How would you handle terrorism ?

First of all, I would do everything in my power to reduce the potential for increasing terrorism. I would not make public statements such as "I support Israel and Sharon."

Off the top of my head and without too much deep thought, I present my list, subject to amendments:
I don't think we need to send troops all over the world to "fight" terrorism. I think we need to make more stringent laws to protect ourselves here, for one thing. A better plan around immigration and visa expiration checks, for another. We are a very open country but being so open that we don't really bother to do background checks or to know when/why people are entering and leaving the country is rather short-sighted. It would cost a lot, but surely less than the current war. We need to deal honestly with other countries and do the right thing more often. We should be cooperative with UN efforts around the globe. A world body is important, I would hope we have learned that, oftentimes, we need each other. We can send troops if and when they are needed to stomp out verified terrorists, with fair and impartial agreement from the countries affected. There wouldn't be an end date, but an ongoing effort and as part of our foreign policy to be forever vigilant, and fair to other nations. we have often been unfair, and this has never helped us, as far as terrorism goes.
After that, send all the religious fanatics each to their own country, somewhere around the Arctic or something, where they can await their just rewards without causing trouble to everyone else.

Remove the primary cause of serious international terrorism, which did not exist until the Supreme Court gave the Presidency to their best friend, George W. Bush.

Then, remove the forces from illegally occupied territories.

I agree. Especially not to countries like Iraq without any proven links with terrorism

The primary cause of international terrorism is not G. Bush. Perhaps you conviently missed the Al Qaeda training video where Bin Laden's soldiers are taking target practice at President Clinton. Islamic Terrorism has existed for decades prior to George Bush and will exist for decades after he is out of office. Eraly Islamic terrorism was a hodgepodge of Communist/Islamic organization whose goal was to drive the nation of Israel into the sea. In its present and more dangerous incarnation, exeplified by Al Qaeda, it seeks the establishment of the Umma. A global Islamic caliphate governed solely by the Koran. No amount of concession on Israel/Palestine would appease Al Qaeda. The Palestinian problem is pretty down on the Al Qaeda priorities list and when Al Qaeda does mention Palestine they usually only pay it lip service to appease the "Arab stree".

Terrorism
Anthony Egan, S.J., an editorial intern at America this past summer, formerly taught political studies at Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg, South Africa. He is currently studying theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass.

The long-term solution lies neither
with state violence nor legislation,
but with changing consciousness.

Timothy McVeigh is dead, executed for committing the largest single act of terrorism by an American citizen. Law enforcement agencies are now searching for the foreign terrorists responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Since a significant terrorist threat exists, we must ask, Where does it come from and how far ought any government go to both defeat terrorists and protect citizens' rights, not least their right to life?

What Is Terrorism?

Terrorism is about atrocity or the threat of atrocity. It is political violence against a targeted population for a political goal based upon political, social, economic or ideological grievances, which may be emotionally triggered by fear and hate. The word terrorisme is rooted in the French Revolution, where the new revolutionary government openly engaged in a brutal systematic purging of the ancien régime, its supporters and even those whose dedication to the new order seemed hesitant. This has been the model for many subsequent dictatorships of left and right. Sometimes this terror "from above" is covert?-surrogate forces and death squads are used?-giving the government plausible deniability. Alas, state antiterrorism can look like another variation of state terrorism, because sometimes that's what it is. Professor Michael Walzer of Princeton University reminds us that "tyrants taught the method to soldiers, and soldiers to modern revolutionaries." And they have learned the lesson terrifyingly well.

Terrorism "from below" is committed by persons or groups to undermine or overthrow existing governments, policies or structures, or as a means to intimidate individuals or groups considered a "threat." Sometimes such terrorists are themselves supported by states. The U.S. State Department regularly produces a list of states that support terrorism?-most recently Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria. Such listings are always open to challenge, especially when the government does not reveal evidence to support its claims?-asserting it cannot expose intelligence sources. Some political activists, like Noam Chomsky, would consider U.S. support for the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980's as an example of state-sponsored terrorism.

