DOCSLIB.ORG

State Anti-Terrorism Laws

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

STATE ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS States legislatures have passed a number of laws in response to recent acts of terrorism. The purpose of this compilation is to include some of the more common prohibitions as well as to highlight some unique statutory provisions that may be beneficial to other state and local jurisdictions in detecting and preventing future acts of terrorism. The statutes are grouped by primary purpose in the following subject areas: Definitions Criminal History Checks Detention Authority to Public Services Employees Failure to Safeguard Toxins False Reports Hindering Prosecution Hoaxes Liability/Immunity Poisoning Possession of Blueprints Public Records/Public Meetings Restitution Supporting Terrorism Threats Weapons of Mass Destruction Wiretaps Definitions West Virginia, Article 6 Section 61-6-24 (3) “Terrorist act” means an act that is: (A) Likely to result in serious bodily injury or damage to property or the environment; and (B) Intended to: (i) Intimidate or coerce the civilian population; (ii) Influence the policy of a branch or level of government by intimidation or coercion; (iii) Affect the conduct of a branch or level of government by intimidation or coercion; or (iv) Retaliate against a branch or level of government for a policy or conduct of the government. New Jersey 2C:38-2 Crime of terrorism; definitions. 2. a. A person is guilty of the crime of terrorism if he commits or attempts, conspires or threatens to commit any crime enumerated in subsection c. of this section with the purpose: (1) to promote an act of terror; or (2) to terrorize five or more persons; or (3) to influence the policy or affect the conduct of government by terror;or (4) to cause by an act of terror the impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public or private buildings, common carriers, public utilities or other public services. Alabama, Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002 Section 2 (1) ACT OF TERRORISM. An act or acts constituting a specified offense as defined in subdivision (4) for which a person may be convicted in the criminal courts of this state, or an act or acts constituting an offense in any other jurisdiction within or outside the territorial boundaries of the United States which contains all of the essential elements of a specified offense, that is intended to do the following: a. Intimidate or coerce a civilian population. b. Influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion. c. Affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination, or kidnapping. Federal law Note: many jurisdictions have chosen not to create a separate definition of terrorism, but simply reference the Federal statutes, 18 USC 2331, which essentially defines terrorism as follows: “ (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended - (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; Criminal History checks Florida 125.5801 Criminal history record checks for certain county employees and appointees.— Notwithstanding chapter 435, a county may require, by ordinance, employment screening for any position of county employment or appointment which the governing body of the county finds is critical to security or public safety, or for any private contractor, employee of a private contractor, vendor, repair person, or delivery person who has access to any public facility or publicly operated facility that the governing body of the county finds is critical to security or public safety. The ordinance must require each person applying for, or continuing employment in, any such position or having access to any such facility to be fingerprinted. The fingerprints shall be submitted to the Department of Law Enforcement for a state criminal history record check and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history record check. The information obtained from the criminal history record checks conducted pursuant to the ordinance may be used by the county to determine an applicant's eligibility for employment or appointment and to determine an employee's eligibility for continued employment. This section is not intended to preempt or prevent any other background screening, including, but not limited to, criminal history record checks, which a county may lawfully undertake. Note: This provision allows FBI records checks of the identified individuals. Detention Authority to Public Services Employees Minnesota Chapter 609 An employee or other person designated by a critical public service facility, utility, or pipeline to ensure the provision of services by the critical public service facility or the safe operation of the equipment or facility of the utility or pipeline who has reasonable cause to believe that a person is violating this section [trespass or destruction of property] may detain the person as provided in this subdivision. The person detained must be promptly informed of the purpose of the detention and may not be subjected to unnecessary or unreasonable force or interrogation. The employee or other designated person must notify a peace officer promptly of the detention and may only detain the person for a reasonable period of time. No employee or other designated person is criminally or civilly liable for any detention that the employee or person reasonably believed was authorized by and conducted in conformity with this subdivision. Failure to Safeguard Toxins New Jersey Section 2C:38-3 b. Any manufacturer, distributor, transferor, possessor or user of any toxic chemical, biological agent, toxin or vector, or radioactive material that is related to a lawful industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other activity, who recklessly allows an unauthorized individual to obtain access to the toxic chemical or biological agent, toxin or vector or radioactive material, commits a crime of the second degree and, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, shall be subject to a fine of up to $250,000 for each violation. False Reports Delaware, Title 11, Section 621 (a) A person is guilty of terroristic threatening when: (1) The person threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or in serious injury to person or property, or (2) The person makes a false statement or statements; a. Knowing that the statement or statements are likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or b. Knowing that the statement or statements are likely to cause serious inconvenience, or c. In reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror or serious inconvenience. North Carolina, Chapter 14 § 14-288.23. Making a false report concerning a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction; punishment; restitution. (a) Any person who, by any means of communication to any person or group of persons, makes a report, knowing or having reason to know the report is false, that causes any person to reasonably believe that there is located at any place or structure whatsoever any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction is guilty of a Class D felony. (b) The court may order a person convicted under this section to pay restitution, including costs and consequential damages resulting from disruption of the normal activity that would have otherwise occurred but for the false report, pursuant to Article 81C of Chapter 15A of the General Statutes. (c) For purposes of this section, the term 'report' shall include making accessible to another person by computer. North Dakota, Title 12.1 12.1-17-04. Terrorizing. A person is guilty of a class C felony if, with intent to place another human being in fear for that human being's or another's safety or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious disruption or public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror, disruption, or inconvenience, the person: 1. Threatens to commit any crime of violence or act dangerous to human life; or Page No. 66 2. Falsely informs another that a situation dangerous to human life or commission of a crime of violence is imminent knowing that the information is false. Hindering Prosecution New Jersey 2C:38-4 Hindering apprehension or prosecution for terrorism. 4. Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution for terrorism.. a. A person commits a crime if, with the purpose to hinder the detention, apprehension, investigation, prosecution, conviction or punishment of another for the crime of terrorism, he: (1) Harbors or conceals the other; (2) Provides or aids in providing a weapon, money, transportation, disguise or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension or effecting escape; (3) Suppresses, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of the crime, or tampers with a witness, informant, document or other source of information, regardless of its admissibility in evidence, which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a charge against him; (4) Warns the other of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this paragraph does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with law; (5) Prevents or obstructs, by means of force, intimidation or deception, anyone from performing an act which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a charge against him; (6) Aids such person to protect or expeditiously profit from an advantage derived from such crime; or (7) Gives false information to a law enforcement officer.
Recommended publications
  • Filling Terrorism Gaps: Veos, Evaluating Databases, and Applying Risk Terrain Modeling to Terrorism RH Hagan

