view all young white males as potential deadly terrorists, nor was there
widespread belief that young white males would develop into terror-
ists capable of replicating this type of terrorist act.
In addition to the visual differences that make it easier to pro-
file racial and ethnic minorities, population size is also a factor that
makes this type of profiling easy to administer. It would be difficult,
if not impossible, for law enforcement to scrutinize every white male
between twenty-five and thirty-five years of age. It is more efficient to
scrutinize minority populations because they are fewer in number,
have less social, economic, and political power to refuse such scrutiny,
and they show up disproportionately as convicted offenders.
5
Becker (2004) reports similar rates of drug use among blacks and whites, although
the types and amounts may vary for the individual user.
should profiling be used to prevent terrorism? 307
More recently, the term “driving while black” (DWB) has been used
to express the process of treatment and harassment experienced by
African American motorists who are stopped by police because they
fit a particular profile, but are not involved in any illegal activities. In
the case of DWB, police use pretext-stops of vehicles in order to con-
duct vehicle searches for illegal drugs.
Banks, Eberhardt and Ross (2006) argue that that there is a societal
consensus against racial discrimination, but this consensus against
racial discrimination becomes unattainable as a practical reality
because we exist in a racially stratified society. For example, after
September 11, persons of Middle Eastern descent in the United
States, particularly young adult males, were greatly suspected of being
terrorists or having information about possible terrorists; thousands
were interviewed and hundreds were taken into police custody and
charged as terrorists, despite having no history of or affiliation with
terrorism.
310 strategies for Intervention
TERRORISM
Prior to September 11, 2001, the risk of a terrorist attack in the United
States by foreign or domestic entities was relatively low in contrast to
terrorism attacks in other nations (Henderson). In fact, many schol-
ars and experts on terrorism focused their discussions on Europe,
eastern Europe, and the Middle East, including Russia, Italy, West
Germany, Ireland, Spain, Algeria, Israel, and Iran (e.g., see Crenshaw,
1983;1995).
9
An example of this occurred when the setting of the terror alert level was changed
from elevated (i.e., Yellow) to high (i.e., Orange), but this was only for mass-transit
systems, as stated by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff in a press briefing
just after the London bombing attacks on July 7, 2005: “[This alert is] targeted only
to the mass transit portion of the transportation sector.”
314 strategies for Intervention
RE F E RE N CE S
Federal-Local Coordination
in Homeland Security
Edward R. Maguire and William R. King
Any legislative change which would render … local and state law enforcement
subservient to federal jurisdiction, would, in my opinion, be disastrous.
– J. Edgar Hoover 1954
INTRODUCTION
322
federal-local coordination in homeland security 323
1
The U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) defines a “place” as: “A concentration of popula-
tion either legally bounded as an incorporated place, or identified as a Census
Designated Place (CDP) including comunidades and zonas urbanas in Puerto
Rico. Incorporated places have legal descriptions of borough (except in Alaska
and New York), city, town (except in New England, New York, and Wisconsin), or
village.”
324 strategies for Intervention
INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS
2
We do not consider the role of state governments. This is neither an oversight on
our part, nor an indication that state governments do not play a key role in the
homeland security network. Our focus in this chapter is on relationships between
federal and local government agencies.
federal-local coordination in homeland security 325
3
According to mathematical rules for computing “combinations,” the formula for
determining the number of dyads or 2-way ties in a system of nodes (n) is: n! /
[2! (n – 2)!]. So, with 1,000 nodes, the formula reduces to 1000! / [2 (998!)] = 499,500.
This approach treats the direct pathway between two agencies as a single tie.
326 strategies for Intervention
These regional JTTFs all report to the National Joint Terrorism Task
Force office in the Strategic Information and Operations Center at
FBI Headquarters. The JTTFs have been called “the foundation of
the Bureau’s information sharing efforts” (National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States n.d.). The National JTTF
contains representatives from thirty-eight U.S. agencies, and is con-
sidered the “operational nerve center” or the “point of fusion” for
collecting terrorist intelligence and preventing terrorist incidents
(Federal Bureau of Investigation 2004b).
4
Information on the Department of Homeland Security is derived from: http://
www.dhs/gov. Accessed March 4, 2007.
330 strategies for Intervention
Although all JTTFs are a little different from one another, they share
some common elements.5 Each one is headed by an FBI Supervisory
Special Agent with experience in counterterrorism operations and
investigations. The task force also contains other FBI special agents,
as well as federal, state, and local law enforcement officers from other
agencies. Each task force appoints a special agent to serve as a coor-
dinator. The coordinator handles administrative functions such as
arranging memoranda of understanding (MOUs) for all participat-
ing agencies; securing equipment, supplies, and space; and managing
budgets. Most of the task forces discourage part-time participation by
members, preferring the commitment of full-time task force mem-
bers. This requirement limits participation by smaller law enforce-
ment agencies who may not be able to spare an officer for full-time
participation in a JTTF. The nature of the work is different from what
most local police officials are accustomed to:
5
Most of the material in this paragraph is drawn from Casey 2004.
federal-local coordination in homeland security 331
The office has three primary components: the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, which conducts joint exercises and provides grants,
training, and technical assistance to state and local governments
through a variety of programs meant to enhance emergency prepared-
ness; the Office of Community Preparedness, which works to encour-
age citizens to prepare for terrorism and other critical incidents; and
the Office of State and Local Government Coordination, which serves
as a single point of contact for state and local governments wanting
information about DHS.
Seven months after the 9/11 attack, the FBI established the Office
of Law Enforcement Coordination (OLEC). Director Robert S.
Mueller, III appointed Louis Quijas, a police chief from High Point,
North Carolina, as the assistant director of OLEC. The role of the
office is to enhance the coordination, cooperation, and communica-
tion between the FBI and its law enforcement partners at all levels of
government (Federal Bureau of Investigation n.d.; Federal Bureau of
Investigation 2002). By 2006, the FBI appeared to have made prog-
ress in its efforts to restore its tarnished image with state and local
law enforcement agencies. Emblematic of this progress is a weekly,
unclassified intelligence bulletin sent to police agencies through-
out the nation. A review conducted by the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States found that the FBI is “doing
a much better job of sharing threat-related information” with state
and local law enforcement officials, though there were complaints
that the FBI “still needs to share much more operational case-related
information” (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the
United States 2004: 8). Despite these reform efforts, the commission
found that “important information from these national investigations
does not reach the officers responsible for patrolling the cities, towns,
highways, villages, and neighborhoods of our country” (National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 2004: 9).
The challenge is how to distribute information from the nerve cen-
ter to these various nodes, while still maintaining the integrity of the
FBI’s counterterrorism operations.
332 strategies for Intervention
6
According to Riley and Hoffman (2005), anti-terrorism is “the prevention of terror-
ist acts primarily, but not exclusively, through physical security measures” whereas
counter-terrorism is “the collection and analysis of intelligence, developing contin-
gencies and allocation of specific sources, both to anticipate terrorist acts and to
respond to them once they have occurred.”
334 strategies for Intervention
Prevention
On April 26, 2001, in Tamarac, Florida, Broward County sheriff’s
deputies ticketed Mohammed Atta for driving without a driver’s
license. He skipped his court date on May 28, and a warrant was issued
for his arrest. On July 5, a Delray Beach police officer stopped him
for speeding and issued a warning. The officer was unaware of the
arrest warrant because it had not been entered into the state’s warrant
database. The officer was also unaware that Atta had an expired visa
and was on a CIA “watch list.” At 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001,
Atta piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the
World Trade Center (CNN.com 2002b; Stanek 2003; Zeller 2004).
Authorities believe Atta was the ringleader for the plot to hijack and
crash four planes.
Atta was not the only hijacker to have an encounter with local
police in the months leading up to 9/11. On May 1, 2001, according
to Congressional testimony by FBI Director Robert Mueller, Nawaf
al-Hazmi “reported an attempted street robbery … to Fairfax, Virginia
Police – he later declined to press charges” (Mueller 2002). On
September 11, Hazmi was one of the hijackers on American Airlines
Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. On August 1, 2001, Hani
Hanjour was stopped for speeding by police in Arlington, Virginia. He
is believed to have been the pilot of American Flight 77 that crashed
into the Pentagon (CNN.com 2002a, b; Stanek 2003). On September
9, 2001, Trooper 1st Class Joseph Catalano stopped Ziad S. Jarrah
for speeding on Interstate 95 in Pikesville, Maryland. Jarrah was on
a CIA “watch list,” but Trooper Catalano had no way of knowing that
(CNN.com 2002a). Two days later, Jarrah was one of the hijackers on
United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania after
passengers and crew members overpowered the hijackers (CNN.com
2002a, b; Stanek 2003).
All of these incidents, however minor, represent lost opportuni-
ties where better communication and cooperation between federal
and local authorities might have paid huge dividends. Consider for
federal-local coordination in homeland security 335
7
Although Katz (2003: 510) characterizes these information processing problems
as “abnormalities,” we wonder if instead they are normal. One possibility may be
that trying to maintain official records on ambiguous phenomena like gang and
terrorist group affiliation is naturally going to produce some problems with data
quality. Just as Perrow (1984) characterizes some catastrophic accidents as a nor-
mal by-product of certain organizational characteristics, we wonder whether some
difficulties in maintaining accurate data are a normal by-product of measuring
inherently ambiguous phenomena.
federal-local coordination in homeland security 337
by the officer, thus the FBI loses a vital opportunity to benefit from
the upward information flow that street cops could have initiated.
Information flow is not the only issue to be resolved in enhancing
coordination and cooperation between federal and local agencies.
Local police now must develop many kinds of new competencies,
some of which might have seemed pretty odd prior to 9/11. They are
learning how to gather intelligence on terrorist threats; how to detect
chemical, biological, or radiological threats in time to prevent mass
casualties; how to conduct risk assessments to identify and protect vul-
nerable assets that might become terrorist targets; how to train their
officers to spot suspicious activities consistent with terrorist prepara-
tion for an attack; and they are securing new technologies for pro-
cessing data, evaluating risk, and detecting vulnerabilities. Imagine
the reaction of police officers prior to 9/11 if they were told that
the NYPD was purchasing “gamma neutron detectors” (by 2006 the
NYPD had 120 of them) or other sophisticated technologies outside
the mainstream for police (Kelly 2004: 12). Police agencies around
the nation are now grappling with a new reality – that preventing ter-
rorism is a crucial part of their role.
Attacks upon the United States 2004). In mass-casualty events, the bur-
den for responding also extends to numerous local medical providers,
including mental health professionals, ambulances, hospitals, medical
examiners, and even mortuary services.
Because local first responders are closer to the scene of an attack
than federal authorities and have the resources to respond quickly,
they will always play a primary role in response. However, this does
not minimize the role of the federal government. One of its major
roles is to fund, train, and equip local first responders, as well as to
monitor and augment their capacities. One crucial role is to con-
duct drills and simulated attacks to test the response capabilities of
communities around the nation. For instance, the Department of
Homeland Security organizes the “TOPOFF” (Top Officials) series
of simulations. In April, 2005, DHS executed TOPOFF 3 by staging
simulated terrorist attacks in Connecticut and New Jersey. In October,
2007, DHS staged TOPOFF 4, the fourth exercise in the series, by
simulating the detonation of “dirty bombs” (explosives that release
radiological material when detonated) in Guam, Arizona, and Oregon
(Department of Homeland Security, 2008). The exercises are meant
to test the nation’s preparedness. A crucial element of those tests is
examining the way federal, state, and local authorities work together
and with the various nongovernmental organizations playing a crucial
role in homeland security (Katz, Staiti, and McKenzie 2006).