Terrorists are not mad, nor are they normally criminals with a capacity for political rationalization. The political scientist Bruce Hoffmann characterizes them as violent intellectuals and altruists with deeply held political, economic, cultural or religious beliefs. Their actions are thought out and?-if one buys into their particular logic?-often supremely reasonable. They firmly believe that their actions are done for the greater good, whether such good is defending individual rights from the powers of big government, making a socialist revolution, upholding white supremacy or furthering the dar al-Islam. The first step in combating such ideas is to seek to understand the ideologies so as to refute them.

Threats to the United States

The United States faces two major terrorist threats: Islamic terrorism and terrorism from the Christian identity-white supremacist and patriot movements. Both forms of terrorism have a number of common elements?-technical sophistication, religious fanaticism, hatred and paranoia about the new world order. They also see themselves as part of a global resistance movement (whether the white Aryan Christian race or Islam). The Islamic groups have tactical connections to like-minded movements (Hamas and Hezbollah in particular) and governments (like the Taliban in Afghanistan). The Christian identity-white supremacist-militia groups are far less coordinated, have little more than ideological solidarity with overseas groups and are less organized on a "military" basis.

Obviously, not every Muslim is a terrorist, nor is every white supremacist or militia member. In the past, Western society has had simplistic, patronizing or plainly ignorant attitudes toward Muslims, and these have led to serious problems. Many Muslims are anti-American. Likewise, the white far right has paranoid fantasies of an America ruled by what it calls Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupation Government), a coalition of Jews, blacks and foreign organs like the United Nations. Though one may disagree with?-or openly despise?-these movements' ideological positions, they have their First Amendment rights like everyone else.

In a 1996 issue of Foreign Affairs, the terrorism expert Walter Laquer stressed that the new generation of terrorists "will be individuals or like-minded people working in very small groups," who will be "more difficult to detect unless they make a major mistake or are discovered by accident." And Jessica Stern of the Kennedy School of Government has warned that?-following in the tradition of the Unabom-er, McVeigh, Aum Shunrikyo and the Osama bin Laden group?-the new terrorists could well use weapons of high destructiveness and increased sophistication. Massive car bombs, poison gas, biological weapons (and even though this is somewhat remote, low-grade nuclear bombs) could well be the weapons of terror in the 2000's.

Combatting Terrorism Ethically

Because the bases and training camps of Islamic terrorist groups are largely outside the United States, counterterrorist strikes against them are possible. Using satellite tracking, military and intelligence agencies can isolate training camps in countries known to support such movements and launch sophisticated air strikes against such bases with little or no risk of alienating U.S. public opinion. On the domestic front, however, there is a healthy respect for civil liberties, even when dealing with politically extreme or culturally obnoxious groups. Neither Randy Weaver nor David Koresh could be described as exemplary citizens, yet the F.B.I. has been called on the carpet for the way it handled both the Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents.

Some experts, like the political scientist David Rapoport, have suggested that democratic states not only experience more terrorism, than tyrannies but encourage terrorism, because democratic rights do not give people the political power they expect. The result is a kind of violent resistance rooted in frustrated expectations. Should democracy then be limited or curtailed, if for no other purpose than to combat terrorism?

Some civil liberties should be revised if they result "in the encouragement and breeding of terrorist monstrosities," suggests former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Echoing him somewhat, the former F.B.I. director Louis Freeh has suggested that his and other law enforcement agencies should be given extended enforcement rights, including more effective legislation. Such advocacy, which united a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and a Republican-dominated Congress, led to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It has been criticized for being politically nebulous and open to much wider use (abuse) than crime fighting. Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen argues that the A.E.D.P.A. weakens habeas corpus and federal review over state courts, radically weakens review powers over violations of federal constitutional rights and (until the recent Supreme Court decision) could be used for summary deportations of aliens and illegal immigrants.

