Counter terrorism

Terrorism is puzzling behavior for political scientists. On one hand, terrorist attacks generally hail from the politically aggrieved. On the other hand, a growing body of scholarship finds the tactic politically counterproductive. Unlike guerrilla attacks on military targets, terrorist attacks on civilian targets lower the odds of governments making  concessions. This article proposes and tests a psychological theory to account for why militant groups engage in terrorism, given the political costs of attacking civilians.

"The article offers an analysis of Eurojust’s contributions to the European Union counterterrorism policy and questions whether all EU Member States fully support the strengthening of Eurojust’s
role in the fight against terrorism. The allegations concerning the existence of an inter-agency rivalry between Europol and Eurojust in the area of counterterrorism are also analyzed. Finally, the article provides an assessment of the possible impacts of the 2008 Council Decision on the Strengthening of Eurojust and the Lisbon Treaty provisions for possible establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office from Eurojust when it comes to EU’s counterterrorism efforts."

The article is opened with definitions of terms utilized throughout the article. Terrorism is defined as the threat or employment of violence against noncombatant targets for political, religious, or ideological purposes by sub-national groups and/or clandestine individuals who are willing to justify all means to achieve their goals. Terrorist conduct is designed to attract attention to the terrorist’s cause and to spread fear and anxiety among wide circles of the targeted population. Subsequently I analyse how terrorists use the Internet, and what can be done to counter their activities. The Internet is used to disseminate information, for propaganda, indoctrination, networking, psychological warfare, socialization, motivation, fund raising, spreading tactics, recruitment, planning activities and coordination. As the Internet became a major arena for modern terrorists, we need to devise appropriate methods to forestall their activities and establish security.

‘Post-raciality’ encompasses seemingly antithetical positions: victory or utopia. However, one could argue that both are constitutive of a moment missed, the moment being that which comes after the ‘end of history’. An understanding of the post-racial requires that ‘it’ be situated within the paradigms which rejected ‘the conservatism of Left or Right’ and which branded the present as one of ‘no alternatives’, and consequently for many offered ‘no future’. Understood thus, the post-racial becomes an anti-utopian tool which validates the absence of alternative or big ‘P’ politics. Political elites aim to make us feel better about ourselves in the absence of solution. This is no cynical ruse; post-raciality is not a neo-liberal construct. Rather, post-racial pessimism is the logical outcome of the collapse of the emancipatory politics which defied modern oppression. This paper offers a meta-analysis of post-raciality and argues that therapolitics presents us with a line of continuity predicated on ‘safety’ and ‘trust’ which connects Clinton’s One America initiative, the establishment of the Other Than Mexican migrant category under the Bush administration, and Obama’s response to immigration and ‘hate’.

""In the years since 9/11, terrorism has been transformed into an issue of global significance. Terrorism and the war on terror has affected virtually every aspect of modern life, and a precise understanding of terrorism is now more important – and contentious – than ever.

This innovative text provides a much-needed critical introduction to terrorism. Cutting-edge research on contemporary issues is combined with new insights into long-debated issues such as the definition of terrorism, the nature of the terrorist threat and counter-terrorism strategies. Showing that the methods we adopt as well as the material we study are vital for a clear understanding of the subject, this text goes beyond traditional IR approaches to rethink popular beliefs and assumptions about terrorism. Taking a genuinely global and integrated approach, this book is an ideal entry into the study of terrorism.

The text is supported by:

• International case studies from around the world
• A detailed glossary introducing key actors, events and concepts relating to terrorism
• Learning aids to stimulate critical thinking, including discussion questions, further readings and selected web resources.""

This paper traces the intersecting trajectories of policy and projection since September 11.  I explore America’s engagement in eastern Africa, the actions of regional allies, and media coverage of terrorism in the region as examples of the confluence of counterterrorism policies, inter-state relations, and mythologies of al Qaeda.  The search for Fazul Abdullah Muhammad and his closest associates provides a unique vehicle to track evolving U.S. counterterrorism strategies in Africa, including security aid, extraordinary rendition, and military intervention.  At the same time, speculation about Fazul offers a window on popular perceptions of a war without boundaries, perceptions that have encouraged a disproportionate response to al Qaeda.  To contextualize the multiple uses of Fazul I begin with a reflection on two tropes—one official, one popular—that have framed American counterterrorist initiatives in and beyond East Africa: war and specters.  I then address the development of the Fazul mythos and its convergence with American foreign policy as well as partner nations’ counterterrorism efforts.  More precisely, I explore perceptions of Fazul as a ‘master-terrorist’, attempts to capture or kill him, and his rhetorical utility as a primary face of terrorism in the region.  I conclude by considering the circumstances of Fazul’s death and its lessons for American counterterrorism in eastern Africa.

"The idea for Understanding Islam through Virtual Worlds project was hatched with a very specific idea in mind: How could people learn about other cultures in an authentic, experiential space — specifically, how could we learn about cultures that self-identified as Muslim? In turn, how could this information supplement or augment the physical world work of foreign policy and especially public diplomacy practitioners? Fouts and King chose the virtual world of Second Life as the platform for their research for many reasons, among them that it is the best international platform — more than 70% of its users are from outside the United States. The goal was to to see what they could learn about Islam — not by inviting particular people with particular perspectives into Second Life, but rather to follow the trail of what was already happening culturally in the space that might yield new insight about Islam.

The findings included a trilogy of actionable items available in digital format. By releasing three types of reports — policy recommendations, documentary video and graphic book — Fouts and King hoped to make what is still a very new medium as accessible as possible."

Since Prevent was first rolled out on a national scale in 2007 its implementation has varied markedly across local contexts. The most recent policy statement on Prevent, by a specially commissioned taskforce on radicalisation which reported in December 2013, appears to want to minimize local variation by making delivery of Prevent a legal requirement. Any attempt to bypass local demographic and political variations may, however, prove to be counterproductive or even unworkable in practice.

Since 2006, the new counterinsurgency (“COIN”) doctrine has revolutionized the way the U.S. military and its allies think about war. While COIN literature has proliferated in this period, relatively little legal scholarship has examined the relationship of COIN to international law. The legal scholarship that has engaged with COIN is overwhelmingly positive and assumes that the doctrine accords with the dictates of the law of war. In espousing human rights and civilian protection as its core principles, COIN provided a common discourse that appeared to bridge the conceptual divide between legal humanitarians and neo-pragmatists. However, the rhetorical success of COIN has come with significant, and as yet unrecognized, costs. This article argues that COIN’s influence on the law of war has had counterintuitive consequences that should give both COIN proponents and humanitarians pause. In particular, in a paradoxical move, COIN puts significant pressure on the core tenet of the law of war – the civilian-combatant distinction – in order to achieve its strategic objective of greater civilian protection. While legal scholars have celebrated COIN for its purported alignment with the law of war’s humanitarian goals, I show how COIN lends itself equally to the sort of jus ad bellum/jus in bello conflation that many scholars rebuke as violative of these same goals. COIN is aligned with law, I argue, only insofar as it seeks to exclude insurgents/terrorists from the law of war’s discursive terrain. In refusing to engage insurgents’ ad bellum objectives, COIN perpetuates international law’s liberal statist bias. Rather than progressively developing the law of war, as legal scholars argue it does, COIN is profoundly conservative. I suggest that a more responsible approach would admit insurgents as legitimate parties to war, in order that their political objectives could be substantively engaged with.