The federal government has also played a crucial role in develop-
ing protocols for critical incident response. On February 28, 2003,
President Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5,
directing the Department of Homeland Security to establish a
National Response Plan (NRP) and a National Incident Management
System (NIMS). A fundamental premise of the NRP is that “incidents
are typically handled at the lowest jurisdictional level possible,” a sort
of federal stamp of recognition for the role of local authorities during
critical incidents (U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2004: 15).8
According to the directive, NIMS will “provide a consistent nationwide
approach for Federal, State, and local governments to work effectively
8
In March 2008, the Department of Homeland Security replaced the NRP with the
“National Response Framework.”
federal-local coordination in homeland security 339
and efficiently together to prepare for, respond to, and recover from
domestic incidents, regardless of cause, size, and complexity” (U.S.
Department of Homeland Security 2004: 69–70). Though it contin-
ues to evolve, NIMS was first unveiled on March 1, 2004.
One of the key elements of NIMS is the nationwide adoption of the
Incident Command System (ICS). ICS is a management system for coor-
dinating and controlling personnel, equipment, supplies, and activities
during emergency incidents requiring a response from one or more
agencies. It relies on the age-old structural notion of “unity of command”
by establishing on-site an incident commander in charge of a central
command post typically established in the field by first responders near
where the incident is unfolding (U.S. Department of Homeland Security
2004: 10). ICS also includes a number of structural modules that can be
added as needed. The incident command structure can be adapted to
fit critical incidents of different types and scales.
On the surface, ICS appears to be a standard bureaucratic or
“mechanistic” structure for coordinating the activities, equipment,
and personnel of multiple agencies. Recent research by organizational
scholars has found, however, that ICS allows for more flexibility and
adaptability than standard mechanistic structures (Bigley and Roberts
2001). Mass-casualty incidents vary in type and scale, from a house
fire or a small flood to a bombing or airplane crash. Incident man-
agement protocols need to be flexible or adaptive to account for
the nature and scope of the incident. If the protocol is too rigid, it
will inhibit this flexibility or adaptability. If it is not rigid enough, it
may lead to chaos. ICS is designed to fall in the middle, with enough
structure to coordinate and communicate and allow for a kind
of “constrained improvisation” (Bigley and Roberts 2001: 1282).
Research on natural and man-made disasters has shown that the abil-
ity to establish a “hastily formed network” is crucial for responding
effectively (Denning 2006). Although discussions of ICS are almost
universally positive, one recent evaluation suggests that ICS is “ill
suited to the complexity of … a good deal of disaster response efforts”
(Buck, Trainor, and Aguirre 2006: 21).
On August 29, 2005, nearly four years after 9/11 – a period of
unprecedented change in the nation’s disaster-response apparatus –
Hurricane Katrina struck southeastern Louisiana. The storm was one
340 strategies for Intervention
Investigation
The primary mechanism through which local police investigate terror-
ism is through their participation in the FBI’s regional Joint Terrorism
Task Forces, described earlier. Many local law enforcement agen-
cies have also formed their own regional networks of agencies. For
example, two officers from the Redondo Beach Police Department
(California) were assigned by their agency to serve as liaison officers
with a regional anti-terrorism task force called the South Bay Group.
These officers eventually
9
Unfortunately, we are not aware of any research evidence on the extent to which
September 11 enhanced feelings of nationalism among law enforcement officers.
There is evidence, however, to suggest that politicians and the media relied more
heavily on nationalist themes in their communications after September 11 (see
Hutcheson, Domke, Billeaudeaux, and Garland 2004).
federal-local coordination in homeland security 343
Prevention
When it comes to preventing terrorism, the federal government’s role
is to serve as the nerve center of a massive network of agencies. The
challenge is to ensure an adequate, but not excessive, flow of infor-
mation – both upward and downward – between the center and the
periphery. Sharing information among thousands of agencies and
millions of workers is challenging in its own right, but accomplishing
this kind of information exchange in an industry where lives depend
on secrecy, confidentiality, and access control may take the greatest
minds of our generation.
In addition to the technical and logistical challenges with gathering,
processing, analyzing, and sharing information are other more mun-
dane challenges associated with the roles, missions, and traditions of
each level of government. Consider Dearborn, Michigan, which has
one of the largest Arab populations in the United States. A study of
the Dearborn Police Department and its role in homeland security
344 strategies for Intervention
identified two challenges “that cities incur when they engage in pro-
active surveillance to identify potential terrorists: damage to their
reputation (since police surveillance implies that its objects are not
trustworthy) and damage to police legitimacy (since new surveillance
may undermine trust between police and the community)” (Thacher
2005: 635). The study found that the benefits of intelligence gather-
ing on terrorism often accrue to jurisdictions other than the localities
where these activities take place. Police chiefs may understandably
find little motivation to have their agencies engage in practices that
have the potential to damage relationships with their own communi-
ties, especially when the benefits of such an approach are ambiguous.
As a result of these concerns, some cities end up focusing far more
attention on more concrete (and less controversial) prevention activi-
ties like target hardening and response and recovery preparation.
Investigation
The federal government has primary responsibility for investigating
acts of terrorism. Through the JTTFs, the federal government is able
to rely on local police officers from around the nation who serve as
boundary spanners, representatives of local law enforcement agencies
whose job it is to secure the appropriate flow of information and inves-
tigative resources between the two levels of government.10 It is here
where both network theory and organizational theory would suggest
10
It is important to point out that programs like the JTTF blur the boundaries
between federal and local agencies. Research shows that the boundaries are nei-
ther clear nor static, with the federal criminal jurisdiction expanding dramatically
over the past century (Friel 2000; Richman 2000).
346 strategies for Intervention
the need for caution. When a local police agency assigns an officer
to a JTTF, it is giving up that employee, to some extent, to the fed-
eral government. The officer still receives a paycheck from the local
agency, but receives his or her marching orders from the Assistant
Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) of the JTTF.
We view the local officer assigned to a JTTF as a linchpin in the
network of agencies responsible for homeland security. He or she is
a boundary spanner, a bridge between the local police agency and
the JTTF. We envision this boundary-spanning role producing four
kinds of problems or challenges. First, the cultures of the FBI and
local police agencies are very different, especially in the context of
terrorism. The FBI pays far more attention to security clearances and
compartmentalization of information than do local police agencies.
A police officer assigned to a JTTF will necessarily become accultur-
ated by his peers to respect the secrecy of the information to which
he or she is exposed. Furthermore, disclosing classified information
will subject the officer to a number of penalties, including federal
criminal charges (Murphy and Plotkin 2003). For both cultural and
legal reasons, therefore, the local officer assigned to a JTTF is likely
to be cautious about sharing information with members of his or her
own agency.
Second, in many instances, the police officer’s own commanders,
including his or her chief of police or the local government execu-
tive, will not have a sufficient security clearance to allow information
sharing by the officer. This was one of the primary concerns raised by
police chiefs at an executive session convened in November 2002 by
the Police Executive Research Forum and the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services in Washington DC. This is one of the con-
cerns that drove the city council of Portland, Oregon to withdraw
its city police officers from the regional JTTF. We predict that other
communities may follow in Portland’s footsteps, because assigning
employees a higher security clearance than those to whom they report
is a recipe for any number of problems.
Third, in spite of concerns about the FBI by local police officers,
it is likely that police officers assigned to the JTTF will perceive their
role as privileged. Protecting the homeland against terrorists is more
glorious work than catching burglars or car thieves or responding to
federal-local coordination in homeland security 347
motor vehicle accidents. The history of policing has shown over and
over again that assigning police officers to special units isolates those
units and the officers that work in them, often generating hostility,
if not more benign social distance, between special unit officers and
general police officers. This is yet another potential source of com-
munication problems between officers assigned to JTTFs and other
officers.
Finally, police officers assigned to a JTTF are investigators or detec-
tives. They typically do not hold a high rank within their own orga-
nizations. By virtue of not having held such a rank, they may hold
a narrow perspective on the information needs of the agency as a
whole. It would be unfair to expect them to think like a captain or
a commander, imagining all of the various ways that what they have
learned through their work at the JTTF could be used by patrol offi-
cers on the street, by trainers at the police academy, by the members
of the bomb squad, or by any of the other myriad niches within the
police organization.
Taken together, all of these factors suggest that police officers
assigned to JTTFs face challenges in serving as effective boundary
spanners between their two organizations. Although they are unlikely
to be co-opted within the culture of the FBI writ large, there is a strong
possibility that they may identify with and become ingrained in the
culture of the JTTF. They may face pressures not to share informa-
tion with others in their own agencies, including those above them in
the command structure. Given their rank and their career trajectory
within the local police department, they probably have formidable
expertise in investigative methods, as well as street smarts. They are
unlikely, however, to be well versed in the larger set of strategic and
administrative issues of concern to police commanders. Therefore,
their role as boundary spanners is likely to be incomplete.
Creating a more complete bridge between JTTFs and local police
agencies will mean creating a pathway through which information of
strategic or administrative importance can be transmitted on a regu-
lar basis. This structure, in an appropriate form, would enable police
leaders to make more informed decisions about homeland security
issues. Police chiefs and others have raised several possibilities for
achieving these levels of communication and cooperation. One is
348 strategies for Intervention
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Geller, William A., and Norval Morris. 1992. “Relations between Federal
and Local Police.” In Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, eds. Modern
Policing: 231–348. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilcher, Ronald O. 2001. Two Oklahoma City Disasters: The Oklahoma
City bombing and the tornadoes – a blood bank perspective. Baylor
University Medical Center Proceedings 14:140–3.
Gilmore Commission. 2000. Toward a National Strategy for Combating
Terrorism. Second Annual Report to the President and the Congress
of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for
Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Retrieved October
31, 2006 from, http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/terror2.pdf
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor,
Doubleday.
Gormley, William T. 2002. “Reflections on Terrorism and Public
Management.” In Alasdair Roberts, ed. Governance and Public Security:
1–16. Syracuse, NY: Campbell Public Affairs Institute, Syracuse
University.
Granovetter, Mark. 1983. The Strength of Weak Ties: A network theory
revisited. Sociological Theory 1:201–233.
Grissett, Sheila. 2005. “FEMA Pulled Jeff’s Plug: Antenna unhooked days
after Katrina.” Times-Picayune (New Orleans), October 12, 2005.
Herbert, Steve. 1996. Policing Space: Territoriality and the Los Angeles Police
Department. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hirschkorn, Phil, and Deborah Feyerick. 2004. “Feds to Start Sharing
Terrorism Data: New York and Vermont cops will get access to watch
lists.” CNN.com, December 15, 2000. Retrieved October 31, 2006 from,
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/25/fbi.sharing.data/index.html
Hoover, John Edgar. 1954. The Basis of Sound Law Enforcement. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 291:39–45.
Hutcheson, John, David Domke, Andre Billeaudeaux, and Philip Garland.
2004. U.S. National Identity, Political Elites, and a Patriotic Press
Following September 11. Political Communication 21:27–50.
