1. Jonathan R. White
www.cengage.com/cj/white
Chapter 1:
Terrorism, Criminal Justice and the
American Way of War: Some Reasons
Why Definitions Matter
Rosemary Arway
Hodges University

2. The Pejorative Meaning of Terrorism
 Pejorative Connotation
o Negative and derogatory
o Political and social degradation when
labeled a terrorist
▪ Particular individuals and/or groups are
demonized
o Dual standards and contradictions lead to
confusion any time the term terrorism is
employed.

3. Social Contexts of Terrorism
 Alex Schmid:
o Terrorism is a social construct, which means it
is :
▪ defined by people from different social backgrounds.
▪ developed through the application of political power.
▪ its definition changes within social and historical
contexts.
o Social construct: Vacillating social and political
realities influence definition.
 FBI views Hezbollah as a terrorist group.
 Organization of Islamic Conferences views
Hezbollah as a legitimate revolutionary force.

4. FBI Defines Terrorism
 Official FBI definition of terrorism separates
domestic and international terrorism.
o Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve
acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of
the criminal law of the U.S. or any state; appear to
be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian
populace, influence policy of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur
primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
o International terrorism involves violent acts or acts
dangerous to human life that are a violation of the
U.S. or any state, or that would be a criminal
violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the
U.S. or any state.

5. Historical Circumstances
 Definition of terrorism is influenced by
history.
o 1789 – 1795 French Revolution
▪ Term terrorism used to describe actions of the
French government.
o Late 1800s – Early 1900s
 Terrorism used to describe violent activities of
various groups:
 Labor organizations, nationalist groups revolting
against foreign powers

6. Historical Contexts of Terrorism
o Mid-1960s – Early 1980s
 Terrorism applied to nationalists and violent left-
wing groups (hate movement).
o Present day
 Terrorism encompasses such groups as violent
religious fanatics; groups who terrorize for a
particular cause.
 Environmental groups
 Narco-terrorism
 Ecological groups

7. War and Violence
 Meaning of terrorism fluctuates around
various types of war.
o Commando tactics
o Guerrilla warfare
 Term terrorism is used to describe
violent activity that explodes during a
peaceful period.
o Insurrection in Iraq after 2003 U.S. invasion

8. Political Power and Repression
 Governments can increase their power when
they label opponents as terrorists.
o More public acceptance of governmental power
o Beccaria proposed that when a state becomes an
executioner it does not act in self-defense but simply
in revenge .
 Terrorists are not deserving of humanitarian
privileges.
o Labeling can have dire results:
▪ Illegal arrests
▪ Lack of constitutional protection (Guantanamo Bay,
Abu Ghraib)

9. Political Power and Repression
 Related to the issue of power is repression.
 Routinely used by some governments to keep
citizens in line
o Secret police
▪ Joseph Stalin’s USSR
▪ Saddam Hussein’s Iraq
▪ Latin America
 Repression developed outside formal political
structures is called extra-juridical repression.
o Repressive groups who use terrorism as a means
of creating conforming behavior

10. Social Contexts of Terrorism
 The definition of terrorism is also
influenced by:
o Media
▪ Attracts attention
▪ Term terrorism is used to define political
violence
▪ Uses multiple definitions to engage public
debate
o Crime
▪ Criminal act versus act of terrorism
▪ Terrorism always involves some king of criminal
activity
o Religion

11. Social Contexts of Terrorism
o Specific types of terrorism:
▪ Violent eschatology
▪ Religious purification
▪ Martyrdom
▪ Religion as a cause
o Specific types of terrorism:
 Technological terrorism, cyber-terrorism, narco-
terrorism, eco-terrorism, nuclear terrorism, agri-
terrorism

12. Range of Definitions
 The range of definitions include:
o Laqueur’s Simple definition:
▪ Use of force to achieve political objective; targets innocent people.
o Legal Definition:
▪ Internal contradiction and short-sided, designed to give to the
government power to take an action against specific crimes.
o Schmid’s Academic Consensus Definition:
▪ Terrorism should be viewed as a method of combat in which the
victims serve as symbolic targets.
o Badey’s definition:
▪ Importance of examination of terrorists:
▪ Internal – by terrorist themselves (do they work with or against
state)
▪ External – by the governments (intent, motivation, chances of
repetition)

13. Typologies of Terrorism
 Strengths:
o Broad scope of problem presented.
▪ Terrorism is not defined as a single action; rather,
terrorism can be considered a composition of a variety of
actions.
o Aids in identification of the kind of terrorism to be
examined.
▪ Local, national, international
o Provides for the level of the problem to be
identified.
▪ This in turn allows for the determination of the level of
response.
o Use of typologies avoids debates on the meaning
of terrorism.