"The Siege" brilliantly portrayed the risk we face. In that movie, a small cell of Islamic terrorists in New York generates a government overreaction?-suspension of the rule of law, a state of emergency and detention of thousands of innocent Muslim Americans. Government might win the war against the terrorists, but would generate in the process vast anti-government animosity. This is particularly true where the terrorists' ideologies are rooted in belief systems (whether Islam or fundamentalist Christianity) not altogether alien from those of many ordinary folk. Even where the terrorists have absolutely nothing in common with the public, such methods?-in particular, harsh "reactive terrorism," to use Martha Crenshaw's evocative term?-may simply lead to greater cycles of violence, counterviolence and repression. This is the lesson Israel is still learning.

How might terrorists be treated? The lawyer and political scientist Robert Gerstein suggests they should be treated using the same standards the state uses for other crimes. This has the advantage of undermining any terrorist claim to special political victim status, while protecting the law-abiding citizen from the erosion of civil liberties or the misuse of state power. Counterterrorism should be seen as merely another facet of the ongoing struggle against organized crime?-a struggle that, when necessary, includes such measures as carefully supervised wiretaps, undercover operations, use of informants and even paramilitary procedures to attain the objective.

An exceptional case may be carefully planned surgical strikes against terrorist bases in foreign countries?-carried out only as a last resort, preferably with multilateral consent (if not collaboration). Extreme caution must be taken to avoid innocent casualties. It is hypocritical to demonize Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden for their atrocities while shrugging off one's reactive violence as collateral damage. Moral consistency is an obligation for governments as well as citizens. Such actions can also alienate leaders and citizens of foreign countries from the United States and thus give political ammunition to the terrorists and their allies.

Ultimately, the long-term solution to the problem of terrorism lies neither with state violence nor legislation, but with changing consciousness. This means not only educating people to the threat, but also shifting people's attitudes. Terrorism emerges from a culture of violence, where violence (whether physical or psychological, social or personal) is visited upon people and people see it as the most effective solution to social or personal problems. This is the basic message of the racist, anti-Semitic, trashy Turner Diaries, the novel that gave McVeigh a blueprint for Oklahoma City: if government makes you angry, blow up a government building with ammonium nitrate and call dead children collateral damage.

Noting the close connections between "violence and the sacred" (to use the Canadian René Girard's term) in many terrorist acts today, religious people should ask themselves whether faith contributes to peace or war. There seems to be a terrible equation in the world today (one going far beyond terrorism): Ethnicity + Nationalism + Deprivation + Religious Fanaticism = Slaughter. Although antireligious Communist and Nazi governments exemplified state-sponsored terrorism in the past, today the least violent societies are often those where religion is weakest. Do religious authoritarianism, dogmatism and fundamentalism contribute to terrorism? The jury is out, but the two forms of terror discussed in this article seem to suggest so.

Peace among religions would contribute to a culture of peace and tolerance, in which terrorist violence will lack fertile seeding-ground. The Christian churches and other faiths should create a culture of tolerance among people while working for social healing and reconciliation. Given our assumption that terrorists are twisted altruists, we need to encourage and build a culture in which altruism can be directed toward creative and nonviolent activism. This is our greatest challenge as a church, our greatest opportunity (together with other people and organizations of good will) to combat terrorism. A few years ago, through the work of prison chaplains, a number of the Red Brigades cadres in Italian prisons repented of their actions. Some have become committed to nonviolence. Nor should we forget, from the victim's point of view, how Pope John Paul II forgave his would-be assassin. Though exceptional cases perhaps, they are signs that even amidst horror there is hope?-a hope not based on state terror.

Well put, bosworth. Blaming Bush for all of this is making me nuts already. It's not that I like or support the man, especially on issues like stem cell research and abortion, but it is important to understand the complexities of terrorism, and it's deep-rooted history.

pistoff, great article.

thanks
Thanks. I may post some more. I really do believe that using military might will not lessen terrorism, esp. from al Q., which is growing as an octopus like org.

Well, when Trudeau instituted martial law in Quebec over the FLQ crisis, it did crush them, but that is really the exception to the rule. Mind you, they didn't have cellphones back then.