Kapucu, Naim. 2009. Interorganizational Coordination in Complex
Environments of Disasters: The evolution of intergovernmental
disaster response systems. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management 6:Article 47.
Katz, Aaron, Andrea B. Staiti, and Kelly L. McKenzie. 2006. Preparing for
the Unknown, Responding to the Known: Communities and public
health preparedness. Health Affairs 25:946–957.
Katz, Charles M. 2003. Issues in the Production and Dissemination of
Gang Statistics: An ethnographic study of a large midwestern gang
unit. Crime and Delinquency 49:485–516.
federal-local coordination in homeland security 353
The White House. 2001. President says U.S. Attorneys on Front Line in War.
Retrieved on September 9, 2010 from, http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/
speeches/speech_0041.shtm
Wilson, James Q. 1978. The Investigators: Managing FBI and Narcotics Agents.
New York: Basic Books.
Winthrop, Jim. 1997. The Oklahoma City Bombing: Immediate response
authority and other military assistance to civil authority. The Army
Lawyer, pp. 1–15. Retrieved October 31, 2006 from, http://www.
mipt.org/pdf/okcbombira_maca.pdf
Woods, Gerald. 1993. The Police in Los Angeles: Reform and Professionalization.
New York: Garland.
Zanini, Michele, and Sean J.A. Edwards. 2001. “The Networking of Terror
in the Information Age.” In John Arquilla, and David Ronfeldt, eds.
Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy: 29–60.
Santa Monica: Rand.
Zeller, Shawn. 2004. Calling the Cops. Retrieved October 31, 2006 from
http://www.govexec.com/features/0304/0304s2.htm
chapter fifteen
INTRODUCTION
Not only did the events of September 11, 2001 (henceforth 9/11)
have a profound effect on our national and international psyches,
but they also prompted a radical reconsideration and even revision
of seemingly well-established moral responses. The racial profiling by
police that had been recently condemned by public opinion and official
inquiry was often revived with a different attitude and outcome when
the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were identified. Governmental
surveillance that would have been considered incompatible with a free
society was suddenly and overwhelmingly enshrined in what, without
a trace of irony, was called the USA PATRIOT Act. Even the revulsion
against torture that seemingly required no further justification has
been reviewed and reconstructed in official memoranda and public
debate.
This was not, of course, the first time that some of these issues had
been broached. National security has a long history of debate associ-
ated with it.1 The Korematsu (1944) decision of World War II, sanction-
ing the internment of large numbers of Japanese Americans, was only
one of the more notorious occasions on which such debate occurred.
Other incidents during the Vietnam War (e.g., the publication of the
Pentagon Papers and violation of Daniel Ellsberg’s privacy rights)
1
Consider, for example, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, available at <http://
earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/>, the suspension of habeas
corpus and free speech rights during the Civil War, and the Espionage Act passed
during World War I.
357
358 strategies for Intervention
LIBERTY
Freedom
It is useful to start with freedom, which I characterize as an individual
achievement of maturation and learning – specifically, as a state of per-
sonal development in which one has acquired the capacity to reflect
on and revise one’s attitudes, reasons, motives, and desires, and to act
upon them. With such freedom comes a measure of responsibility for
what we do, both morally and otherwise.
2
New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U.S. 713 (1971); United States v. Ehrlichman ,
376 F.Supp. 29 (D.D.C. 1974); United States v. Ehrlichman , 546 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir
1976); cert. denied , 429 U.S. 1120 (1977).
3
The KUBARK manuals are available at <http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
NSAEBB/NSAEBB122/>.
4
What is insidious about terrorism, it is said, is not simply that the enemy is not
identifiable in the way that an enemy state is, but that the threat of terrorism does
not exist solely beyond one’s borders but may also threaten from within. The spec-
ter of “sleeper cells” has generated much of the moral mileage driving the USA
PATRIOT Act and its progeny.
liberty and security in an era of terrorism 359
Liberty
As I am using it here, liberty is concerned with external, social con-
straints on the person.7 We may speak of it as having both individual
and collective dimensions – that is, as a way of characterizing either an
5
Mill <http://www.bartleby.com/130/3.html>.
6
This debate goes back to the nineteenth century, where it revolved around the
question whether liberty and freedom required not merely the absence of social
constraints, but also access to the wherewithal that would enable a person to make
use of such negative liberty. For without such wherewithal, one’s (negative) liberty
might not be said to be worth much. In the twentieth century, the debate was given
a Cold War cast in Isaiah Berlin’s influential essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty.” He
saw in positive liberty, and the “self-mastery” he believed it implied, the seeds of a
paternalistic perfectionism.
7
There may be nonsocial constraints on action that do not constitute limits on lib-
erty. Gravity and my physiological structure both have some bearing on how high I
may be able to jump, but they are not constraints on my liberty.
360 strategies for Intervention
8
It is the reference to securing the conditions for individual flourishing that helps
to link liberty in its collective and individual aspects with freedom, in both its basic
sense and its heightened autonomous expression. They are causally intertwined –
with free persons developing more successfully and being better sustained in a
society that is characterized by liberty. Were it not for our concern with personal
freedom, we would not have the interest we do in liberty.
9
Cf. Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. For Mill’s own catalog, see On Liberty,
Ch 1.
liberty and security in an era of terrorism 361
Privacy
I mention as one further dimension of liberty our interest in privacy.
Thought of as a social condition, as in the right to privacy, privacy
may be seen as a liberty interest. That is, acknowledging a person’s
privacy is tantamount to granting that person a liberty with respect to
certain kinds of information, usually personal. Such liberty is relevant
to certain governmental responses to terrorism, particularly those
concerned with surveillance.
Privacy is a complex and multilayered concept, and here I do no
more than note certain aspects of that complexity (Benn and Gaus).
Basically, its sphere is that of information or knowledge concerning
one’s person. That which constitutes one’s “person” is not fixed and
to some degree is culturally relative, both between and within cul-
tures. Centrally, it concerns one’s agency – one’s standing as an auton-
omous chooser or moral agent (who, by virtue of that status deserves
the respect of others10). It is because of this that the voyeur or person
who eavesdrops violates privacy, even if the other person is not aware
of it and no other harm is threatened or done: She or he is treated by
someone else as a mere object, or is deceived as to the nature of what
she or he is doing – namely, controlling the flow of personal informa-
tion to others. To the extent that someone becomes aware of breaches
to his or her privacy, then a further harm may be done insofar as his
or her freedom to act in a certain way may be impaired. If I become
aware that someone is listening in on a private conversation I am hav-
ing, this will redefine the terms of my conversation in certain ways,
and I will have to make adjustments for the intruder’s presence. I can
no longer “be myself.”
10
In the classical liberal sense of respect for persons, i.e., respect for one’s status as a
person, not necessarily respect for the particular person one is.
362 strategies for Intervention
SECURITY
11
This essay was initially drafted in the middle years of the George W. Bush
Administration. The literature on security has since that time been enriched by
several sources, including Waldron (2006) and Caudle.
12
In his Second Treatise Of Civil Government, Ch. 9, Locke identifies these as legisla-
tive, judicial, and executive.
13
Our propensity for such fear is one of the things that give terrorism its strategic
rationale. On the problematic interplay of subjective and objective factors, see
Zedner (2003).
364 strategies for Intervention
sovereign state, but also the sphere within which a historical cultural
narrative unfolds – a richly textured institutional and cultural history,
characterized by distinctive memories and myths. National security
secures not only geographical borders, but also a complex set of tradi-
tions and ways of living.18
What has happened with the concept in recent years is that the
importance of territorial border issues has tended to recede, and
the idea and element of threat has expanded to encompass actual
and potential hazards to domestic tranquility and stability other than
those posed by simple conquest.19
Threats to national interests20 may take many forms and, if sufficiently
dire, may be considered threats to national security. Pandemic or
contagious disease (human and agricultural), environmental con-
ditions (such as pollution and global warming), and extraterritorial
economic circumstances and decisions (such as trade barriers and
currency decisions) are now frequently spoken of as impinging on
national security interests. And the threats need not necessarily be
external. Internal dissension and poverty may also be seen as threats
to national security. Not only, therefore, will outside dangers posed to
a national collectivity be seen as threats to national security, but also
internal challenges – perhaps those arising out of a failure to create or
secure conditions for a segment of the local population.
Even beyond these considerations, national security has recently
been broadened to include the establishment of or support for a
18
That can be true not only of free societies but also of oppressive ones. One of the
volatile issues confronting Iraqis has been the preservation of the “character” of
Iraqi society – no small feat in a country that encompasses at least three major
traditions. That can be true not only of free societies but also of oppressive ones.
One of the volatile issues confronting Iraqis has been the preservation of the “char-
acter” of Iraqi society – no small feat in a country that encompasses at least three
major traditions.
19
The most influential developments seem to be associated with what is called the
Copenhagen School (at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute), primarily –
though not exclusively – in the work of Barry Buzan. See Buzan et al. Its members
employ the language of “securitization” to indicate ways in which various social
phenomena (political, economic, societal, and environmental) are marketed as rel-
evant to national security. Securitization requires only the successful portrayal of
these phenomena as threats.
20
I consider interests to be those matters in which one has a stake, particularly the
ingredients of well-being.
366 strategies for Intervention
24
In the run-up to the 2004 elections, it was frequently claimed that electing John
Kerry would endanger national security. As Forst notes with the quotes of Dick
Cheney and John Kerry used to introduce Chapter 12 (used earlier in a paper pre-
sented at the American Society of Criminology meeting in Toronto, November
2005), both the Republican and Democratic presidential ticket contenders
exploited public insecurity shamelessly in their campaigns. What is merely “regime
security” often seeks to represent itself as “national security.”
25
To comment in this way of course courts some sort of political backlash. For to
ignore or downplay such threats may be to encourage their expression in increas-
ingly effective ways. But, likewise, to respond to them overactively may also strategi-
cally advantage those who make them.
368 strategies for Intervention
AN ERA OF TERRORISM?
Balances
In considering the relations between liberty and security – how they
are to be “played off” against each other – the metaphors we use are
not irrelevant. It is very common to use the metaphor of a scale, in
which liberty and national security are placed in opposing pans, one
to be “balanced” against the other in zero-sum fashion.27 The under-
lying, or at least implied, idea is that there is an appropriate level or
balance to be achieved, an equilibrium – one, moreover, that does not
threaten the integrity of the other. Appropriate liberty is that which
balances appropriate security.
The need for such balancing is seen as an essential and pervasive
feature of our social existence. Given Lockeian or, even more gloom-
ily, Hobbesian presumptions about the subjects of liberty, some con-
straints on liberty will always be required in order that our security
can be assured. The problem, it is said, will be to get the right bal-
ance, namely, one in which constraints on liberty are appropriate to an
appropriate level of security.28
26
Fortunately, with the advent of the Obama administration, U.S. policy has been
undergoing major reassessment, and though it may be too early to see how much it
will change, there is some reason to believe that the militaristic approaches favored
by the previous administration will be moderated by understandings that are more
heavily informed by policing approaches. Intelligence gathering and interrogation
techniques previously favored by the CIA are giving way to those used by the FBI
through its involvement in the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative.
27
For just a few of the many examples, see Rosen; Committee on Federal Courts;
Gross. There are, however, a few dissenters, including Waldron (2003), Fleming
(2004); Scanlon (2004); and Zedner (2005).