14. Typologies of Terrorism
 Weaknesses:
o Typologies do not solve definitional
dilemmas.
o The typologies and definition change
because terrorism is in a constant state of
change.
o Typologies describe patterns, not specifics.
 Each terrorist incident must be viewed and
understood individually in its special social,
historical, and political circumstances.
o Distorts reality
▪ Alter terrorist act to blend with a particular
typology.

15. Toward a Tactical Typology of Terrorism
 Humans live in constant state of conflict.
 Spectrum of conflict
o Conflicts can range from low-level conflicts
to nuclear devastation.
o Terrorism is a form of civil disobedience.
 Tactical typology
o The level of activity is correlated with the
size of the group.
o Terrorism is primarily a problem for law
enforcement and the justice system.
o Terrorists have acted outside the law.

16. Defining the War on Terrorism
 War declared on a concept such as the “war
on terrorism” is not possible under the U.S.
Constitution.
 President G. W. Bush:
o America and its allies are at war with terrorism.
 President B. Obama:
o Terrorism is a criminal justice problem and
military force is used to augment legal power.
 The U.S. Government:
o The weapons that America will use in the war on
terror would be the Homeland Security Act of
2002 and the USA Patriot Act of 2001.

17. “War on Terrorism”
 Arguments accepting the “war on
terrorism” include:
o Friedman:
▪ War on terror is the third great struggle against
totalitarianism.
o Blank:
▪ Terrorism is caused by radical groups driven by
economic, social and political pressures.
o Cohen and Hill:
▪ There is a necessity to identify militant groups
and to present military power in the face of these
groups.

18. “War on Terrorism”
 Arguments that do not accept the war on
terrorism:
o Howard:
▪ Terrorism is an emergency situation that should be
handled by law enforcement and intelligence.
o Duffy:
▪ A militaristic framework of the war on terrorism
marginalizes the rule of law.
o Ringmar:
▪ Engaging in a war against terror may dehumanize
the opposing side.

19. Networks and Law Enforcement
 The primary job of law enforcement in
preventing terrorism is to stop criminal
activity within criminal networks.
 Terrorists target the societal structures, not
the military forces.
 Law enforcement responsibility:
o Maintaining public safety
o Collecting criminal intelligence
o Sharing information in a legal manner

20. Networks and Classical Theories
of Conflicts
 Carl von Clausewitz’s theory of war:
o War requires mobilization of the population and
imposes political will on the defeated.
 Sun Tzu’s theory of war:
o The highest form of military leadership comes
in breaking the enemy’s resistance without
fighting.
o The purpose of terrorism is to give the
immersion that powerful economic, military and
political forces cannot protect ordinary people.

21. Pearl Harbor and 9/11
Two different worlds
 Pearl Harbor: attack attempted to
destroy a military force
 9/11 attacks: designed for drama
 9/11 attacks: tragedy performed on the
sub-national level
 9/11 attacks: terrorist “success” was
assured by God’s promise

22. Critical Engagement:
Definitions and the Future
 David Bell’s timeline:
o 17th and 18th century:
▪ Political wars sought to maintain the political
system
o The French Revolution:
▪ Total war
o Today:
▪ Technological advances make the destruction of
the planet in total war a possibility, while at the
same time making terrorism possible.

23. Hiroshima and Nagasaki
 Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
o Technological advance took the war on the next
level, making the destruction and total war
(terrorism) the reality.
 Can Hiroshima and Nagasaki be
considered:
o a war crime or act of the terrorism?
o an attack on the city or nation?
o a politically explained act?
o an absolutely necessary act?
o the day of America’s infamy?

24. International Definition of Terrorism
 Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur has counted
over 100 definitions and concludes that:
o “the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is
that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.
Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving
violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive
diplomacy, and bar room brawls.”
(Laqueur, W. (1999). The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of
Mass Destruction. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 6.)
 In 2005, Secretary General of United Nations,
Kofi Annan presented “terrorism proposal”
hoping that other countries will finally agree on
the definition of terrorism.