28
The picture involves an oversimplification in that it fails to accommodate other
“values” – such as efficiency, economy – that might also need to be “balanced”
against liberty or security.
370 strategies for Intervention
29
I am of course assuming that we can compute degrees of liberty in a relatively
unproblematic way. That is not an unproblematic assumption. Even leaving to one
side the challenge posed by the liberty/liberties distinction, it is not clear how to
compare the constraint on liberty constituted by a change of speed limit of 65 mph
to 55 mph with a change of drinking age from 18 to 21. Are these equivalent con-
straints or different, and if so, which is the greater? Included in these questions are
thorny distributional matters both on the side of who bears the costs and who ben-
efits, questions we take up later. (Note that one constraint affects a narrower group
of people than the other – this presumably will require some justification, no doubt
along the lines that drinkers between the ages of 18 and 21 are disproportionately
responsible for risky behavior.)
liberty and security in an era of terrorism 371
30
This is a critical consideration because, even were it decided that the balance had
been wrongly struck, any rectificatory change would be of little value were the new
mechanisms not to function properly. Why should we assume that dysfunctional
intelligence agencies with new powers would function any better than the same
ones with the old powers?
372 strategies for Intervention
not be done if the heavens will fall. But this does not leave the bal-
ancing metaphor intact. When, as in emergency situations, rights
must be compromised lest disaster (and not simply some maximizing
end) occur, what results is not a balance in which appropriate levels
of liberty and security are secured, but a situation in which there is
a derogation from or infringement of (some) liberty; it is not merely
diminished.
The balancing metaphor – at least in the present context – will not
do. It is too simplistic, reminiscent of the view that rights cannot come
into conflict, or that the virtues constitute a unity.
The balancing metaphor, to the extent that it is seen as a weighing
of commensurables, is problematic in yet another way. Appeals to
the metaphor suggest that what we lose in liberty we gain (or regain)
in safety and security. We. It tends not to work that way. Most of us
are probably not affected by the USA PATRIOT Act or other mea-
sures introduced following 9/11. Ostensibly, our security has been
increased or restored, but most of us will not have borne any signifi-
cant costs in return. But there have been significant costs for some –
and they have fallen disproportionately on a small segment of the
population – those with Middle Eastern appearances, those with visa
irregularities, those who, for some reason or other, have had gov-
ernmental attention turned on them. Those satisfying certain pro-
files or who have appeared on various “watch lists” have borne the
brunt of the costs of “our” greater security. What we may have in each
pan of the scales, then, is on the one side, increased security for the
large majority, and on the other, decreased liberty for a much smaller
minority.
Now, it might be argued that that is precisely how it should be,
because it is from among those groups that our security has been jeop-
ardized. This might look a bit more plausible – at least as a matter of
policy – were it arguable that a high proportion of those made to bear
the cost are also linked to terrorism in some active or conspiratorial
way. But this is not arguable at all. Only a minute proportion of those
on whom the burden of heightened security has been thrust have and
have had any constructive connection to – let alone sympathy with –
the cause of terrorism. They are no more morally tainted than those
liberty and security in an era of terrorism 375
The point is an obvious one, but viewed through the lens of liberalism,
is also one of some importance. Liberal thought, even in its democratic
version, is predicated on a distrust of concentrated power, especially
power that is less than transparent.36 Even republican liberals strongly
committed to the importance of governmental mechanisms (see, e.g.,
Pettit), believe that those mechanisms need to be carefully circum-
scribed through “checks and balances.” We might of course want to
argue that any governmental powers exercised on “our” behalf will be
exercised benevolently. But that would be overly sanguine, given the
history not only of the previous but also of almost any government
administration. Government officials generally have strong incentives
2001, that “the process of reaching out to foreign nationals and their communities
fostered new trust between law enforcement and these communities” <http://www.
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept _11/ashcroft_018.htm>, a great deal of ill will was cre-
ated. In this program, some 5000-plus young men who had recently entered the
United States on visas from “countries with suspected terrorist links” were indi-
vidually “invited” to talk with government agents about their reasons for visiting,
past movements, knowledge concerning 9/11, and feelings about it. Few felt able
to refuse. A follow-up group of a further 3000+ was indicated in the March 20
announcement.
35
Waldron (2003), p. 204.
36
This of course has been one of the major complaints about the governmental
response to 9/11 – the lack of access to what is going on in Guantánamo Bay, the
secret handling of aliens, and certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.
liberty and security in an era of terrorism 377
Trade-Offs
If we want a more promising metaphor to characterize the situation,
I think we might do better with that of a trade-off. From time to time
Waldron and others slide from the balancing metaphor to that of the
trade-off as though they had similar implications (Waldron, 2003,
pp. 196–198, 203; cf. also Thomas, p. 1208) I think not. When we
trade one value off against another, we acknowledge not simply an
adjustment to the balance – the restoration of an equilibrium that has
been upset – but have in view a cost or sacrifice to one when the other
is given priority. There is an infringement or derogation of liberties or
rights when liberty is traded off for security.
A trade-off is not a trade. In a trade – at least in theory (a “fair”
trade) – one value is exchanged for another and no party to the trade
loses. Each party sees the exchange as being advantageous. A had x
and B had y, B wanted x and A wanted y, and the trade, because con-
sensual, satisfied both. A trade-off, on the other hand, involves a ten-
sion or conflict, whereby A, in order to get y, must sacrifice x. Even
if deemed an acceptable trade-off, it is nevertheless at some cost. A
would have preferred to secure y without sacrificing x. In a trade-off
the key issue will be to determine whether the sacrifices can be justi-
fied or sustained, and to determine how the costs incurred should be
responded to.
37
Most of these expansions have so far focused on financial crimes.
378 strategies for Intervention
38
Strict scrutiny requires that “some compelling state interest” be shown. It stands in
contrast with what is called a “rational relations” test in which liberty is constrained
(say, a dress code for employees or a lowering of the speed limit); all that usually
needs to be shown is that there is a plausible connection between the restriction on
liberty and the purposes of the restricting body. In the broad gap between these
two, a third level of scrutiny – “heightened” – has developed to secure interests that
are deemed “important” but not “fundamental” (say, the interests of gay men).
39
The choice of metaphor can also reflect much deeper debates within moral theory
between those who view ethics as a rational system grounded in some single princi-
ple or set of compatible principles, and those who claim that we are confronted by
a plurality of values – either (as MacIntyre has suggested in “After Virtue .”) because
we have inherited fragments from competing moral schemata, or because (try as
we might) our human condition is such that we are confronted by a moral plurality
that calls for judgment rather than calculation. Debates over deontological and
liberty and security in an era of terrorism 379
Judgment
At the end of the day, however, there are reasons for thinking that
both metaphors (of balance and trade-off) fail to do justice to the com-
plexity involved in clashes between security and liberty – even though
the metaphor of a trade-off comes rather closer to the mark.40 What
is required is judgment. Judgment is not a matter of algorithmically
drawing conclusions from premises, but of incrementally bringing
RE F E RE N CE S
41
A Theory of Freedom, 296–297. Cf. Science Research Council v. Nassé H.L.(E.), [1980]
A.C. 1028, at 1067, [1979] 3 W.L.R. 762 at 771 (Lord Wilberforce).
liberty and security in an era of terrorism 381
Regulating Terrorism
John Braithwaite
This essay argues that both the war and criminal justice models are
too crude, particularly in their theory of deterrence, for responding
to the problem of global terrorism. An alternative regulatory model is
advanced that overlays the public health concepts of primary, second-
ary, and tertiary prevention with other older ideas of containment of
injustice and enlargement of justice. An interconnected web of con-
trols might enable an over-determined prevention of terrorism that,
in spite of its redundancy, could be more cost-effective than the war
model, because the principle of responsiveness means parsimony in
resort to expensive coercion. It is possible to have an evidence-based
approach to regulating rare events like 9/11 terrorism by applying
the principles of evidence-based regulation to micro-elements that are
constitutive of macro-disasters. Viewed through this lens, support for
pre-emptive wars on terrorism is not evidence-based, but grounded in
other public philosophies, notably retribution.
RECONSIDERING DETERRENCE
383
384 strategies for Intervention
deterrence is more dynamic than the models that now dominate crim-
inology. This is the legacy of criminology and the economics of law
from Bentham: Deterrence means statically projecting the product
of a probability and a severity of punishment that makes compliance
rational. With regard to terrorism, a dynamic enforcement pyramid
approach to deterrence is favored that is more akin to IR thinking
about deterrence and compellence.
But first consider a psychological model of deterrence that is critical
of both the criminal justice and IR models. This is Brehm and Brehm’s
(1981) theory of Psychological Reactance. It is a theory grounded
empirically in a large number of psychological experiments. These
show that when deterrent threats are escalated, you get a deterrence
curve with a positive slope as predicted by deterrence theory. But you
also get a reactance or defiance curve with a negative slope. Escalating
threat simultaneously delivers more deterrence and more defiance
(on defiance theory, see Sherman [1993]; on deterrence and defi-
ance with terrorism, see Frey [2004a]). Whether deterrence works
depends on the positive slope of the deterrence curve being steeper
than the negative slope of the defiance curve. The net effect of esca-
lating threat is formally the sum of these two curves.
What is especially interesting about the psychological reactance
literature is that it also reveals some important insights about the con-
ditions where the deterrence curve will be steeper than the defiance
curve. Experimental research suggests that deterrence is stronger
than defiance when the freedom we seek to regulate is not very impor-
tant to the target of deterrence (Brehm and Brehm 1981; Braithwaite
2002: 102–110). Hence if we think of a freedom that is not so critical
to us, like the freedom to park our car wherever we like, defiance is
minimal. We do not explode when we confront a sign that says, “No
parking 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.” Because the defiance curve is minimal in
slope here, deterrence of parking violations with fines works almost
exactly as rational choice theory in economics predicts. If on the
other hand, we seek to regulate a freedom as important as freedom of
religion by throwing Christians to the lions, we may then find, as the
Romans did, that because defiance is so great with such a freedom,
Christianity actually grows as a result.
regulating terrorism 385
It seems possible that Osama bin Laden and Hamas have an intui-
tive understanding of this theory. Their game is perhaps not so dif-
ferent from that of martyrs like St. Peter. It is to provoke deterrence
that is rendered counterproductive by defiance. For bin Laden, it is
to provoke a pan-Islamic, not just pan-Arab, consciousness of oppres-
sion of their freedom. It is to portray the war on terrorism as another
Christian crusade. If the United States no longer believes in deter-
ring terrorism, clearly Israel does. In general, it does not assassinate
Hamas leaders to prevent terrorism as soon as it acquires intelligence
about them; instead it murders them, and whoever is with them, as
soon as possible after an act of Hamas terrorism occurs. There is a
place for deterrence in a strategy to defeat terrorism. It is just that for
Israel, and the White House in supporting Israel, it may be the wrong
place. In their strategy, deterrence is positioned to engender defiance
that continues cycles of tit-for-tat terror.
RECONSIDERING JUSTICE
ASSUMPTION
Incompetent or INCAPACITATION
irrational actor
Union or China, even when the United States had nuclear weap-
ons and the Communists did not, but rather containing them from
occupying new territory such as South Korea or Taiwan. It meant
containing the spread of nuclear weapons through the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation regime initiated on Marshall’s watch. In retrospect, the
accomplishments of nuclear non-proliferation are fairly remarkable,
as were the accomplishments of deterring invasion of South Korea
and Taiwan without a massive conflagration. Again, it was Marshall as
defense secretary during the Korean War who got the job of contain-
ment done. He calmed the megalomania of his commander, Douglas
MacArthur, who would have brought on a war with the People’s
Republic of China, a scenario that Marshall regarded as a Russian
trap. It was this policy position even more than his constructive rela-
tionship with Stalin that later caused Senator Joseph McCarthy to vil-
ify him. The Truman Doctrine was premised on a prudent patience.
Part of that prudence in Korea was institutionalizing the principle of
seeking the authority of the United Nations for military containment.
Containment would at times take bold resolve to deter expansion.
However, so long as totalitarianism was contained, in the long run it
would prove to have more internal contradictions than liberal market
democracies. In the long run, contained totalitarianism is more likely
to self-destruct than contained democracy.
The genius of Marshall was not only that he had a clear vision of
the strategic role of deterrence in a policy of containment, but that
he also had a vision of what the Clinton administration later came
to describe as enlargement – enlargement of the space on the globe
secured by democratic institutions. But Marshall extended a level of
U.S. generosity toward the former fascist states that Clinton never
persuaded the United States to extend to former Communist socie-
ties. Since Marshall, U.S. foreign policy seems never to have gotten
the balance so right between investment in containment and invest-
ment in enlargement. John Foster Dulles, Marshall’s successor as
U.S. Secretary of State, embarked on many ill-conceived adventures
in containment that in fact crushed the enlargement of democracy,
especially in Latin America (e.g., the U.S.-orchestrated Guatemalan
coup of 1954). For all the foreign aid the West poured into the
Middle East – most of it U.S. weapons for Israel – Britain, France,
390 strategies for Intervention
bare. If he was too busy to talk to the foreign minister of the country
that was the greatest threat to his nation’s security, then why was some-
one not reporting to him who was part of this conversation? Richard
Clarke’s (2004) White House insider account now makes it clear that
whereas Clinton had been “hands on” with al Qaeda and had plans to
assassinate or “snatch” bin Laden, Bush paid limited attention to the
terrifying briefings he was given, and which detailed imminent plans
for al Qaeda to attack America.
The enlargement failures related to the timidity in pushing for
the enlargement of democratic sovereignty for the Palestinians; for
enlarging opportunities for the bereft Muslims of the refugee camps
of Pakistan and many other places that became breeding grounds for
al Qaeda recruitment; for enlarging democracy in former Arab ally
states like Iran under the Shah, Iraq before 1990, Afghanistan after
the Soviet withdrawal, and Saudi Arabia today. Bin Laden understood
that in a world where the majority of refugees in the twenty-first cen-
tury had become Muslims, providing practical support for a more
just future for them – such as the schools he supported in Pakistan
and the orphanages he funded for Muslim victims of the Bosnian war
(Jacquard 2002: 70) – was a good investment. In Urdu, Taliban means
band of scholars, a reference to the way they were recruited – as poor
children for whom Islamist madrassas were the only way they could
afford an education. Saudi democracy might have integrated into its
power structure many of the idealistic young Muslim men returning
from victory against the Soviet Union in the Afghanistan war. Instead
it treated them as dangerous elements, a threat to the total control
of the royal family. Saudi institutions gave them no legitimate path to
political voice, only the path of terrorism. Most bouts of terrorism in
the twentieth century, after all, had ended with the integration of some
terrorist leaders into democratic power structures – whether it was
Northern Ireland terrorism, Israeli terrorism, South African terrorism,
East Timorese terrorism, the terrorism of the Italian Red Brigades, or
of the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany (see Frey 2004a).
Mustapha Kamel Al-Sayyid (2003) has attempted to demonstrate
that the evidence shows that Islamist organizations are more success-
ful when they reject violence in favor of electoral politics. Al Qaeda’s
appeal will collapse only when Muslims who believe in the ideal of
392 strategies for Intervention
organization to seize the files. The United States has also allowed ter-
rorist training camps to flourish in its own territory. The CIA organized
a 1985 terrorist bombing in Beirut that was rather like the Oklahoma
City bombing, though not as widely reported. CIA involvement was
revealed years later by the same team at the Washington Post that broke
Watergate. A truck bomb parked outside a mosque detonated as peo-
ple left: Eighty were killed and two hundred and fifty were wounded,
mostly women and children. A Muslim cleric believed by the CIA to
be a dangerous character was the main target, but he was untouched
(Chomsky 2001: 44). From the time of the Dulles brothers, a large
number of terrorist incidents were sponsored by the CIA in Latin
America. White House staffer, Colonel Oliver North, organized fund-
ing for the Nicaraguan terrorist group, the Contras, by selling arms to
elements of the “Axis of Evil” in Iran. The aid swapped to the Contras
for arms to Iran was laundered by the CIA through the Arab bank
widely used to fund terrorist organizations, the Bank of Credit and
Commerce International (BCCI). This same bank was used to launder
money by other sometime U.S. allies of the 1980s, Saddam Hussein
and Manuel Noriega, by drug lords laundering money from illegal
arms trading, and for covert nuclear programs.
The United States has protected as well as funded terrorists who
have sought to bomb and assassinate the political leaders of other
nations, such as Fidel Castro. Indeed, the Reagan administration set
a new benchmark by directly bombing the home of Libyan leader
Ghaddafi two decades ago, though it only succeeded in killing his
baby. Political assassination has been repeatedly proven to be a threat
to peace in the modern world. Michael Ignatieff (2004: 21) argues
for the balancing perspective: “The fact that liberal democratic lead-
ers may order the surreptitious killing of terrorists … need not mean
that ‘anything goes’.” His view that the effects can be limited by
allowing such measures only in temporary emergencies is hardly per-
suasive with regard to assassination. There would likely be peace in
Palestine today if after the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, the
new Israeli Prime Minister Peres had not ordered the assassination
of Yahya Ayyash, known as “the bombmaker.” His assassination was
reciprocated with a devastating round of Hamas suicide bombings in
February and March 1996 that killed more than fifty Israelis (Quandt
394 strategies for Intervention
One would not want to push hard for the superiority of a criminal
justice model over a war model. A failing of the FBI before September
11, 2001, was that they had limited interest in intelligence that would
not help secure prosecutions – their regulatory strategy with terror-
ism was far too preoccupied with one preferred tool – prosecution
(see U.S. Congress 2004: 37,122). Instead of the nature of the prob-
lem driving the choice of tools, the tool of choice determined which
problems and targets would be a priority (Sparrow, 2000; Brodeur,
this volume). It may be that there is more appeal in the ideal of the
public health model of integrating primary prevention (e.g., clean
water for all), secondary prevention (vaccinating targeted at-risk
groups), and tertiary prevention (treatment of those already ill).
This approach to problems of violence has been developed by James
Gilligan (2001: 14–17).
It might be attractive to examine the U.S. strategic goals of contain-
ment and enlargement manifest in the diplomacy of George Marshall.
An attraction of this examination is that it helps us look more broadly
than just at how we respond to terrorists once they have become ter-
rorists (tertiary containment). Containment is bound to have more
attraction than enlargement if we consider only how to respond to
existing terrorists. This will cause us to over-invest in containment
and under-invest in enlargement. As we have seen, enlargement of
democracy, of the sphere of social justice, or of freedom from poverty
or liberation from refugee camps may be the most important forms of
primary prevention of terrorism. A positive example of post–Septem-
ber 11 primary prevention by enlargement is the funding the World
Bank is providing to madrassas in Pakistan’s North West Frontier
Province on condition that they provide a quality educational curricu-
lum to refugees and other poor children, as opposed to the doctri-
naire education that fueled al Qaeda recruitment from the madrassas.
Poor schools that receive funding by people of another religion are
more likely to teach children religious tolerance.
The imbalance between investment in primary prevention and
tertiary prevention by containment was well illustrated by the Bush
administration increases in the defense budget to fight its war on
regulating terrorism 397
Soros) flowing to those NGOs were also important. But it was indig-
enous Serbian politics that ultimately pried open the contradictions
of Milosevic’s totalitarianism, causing the military to switch allegiance
from the tyrant to the people, as containment theory predicts.
Western governments have supported warlords when they fought
the enemies of the West, even when those warlords crushed indigenous
democracy movements and even when they supported themselves by
trafficking drugs into the West. In the case of Saddam Hussein, the
United States supported him militarily even when he used weapons
of mass destruction against democracy movements. In New and Old
Wars, Mary Kaldor (1999) suggests that in late modern conditions,
the path to democratic transition for war-torn states is to identify
“islands of civility” that always exist in such states and build out from
them. Under the public health model, expanding civility in this way is
akin to spreading good hygiene. Let us hope that is what the United
States and UN ultimately achieves in Afghanistan, rather than assist-
ing a new set of warlords to expand their sway and reestablish wider
drug empires. In Israel, the long-term benefits of building peace and
democracy in Palestine by the peace movements on both sides joining
hands are profound, yet the prospects for such an outcome remain
dim. The sad fact of the history of Palestine is that whenever there has
been that bottom-up momentum for peace, top-down leadership has
been missing; whenever there has been top-down leadership (perhaps
as with the “roadmap”), bottom-up commitment to peace was miss-
ing. At times, when both seemed to be coming together, events like
the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin have derailed either the
top-down or the bottom-up leadership for peace.
So the prescription of this essay is to be reluctant to embrace wars on
terrorism, but diligent at weaving a web of controls against terrorism,
and firm in our resolve to escalate an enforcement pyramid until ter-
rorism stops after it has broken out. This means tertiary containment
delivering a ceasefire that exists as a platform for the other forms of
containment and enlargement in the other five boxes in Figure 16.2.
Instead of pre-emptive wars on terrorism, the prescription is for war
as a last resort and a balance of primary, secondary, and tertiary pre-
vention of terrorism, with each of these levels encompassing a bal-
ance of containment of violence and enlargement of democratic
regulating terrorism 399
Enlargement Containment
from terrorism can continue to be kept far below the risks of common
crime. Although Dershowitz (2002: 2) believes religiously inspired
international terrorism is the “greatest danger facing the world today,”
many times more people are murdered every year in the United States
than have been killed in international terrorist incidents throughout
the globe in the last forty years (most of whom are, of course, not
Americans).1
Even with the progress that has been made with nuclear safety regu-
lation, a bigger Chernobyl remains a greater practical risk to the world
than nuclear terrorism. With a tightly woven web of controls against
terrorism, it can become a much lower risk. With international secu-
rity threats of all kinds, if a nation like the United States makes the
six-fold investment in an appropriate web of controls, it might find
that halving its military spending would be responsible.
1
Frey (2004b: 5) shows deaths from international terrorism ranging between a peak
of 3,250 in 2001 and 34 in 1968; in most of these years more than 20,000 people
were murdered in the United States; Hoffman (2002: 7) points out fewer than 1000
Americans were killed by terrorists either in the United States or overseas in the
thirty-three years prior to 9/11.
regulating terrorism 401
follows that we can never have a credible evidence base for making
such a policy shift. However, in a world where some airlines, some rail
operators, some coal mines, and some nuclear power plants around
the world adopt a safety case approach and others do not, it is possible
to do systematic empirical research on the efficacy of the innovation,
with matched controls where the outcomes are not major disasters,
but smaller events that are known to be elements of disasters – like
separation failures with aircraft, derailments, coal-mine-collapse inju-
ries, and automated shut-downs of nuclear power plants.2
In other words, part of what regulatory research is about is assessing
whether policies will work with big problems by being systematically
evidence-based about how effective the policies are with smaller prob-
lems that are elements of the bigger problems.
The most dangerous characters in the world are those who respond
to the “what works” conundrum with big problems by substituting an
ideological commitment to a totalizing theory like rational choice
as a guide to what to do. Of course, most practitioners of IR are not
theoretically myopic in this way. They are students of history who
analyze what has happened in past in crises that have some features
in common with the unique crisis that today confronts us. Then they
“think in time” about how circumstances are different today from
what they were then, about how features of the current crisis might
cause quite a different outcome than occurred with the like crisis
from the past (Neustadt and May 1986). Understanding the ebb and
flow of history helps us to be wise; it does not enable us to be rigorous
scientists of IR.
As a patient, we would rather go to a doctor with the skills of a good
clinician – who can discern what is different about our set of symp-
toms from the classic set in the textbook – than go to a good medical
researcher. At the same time, we might not want the textbook to be
written by doctors who spend all their time seeing patients. For this
task we want experts who immerse themselves in the mountains of lit-
erature on the theory of disease and evidence on how to control it. We
want the textbook to be evidence-based, whereas we want our doctor
to be diagnostically detectivelike to come up with a treatment for our
2
I am indebted to Andrew Hopkins for bringing this point to my attention.
402 strategies for Intervention
particular symptoms and medical history. Like oil rigs that blow up, we
die only once. But the difference is that there are millions of deaths
each year for evidence-based medicine to study scientifically. Even
so, we can have the benefits of a dual-track diagnostic and evidence-
based regulatory policy by building our evidence base on more micro-
incidents that are credibly constitutive of macro-disasters. Though we
need the detective work of the intelligence community to diagnose
specific threats of nuclear terrorism, we can also study systematically
whether nuclear plants with safety case regimes have lower incidence
of unaccounted loss of nuclear materials than command-and control-
regimes. Figure 16.2 finds an important place for both in a prudent
web of regulatory controls.
The art of intelligence should be guided by an evidence base on
what kind of micro-intelligence analytics are more likely to connect
the diagnostic dots, and which kinds recurrently fail to illuminate the
bigger picture. We want creative intelligence analysts who look at
the same phenomenon through many different analytic lenses, who
can see it as different things at once. But we also want analysts who
know from the literature on evidence-based intelligence that certain
analytic lenses promoted by intelligence charlatans recurrently dis-
tort the truth in knowable ways. Or as French President Chirac put it,
explaining his disbelief in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction, we need empirically educated political leaders who
are wary of the history of how intelligence services “intoxicate each
other” (Blix 2004: 128, 263).
A difficulty with this approach is in establishing which ingredients
are best targeted for small-scale work. Root cause analysis of terror-
ism does not have the scientific respectability and ideological neutral-
ity that it does in health and safety (New South Wales Department
of Health 2004). Conservatives like to argue that poverty is not a
root cause of terrorism because most poor people do not become
terrorists (Dershowitz 2002: chapter 1), whereas safety scientists are
not prone to reject water as a cause of death by drowning because
most people who are immersed in water do not drown. In a more
fundamental challenge, Dershowitz (2002: 28) contends that “to
understand and eliminate the root causes of terrorism … is exactly
the wrong approach”:
regulating terrorism 403
The reason terrorism works – and will persist unless there are signifi-
cant changes in the responses to it – is precisely because its perpetra-
tors believe that by murdering innocent civilians they will succeed
in attracting the attention of the world to their perceived grievances
and demand that the world “understand them” and “eliminate their
root causes.” (Dershowitz 2002: 28)
CONCLUSION
RE F E RE N CE S
Al-Sayyid, M & Musatapha, K (2003) The Other Face of the Islamist Movement,
Democracy and Rule of Law Project, Global Policy Program, Number
33. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC.
Ayres, I & Braithwaite, J (1992) Responsive Regulation, Oxford University
Press, New York.
Barnes, G (1999) “Procedural Justice in Two Contexts: Testing the Fairness
of Diversionary Conferencing for Intoxicated Drivers.” Ph.D. diss.,
University of Maryland.
406 strategies for Intervention
Frum, D & Perle, R (2003) An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror,
Random House, New York.
Gunaratna, R (2002) Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror, Scribe
Publications, Melbourne.
Hoffman, B (2002) “Lessons of 9/11.” Testimony to United States Joint
September 11, 2001 Inquiry Staff of the House and Senate Select
Committees on Intelligence, October 8, 2002.
International Institute of Strategic Studies (2003). Strategic Survey, 2002–3,
International Institute for Strategic Studies, London.
Kennan, GF (1947) “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs vol
25, pp 566–582.
Gilligan, J (2001) Preventing Violence, Thames and Hudson, New York.
Ignatieff, M (2004) The Lesser Evil, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Jacquard, R (2002) In the Name of Osama Bin Laden, Duke University Press,
Durham.
Kaldor, M (1999) New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era,
Polity Press, Cambridge.
Neustadt, RE & May, EA (1986) Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for
Decision Makers, Free Press, New York.
New South Wales Department of Health (2004) Checklist Flip Chart for Root
Cause Analysis Teams, NSW Department of Health, Sydney.
Pettit, P (1997) Republicanism. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Pilger, J (2002) The New Rulers of the World, Verso, London.
Pogue, FC (1966) George C. Marshall: Ordeal and Hope 1939–1942, Viking
Press, New York.
(1973) George C. Marshall: Organizer of Victory 1943–1945, Viking Press,
New York.
(1987) George C. Marshall: Statesman 1945–1959, Penguin, New York.
Quandt, WB (2001) Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli
Conflict Since 1967, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Sherman, LW (1993) “Defiance, Deterrence and Irrelevance: A Theory
of the Criminal Sanction,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
vol 30, pp 445–473.
Sparrow, M (2000) The Regulatory Craft, Brookings, Washington, DC.
Stoller, MA (1989) George C. Marshall: Soldier-Statesman of the American
Century, Twayne Publishers, Boston.
Touval, S & Zartman, IW (1985) International Mediation in Theory and
Practice, Westview Press, Boulder, Co.
(1989) “Mediation in International Conflicts.” In Kressel, K & Pruitt
DG (eds) Mediation Research, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Turner, JC with Hogg, MA Oakes, PJ, Reicher, SD & Wetherell, MS
(1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil
Blackwell, London.
408 strategies for Intervention
The author thanks Erin Miller for her assistance with the database and Gary Ackerman
and Erin Miller for helpful comments.
411
412 thinking about tomorrow
gets in the global media, terrorism is much rarer than more ordinary
violent crime. This means that even with extremely large sample sizes,
few individuals in most countries will have been victimized by ter-
rorists. Moreover, because victims of terrorism are often chosen at
random, they are unlikely to know perpetrators, making it impossible
to produce details about offenders. Finally, in many cases, victims of
terrorism are killed by their attackers – a problem in criminology
research limited to the study of homicides.
Self-report data on terrorists have been more important than vic-
timization data, but they also face serious limitations. Most active
terrorists are unwilling to participate in interviews. Even if willing to
participate, getting access to known terrorists for research purposes
raises obvious challenges. As Merari (1991, p. 88) has put it, “The
clandestine nature of terrorist organizations and the ways and means
by which intelligence can be obtained will rarely enable data collec-
tion which meets commonly accepted academic standards.”
Although government departments in some countries do collect
official data on terrorism (e.g., the U.S. National Counterterrorism
Center), data collected by governments are suspicious either because
they are influenced by political considerations or because many fear
that they might be so influenced. Moreover, whereas vast amounts
of detailed official data on common crimes are routinely produced
by the various branches of the criminal justice system in most coun-
tries, this is rarely the case for terrorism. For example, the major-
ity of offenders suspected of terrorism against the United States
are not legally processed for terrorism, but rather for other related
offenses, such as weapons violations and money laundering (Smith,
Damphousse, Jackson, and Sellers, 2002). In addition, much primary
data are collected by intelligence agents (e.g., informers, communica-
tions intercepts) and are not available to researchers working in an
unclassified environment.
In response to these data challenges, researchers have long relied
on open source unclassified terrorist event databases. Terrorism event
databases generally use the electronic and print media to collect
detailed information on the characteristics of terrorist attacks. LaFree
and Dugan (2007) describe eight of these event databases, with varying
coverage going back as far as 1968. Analyses based on event databases
414 thinking about tomorrow
Table 17.1. Twenty top-ranking countries in terms of total terrorist attacks and
fatalities, 1970 to 2007
from around the globe. This blanket coverage leaves the impression
that no location on the planet is safe from terrorism. But in fact,
our analysis of the GTD indicates that terrorist attacks are highly
concentrated in geographic space. This concentration can be dem-
onstrated at the national level by examining the proportion of all
terrorist attacks that take place in those countries with the most ter-
rorist activity. In Table 17.1 we present the top twenty countries in
terms of terrorist attacks, and compare the cumulative percentage of
total attacks against these countries to their share of all countries in
the world.
According to Table 17.1, the top twenty countries and territories in
terms of terrorist attacks account for nearly 72 percent of all terrorist
activities, but less than 10 percent of all countries of the world. Two
percent of the world’s countries account for more than 27 percent
416 thinking about tomorrow
1
Most of the 1993 data in the GTD were lost by the original data collectors and we have
never been able to recover them fully (LaFree and Dugan, 2007). Unfortunately,
1993 was a very active year for world wide terrorist attacks. For Figure 17.1 and the
other trend analysis we estimate 1993 rates by taking the average value for 1992
and 1994.
using open source data to counter common myths 417
4000
Frequency
3000
2000
1000
0
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
Number of attacks
Figure 17.1. Total and fatal terrorist attacks, 1970 through 2007 (n = 82,910).
Source : Global Terrorism Database.
In fact, total attacks in 2000 (1,351) were at about the same level as
total attacks in 1977 (1,307). Looking more broadly at overall trends,
Figure 17.1 shows that worldwide terrorist attacks through the mid-
1970s were relatively infrequent, with fewer than 1,000 incidents each
year. But from 1976 to 1979 the frequency of events nearly tripled.
The number of terrorist attacks continued to increase until the 1992
peak, with smaller peaks in 1984, at almost 3,500 incidents, and 1989,
with more than 4,300 events. After the first major peak in 1992, the
number of terrorist attacks declined until the end of the twentieth
century, before rising steeply to a ten-year high of nearly 3,300 in
2007 – four years after the start of the Iraq War. Still, total attacks in
2007 were 36 percent lower than total attacks for the 1992 peak.
Fatal attacks also declined in the years prior to the 9/11 attacks.
In fact, fatal attacks in 2000 (580) were considerably lower than they
had been more than two decades earlier, in 1979 (832). In general,
the number of fatal attacks clearly followed the pattern of total attacks
(r =.93), but at a substantially lower magnitude (averaging 947 fatal
attacks per year compared to 2,294 total attacks per year worldwide).
Fatal attacks rose above 1,000 per year for the first time in 1980. After
hovering close to 1,000 attacks annually for most of the 1980s, they
418 thinking about tomorrow
more than doubled between 1985 and 1992. Like total attacks, fatal
attacks declined somewhat after 1992, bottoming out in 1998 with
426 attacks, and then rising again to a global peak of more than 2,100
fatal attacks in 2007. The peak in 2007 (2,111) was similar to the peak
in 1992 (2,178).
In short, in the four years prior to 9/11 worldwide terrorist attacks
and fatal attacks were at the lowest level they had been at for twenty
years. However, both total and fatal attacks have increased consider-
ably since then, so that in 2007 total attacks were back to levels they
had been at in the mid-1990s, and total fatal attacks were approach-
ing the peak year of 1992.
Table 17.2. Percentage of total attacks for the twenty most frequently attacked
countries, 1970–2007
45,000
90.6%
40,000 (38,113)
35,000
30,000 Attacks
Fatalities
25,000
96.6%
20,000
(16,346)
15,000
10,000
9.4%
5,000 3.4% (3,943)
(570)
0
U.S. Non-U.S.
Figure 17.2. U.S. and non-U.S. attacks by 53 foreign terrorist groups identi-
fied as threats to the United States.
Source : LaFree, Yang, and Crenshaw (2009).
40,000 92.7%
(35,322)
35,000
30,000
Transnational
25,000 Domestic
20,000 93.1%
(15,225)
15,000
10,000
6.9% 7.3%
(1,121) (2,791)
5,000
0
Attacks Fatalities
Figure 17.3. Total domestic and transnational attacks by 53 foreign terrorist
groups identified as threats to the United States.
Source : LaFree, Yang, and Crenshaw (2009).
fact that they do not has several important policy implications. First, it
underscores the importance of proximity to terrorist targeting. Even
though these groups have ample interest in striking the United States,
actually doing so is not an easy task. Anti-American objectives are not
sufficient. Mounting an attack against the United States from primary
bases outside the United States is extremely challenging. Clarke and
Newman (2006, p. 154) conclude that “Terrorists are constrained by
geography. Like criminals, they will choose targets that are close to
their operational base.”
And second, the ratio of transnational to domestic attacks likely
reflects challenges faced by attackers due to cultural and linguistic bar-
riers. Foreign attackers typically encounter an environment in which
they have an imperfect understanding of local language, culture, and
daily life. This impediment may explain why recent research by Smith
and Damphousse (2009) shows that international terrorist attacks
against the United States have a much longer planning time horizon
than attacks by domestic groups. To overcome cultural and linguistic
obstacles, foreign attackers will probably be more likely than domestic
attackers to rely on immigrant communities or diasporas within the tar-
get country. Similar reasoning leads Clarke and Newman (2006, p. 143)
to conclude that “externally based terrorists will mount their attacks
from locations that are as close as possible to the target.” Put in another
way, foreign terrorist groups need locals. Thus, a recent report by the
U.S. State Department (2008) stresses the importance to al Qaeda of
local recruits, especially in the West. More generally, the results under-
score both the atypicality and the lethal ingenuity of the 9/11 attacks.
Al Qaeda was able to engineer 9/11 without using locals, but instead
relied on specially trained and highly qualified foreign operatives. Thus
far the ability to commandeer such assets has been exceedingly rare.
LaFree and Dugan (2009) in which we analyzed both the GTD and an
event database collected by the RAND Corporation. Notice how many
of these groups are organized around disputes having to do with polit-
ical control over territory. Although there are major differences in
terms of their orientation, this explains in large part the motivations
of virtually all of the top twenty groups, including Shining Path, ETA,
the IRA, FARC, Hamas, and the LTTE.
South Africa is an especially striking example of this phenomenon.
Both pro- and anti-apartheid terrorist attacks in South Africa resulted
in an enormous amount of political violence during much of the 1980s
and early 1990s. However, in an analysis of terrorist attacks in South
Africa using GTD data, Van Brakle and LaFree (2007) found that vio-
lence ended rapidly following the first democratic elections at the end
of apartheid. In fact, a major reason why it is so difficult to develop
a universal definition of terrorism is that it is often a method used to
advance political goals on which nations and individuals disagree.
Chemical
Other
Melee 0.26%
0.37%
1.98%
Incendiary
7.65%
Unknown
9.84%
Explosives/Bombs/
Dynamite
43.68%
Firearms
36.22%
Figure 17.4. Weapons used in terrorist attacks, 1970 through 2007 (n = 82,910).
Source : Global Terrorism Database.
that are especially worrisome are the 1.5 percent (or 1,138) that pro-
duced more than twenty-five fatalities. In fact, Jenkins (2007) has
recently revisited his earlier statement, and after reviewing the stated
plans of terrorist groups operating in the early twenty-first century
concluded that indeed “many of today’s terrorists want a lot of people
watching and a lot of people dead.” But nevertheless, the majority of
terrorist attacks since 1970 produced no fatalities.
60.00
50.00
40.00
Percent
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 1 2 to 4 5 to 10 11 to 25 over 25
Number of fatalities per attack
Figure 17.5. Total fatalities per terrorist attack, 1970–2007 (n = 82,910*).
*
Data on fatalities were missing in 8.1% of cases.
Source : Global Terrorism Database.
80.00%
74.72%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
14.77%
10.00%
4.62% 4.62%
1.26%
0.00%
Less than 1 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 over 20
Figure 17.6. Years of operation for terrorist groups, 1970–1997.
Source : Global Terrorism Database.
COUNTERTERRORISM
Internment 0.942
The Loughall
0.083
Incident
The Gibraltar
0.178
Incident
1980s, ASALA was careful to target Turks and avoided non-Turkish and
especially Armenian casualties. However, starting in the early 1980s,
they became far less discriminate in their targeting methods. The
pivotal historical event in our analysis was an especially brutal attack
on Paris’s Orly Airport in 1983. An explosive device detonated pre-
maturely in the terminal area by the Turkish Airlines counter, killing
eight people (four French, two Turkish, one American, one Swedish)
and wounding over fifty more. The expansion of increasingly inept
attacks such as the one at Orly created a polarized and hostile climate
within ASALA and in Armenian perceptions of ASALA. We concluded
that this change in targeting strategy seriously undermined the legiti-
macy of ASALA among its supporters in the Armenian diaspora and
in the West. Interestingly, although JCAG was not involved in the Orly
bombing, and in general had a much more disciplined approach to
the use of terrorist violence, JCAG attacks also declined rapidly follow-
ing Orly. These results suggest that when a terrorist organization that
depends heavily on a diaspora overreaches in terrorist targeting, it
may offer a strong opening for discrediting terrorism as a tactic, even
discrediting terrorist groups that have not overreached.
Perhaps the most general lesson from ASALA’s rise and fall is a per-
spective on terrorist motivation. Most terrorists want to mobilize and
lead others to support their cause. Terrorists who claim to represent
an ethnic or communal group want to mobilize and lead their own
people in preserving communal culture and values. Therefore, the
most important audience of terrorist activity may often not be the
enemy target of attacks, but rather the terrorists’ own sympathizers
and supporters. Any terrorist group that loses sight of its major audi-
ence is vulnerable.
Terrorism activity
50
45
ASALA
40 JCAG
35
30
Incidents
25
20
15
10
0
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Year
Figure 17.8. Attacks by ASALA and JCAG, 1975 to 1988.
Source : Dugan, Huang, LaFree, and McCauley (2009).
support for deterrence among these six interventions was the use of a
major military surge called Operation Motorman, which significantly
reduced the risk of new attacks.
This is not the only study of terrorism to identify backlash effects.
The basic finding that the imposition of harsh criminal justice and
military interventions to reduce terrorism may well be counter-
productive has been found in a wide variety of countries and under
varying political circumstances (Collins, 2004; Geraghty, 2000;
Kenney, 2003; Lichbach, 1987; Malvesti, 2002; Nevin, 2003; Soule,
1989; Turk, 2002). Given the evidence that deterrence-based
thinking with regard to terrorism is often demonstrably unsuccessful,
we must ask ourselves why it remains the most common reaction of
governments to terrorist threats. One obvious answer is that govern-
ments that experience terrorist strikes face tremendous pressure to
take some action, and oftentimes there appear to be few obvious alter-
natives to harsh military or criminal justice interventions. The British
began experimenting with a variety of counterterrorist strategies after
their forces moved into Northern Ireland in 1969. Only one of the
interventions we examined showed signs of significantly reducing
risks of more republican violence.
I hasten to add that this is a case study. We do not know whether
government counterterrorist strategies have had similar effects in
other regions of the world, on different groups or individuals, or
indeed, even in this region of the world during different time periods.
Nevertheless, our results strongly suggest that in terms of the opera-
tion of the IRA in Northern Ireland at least, many deterrence-based
measures adopted by the British either had no effect on future terror-
ist strikes or actually increased their likelihood. We need a lot more
careful analysis of the deterrent and backlash effects of various coun-
terterrorist strategies in different countries and contexts.
than rational reactions. Social researchers can help sort out these
complex forces; there are indications in recent years that they are in
fact more engaged. Terrorism research solicitations by the National
Science Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, and the Bureau
of Justice Administration, as well as the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security’s Centers of Excellence program, have all strength-
ened support for social scientific studies of terrorism and responses
to terrorism. The Minerva program (Washington Post, 2008), funded
by the Department of Defense, promises to increase further levels of
support. Moreover, spurred by brutal attacks such as the Madrid and
London bombings, funding of social science research on terrorism
and responses to terrorism has also expanded greatly in Europe (Eder
and Senn, 2008).
Several of the myths discussed in this paper could be more easily
summarized as “the myth of the super-terrorist.” This would apply
to the assumption that terrorist attacks are ubiquitous (myth 1), use
sophisticated weaponry (myth 7), and are incredibly lethal (myth 6),
and that terrorist groups are always long lasting (myth 8) and never
make strategic errors (myth 9). As we have seen, terrorist attacks are
highly concentrated in geographical space, rely to a large extent on
readily available, unsophisticated weaponry, and frequently involve
few or no fatalities. The typical terrorist group disappears in less than
a year, and there is ample evidence that terrorists frequently make
strategic errors. What makes terrorism so incredibly challenging is
precisely the asymmetric weakness of its perpetrators. A half century
ago, William Wolf (1957) drew this comparison memorably in an
essay about the possible impact of a wasp on a speeding automobile
with four passengers. If a wasp that flies into the window of a moving
car causes a driver to lose control and crash, an insect weighing less
than half an ounce, armed with a tiny syringe containing a drop of
irritant, can take the lives of four people and convert a large, power-
ful car into a heap of scrap. Thus, “action and reaction can be ridicu-
lously out of proportion” (p. 33).
The exceptional originality of the 9/11 attacks are directly
connected to several of the other myths discussed here, including the
perception that attacks were rapidly increasing just before 9/11 (myth
2), the perception that the United States is the most likely country to
using open source data to counter common myths 437
be targeted by terrorists (myth 3), and the assumption that most ter-
rorist attacks involve disgruntled groups from one country attacking
civilians in another country (myth 4). The 9/11 attacks likely do rep-
resent a watershed of sorts – the end of the wave of primarily Marxist-
Leninist-inspired terrorism that dominated the world until a few years
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the rise of transnational
jihadi-style terrorism that began in the 1990s and rose dramatically
following the 9/11 attacks. As we have seen, there are many strate-
gic reasons why the United States makes a good target for terrorist
attacks. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that at least up
until this point in history, the vast majority of terrorism has been car-
ried out by domestic groups on local targets.
This leaves myth 10, the assumption that deterrence measures are
universally the best response to terrorism. At present there is very lit-
tle extant literature on categorizing and measuring counterterrorism
policies and efforts. But from the research that does exist, there is
ample evidence to suggest that striking back forcefully does not always
achieve the hoped-for policy objectives, and may trigger backlash
effects that make things considerably worse. Sorely needed are more
sophisticated analyses of countermeasures according to a taxonomy
that spans the lifecycle of terrorist groups and events, from address-
ing grievances and countering ideological radicalization to deterring
attacks and punishing perpetrators.
Objective research on terrorism is especially critical, because policy
in this area is likely to be driven – even more than with common acts
of violence – by exceptional cases. We need to guard against what
Thomas Schelling (1962) described many years ago as “a routine
obsession with a few dangers that may be familiar rather than likely.”
Social science research can help.
REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION
443
444 thinking about tomorrow
and respond to the problem. Acts of terrorism are, after all, virtually
always criminal acts too, and they warrant no less attention as a class
than do such criminological staples as domestic violence, organized
crime, hate crime, and drug crimes. Acts of terrorism have occurred
less frequently than other crimes, but they have proven to be no less
profound in the public’s awareness, in media accounts, and in poli-
tics. We may wish that it received less media and political attention – if
only to reduce its appeal – but that it gets so much is reason enough
to give it more scholarly attention.
Much as the study of crime was largely a subspecialty of sociology
in the 1960s, the study of terrorism was, until recently, a subject of
study mostly for political scientists, including Martha Crenshaw,
Walter Laqueur, and Robert Pape. Then, following Rosenfeld’s urging,
criminologist Mathieu Deflem edited an anthology, Terrorism and Counter-
Terrorism: Criminological Perspectives (2004), with essays by Gregg Barak,
Bonnie Berry, Donald Black, Laura Dugan, Gary LaFree, Rosenfeld,
and others. LaFree and his criminologist colleagues at the University
of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and
Responses to Terrorism have written much on terrorism (e.g., LaFree
and Dugan; LaFree and Hendrickson; Rausch and LaFree) and have
assembled the Global Terrorism Database, an open-source data set
with information on some 75,000 terrorist events internationally since
1970 – as discussed in the previous chapter. As they continue to grow
the database, they are making the data available to other scholars to
help better understand terrorist violence. This anthology provides fur-
ther evidence of a deep, continuing interest. Scan any recent meeting
program of the annual American Society of Criminology or European
Society of Criminology, and you will find other criminologists contrib-
uting to our collective understanding of terrorism as well.
Social scientists from other disciplines are weighing in fruitfully
too. In 2003, sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer produced Terror in the
Mind of God; the following year, psychologist Marc Sageman gave us
Understanding Terror Networks (2004); and in 2006, economists Walter
Enders and Todd Sandler wrote The Political Economy of Terrorism. Like
crime, terrorism calls for eclectic perspectives, and there’s a place at
this table for criminologists.
criminal justice and terrorism 445
1
We address the issue empirically using interaction terms if the effects are relatively
fi xed and by estimating separate multivariate equations for different levels of key
mediating factors when the effects vary with those variables.
criminal justice and terrorism 447
One cannot help but notice the paucity of systematic empirical evi-
dence on terrorism, as Gary LaFree and others have noted in previous
chapters. To a much greater degree than for street crime, terrorism
defies statistical analysis for several reasons. First, though terrorism
cases may share the property of having a political motive,2 they are
a heterogeneous stew that varies by type of extremism (Islamic,
Christian fundamentalist, environmental, antiglobalization, etc.),
whether connected to a larger network, extent of planning, weapon
of choice, or other distinguishing factors. These subcategories of
terrorism are as diverse as the major crime categories are different
from one another. One cannot seriously consider either the causes of
terrorism or successful counterterrorism strategies in such heteroge-
neous aggregates.
Terrorism is difficult to analyze empirically for a second rea-
son: Terrorists, to a greater degree than other criminals, tend to
operate in unpredictable ways, aiming to create fear and turmoil,
and relying on surprise to achieve both. When terrorist screening
protocols used in the months after the 9/11 attack ignored women
as suicide bombers, terrorists responded by enlisting women to par-
ticipate in suicide bombings (see Simon and Tranel, this volume). To
the extent that terrorists operate intentionally outside of predictable
patterns to exploit elements of fear and uncertainty, such patterns are
less likely to show up in the data.
Terrorism is more difficult to analyze than other crimes for a third
reason: We simply do not have enough reliable data on cases of each
major type of terrorism to provide a basis for statistical inference
along the lines that parallel the analysis of conventional criminal jus-
tice data. That there have been too few terrorist cases on American
2
We say “may” because some acts that for many authorities qualify as terrorism, such
as genocide and hate killings, have a dubious political motive.
criminal justice and terrorism 449
Other Prospects
Criminologists and criminal justice researchers can contribute to our
understanding of terrorism and how best to prevent and counter it in
other ways too. Many of these prospects overlap, but they are distinct
in essential ways.
been well documented (see, for example, Savage and Vila, this
volume), as have the repeated successes of the positive-sum out-
comes of soft power – attractions that induce nations to cooperate
in economic, social, and military alliances (Nye; Wright). The use
of hard power under the war on terror and presumptions of zero-
sum stakes has had counterproductive effects in the Middle East,
as has excessive use of force by the police in many American cities
(Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). Each hangover from the overuse of hard
power should serve as a reminder of Jeremy Bentham’s nineteenth-
century dictum that the least amount of force needed to secure
order is both just and effective. Alternatives to aggressive policing
(community policing, improved training, and constraints on exces-
sive use of force) and nonpunitive alternatives to incarceration
(restorative justice, mediation programs, reintegration, electronic
monitoring, etc.) have counterparts in the use of diplomacy and
positive inducements to reform, to take the wind out of the sails
of terrorism. Much as effective interventions against crime require
a judicious blending of restorative, rehabilitative, and protective
instruments, so too may effective interventions against terrorism
require “smart power” – a sensible blending of hard and soft power
(Armitage and Nye, 2007). John Braithwaite argues along a similar
line in his chapter that security can be strengthened by a shift from
a hard power counterterrorism strategy to one that emphasizes the
use of a public health model strategy.
• Empowering women. Perhaps the most urgent long-term need –
the most viable prospect for reducing terrorism throughout the
world – is to find ways to activate what may be the world’s most
effective force against violence: women. The potential for using
this vast resource has been stifled most profoundly through the
repression of women, particularly in the places that are the most
prolific seedbeds of terrorists. Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis
(2006) has made the point succinctly: “women are our best hope
in dealing with the Muslim world, because they have so much to
gain from modernization.” Women constitute the majority of the
planet’s population. With individual exceptions, they have been a
dominant voice against aggression in virtually every culture where
their voices can be heard. For eons they have been the primary
456 thinking about tomorrow
CONCLUSION
RE F E RE N CE S
Larry Cohen and Marcus Felson “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends:
A Routine Activity Approach,” American Sociological Review, Volume
44 (1979), pp. 588–608.
G. David Curry, “Gangs, Crime and Terrorism,” in Criminologists on
Terrorism and Homeland Security, Brian Forst, James P. Lynch, and Jack
R. Greene, editors (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Mathieu Deflem (editor), Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: Criminological
Perspectives (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004).
Department of Defense, Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual
(University of Chicago, 2007), originally Army Field Manual, FM
3–24.
Walter Enders and Todd Sandler, The Political Economy of Terrorism (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Franco Ferracuti, “Ideology and Repentance: Terrorism in Italy,” in Origins
of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind, Walter
Reich, editor (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1998).
Brian Forst, Errors of Justice: Nature, Sources and Remedies (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Terrorism, Crime and Public Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2009).
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World
Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996).
Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious
Violence (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003).
Kimberly Kagan, “The Tide is Turning in Iraq,” The Wall Street Journal
(September 4, 2007), p. A17.
Gary LaFree and Laura Dugan, “How Does Studying Terrorism Compare
to Studying Crime?” in Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: Criminological
Perspectives, Mathieu Deflem, editor (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2004).
Gary LaFree and James Hendrickson, “Build a Criminal Justice Policy
for Terrorism,” Criminology and Public Policy, Volume 6, Number 4
(November 2007), pp. 781–790.
John H. Laub and Robert J. Sampson, Shared Beginnings, Divergent
Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2006).
Bernard Lewis, “Modernizing the Muslim World,” Toronto Star (May 8, 2006).
R. Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa, Games and Decisions: Introduction and
Critical Survey (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1957).
Roger B. Myerson, Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1997).
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics
(New York: Public Affairs, 2004).
criminal justice and terrorism 459
461
462 Index
National Consortium for the Study opportunity theory, 6, 69, 151–152, 157
of Terrorism and Responses to and common law crime, 158
Terrorism, 444 and crime displacement, 162
National Counterterrorism and fear of terrorism, 450
Center, 46, 58, 420 effective for many situations, 160
National Gang Crime Research is really a class of theories, 153
Center, 108 limited relevance to terrorism, 152
National Incident Management more policy-relevant than other
System, 338 theories of crime, 151
National Public Radio, 288 place or situation unit of analysis, 151
National Response Plan, 338 relevance to specific situations, 157
National Response Strategy, 340 relevance to terrorism, 163
national security tests of, 158
and national interests, 365 to reduce fear, 172
exploitation of it a slippery slope, 368 use of wheel locks to reduce auto
exploitation of it may undermine it, thefts, 159
367 used to reduce gas suicides, 159
not clearly defined, 364 used to reduce motorcycle thefts, 159
relates to both borders and organized communities
traditions, 365 have low levels of crime and fear, 175
National Security Agency, 249
need to know principle, 268 Padilla v. Hanft, 36
negotiation Padilla, Jose, 107
builds legitimacy, 387 Palestine
supports procedural justice, 387 plagued by disunity, 398
Netanyahu, Prime Minister Palestinian terrorism
Benjamin, 394 women actively involved, 118
netwar, 349 Palestinians, 20
network analysis PATRIOT Act. See USA PATRIOT Act
needed for criminal intelligence, 227 peace process
networks unraveling of, 394
and networks of networks, 325 Peel, Robert, 205, 210
centrality property, 325 Peres, Prime Minister Shimon, 393
Nichols, Terry, 46 Phoenix Memo, 252, 254–255
nuclear weapon proliferation, 389 piracy
laws against, 37
Office for Domestic Preparedness, 331 PKK. See Kurdish Workers Party
Office of Community Preparedness, 331 police
Office of Law Enforcement accountability, 215, 219, 221
Coordination, 331 adjustments to external shifts, 197
Office of State and Local Government and military, 7
Coordination, 331 changes in the external
Oklahoma City bombing, 40, 46, 53, environment, 189
273, 306, 337 collaborations, 232
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets cult of evidence, 259
Act of 1968, 197–198 partnerships, 237
open source data on terrorism, 413 police intelligence units
Operation Phoenix typical characteristics of, 258
as US-sponsored terrorism, 48 police legitimacy. See legitimacy: police
opportunity reduction strategies, 66, police officers
78–80, 160, 169 make poor intelligence analysts, 255
468 Index