    Filling Terrorism Gaps: Veos, Evaluating Databases, and Applying Risk Terrain Modeling to Terrorism RH Hagan

    PNNL-25727 Filling Terrorism Gaps: VEOs, Evaluating Databases, and Applying Risk Terrain Modeling to Terrorism RH Hagan August 2016 PNNL-25727 Filling Terrorism Gaps: VEOs, Evaluating Databases, and Applying Risk Terrain Modeling to Terrorism RH Hagan August 2016 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 PNNL-25727 Abstract This paper aims to address three issues: the lack of literature differentiating terrorism and violent extremist organizations (VEOs), terrorism incident databases, and the applicability of Risk Terrain Modeling (RTM) to terrorism. Current open source literature and publicly available government sources do not differentiate between terrorism and VEOs; furthermore, they fail to define them. Addressing the lack of a comprehensive comparison of existing terrorism data sources, a matrix comparing a dozen terrorism databases is constructed, providing insight toward the array of data available. RTM, a method for spatial risk analysis at a micro level, has some applicability to terrorism research, particularly for studies looking at risk indicators of terrorism. Leveraging attack data from multiple databases, combined with RTM, offers one avenue for closing existing research gaps in terrorism literature. iii Acknowledgments The author would like to sincerely thank several individuals for their contributions to this research. My mentor, Chrissie Noonan, for her guidance and support throughout this process, Carolyn Cramer for her operational support and insight, Alex Stephan, Lead for the Special Programs and Scientific Studies Team at PNNL, George Muller for his support and direction, Hannah Trump for her substantial help with the appendices, and Dan Fortin, Sam Chatterjee, and Thomas Johansen for the constant discussions.
  • Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Homeland Security

    Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Homeland Security

    Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Homeland Security Strategic Intelligence Assessment and Data on Domestic Terrorism Submitted to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee of the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, and the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee of the Judiciary of the United States Senate May 2021 Page 1 of 40 Table of Contents I. Overview of Reporting Requirement ............................................................................................. 2 II. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2 III. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2 IV. Strategic Intelligence Assessment ................................................................................................... 5 V. Discussion and Comparison of Investigative Activities ................................................................ 9 VI. FBI Data on Domestic Terrorism ................................................................................................. 19 VII. Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................
  • Jurisdiction Over Terrorists Who Take Hostages: Efforts to Stop Terror-Violence Against United States Citizens Elizabeth R

    Jurisdiction Over Terrorists Who Take Hostages: Efforts to Stop Terror-Violence Against United States Citizens Elizabeth R

    American University International Law Review Volume 2 | Issue 1 Article 3 1987 Jurisdiction Over Terrorists Who Take Hostages: Efforts to Stop Terror-Violence Against United States Citizens Elizabeth R. P. Bowen Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Bowen, Elizabeth R. P. "Jurisdiction Over Terrorists Who Take Hostages: Efforts to Stop Terror-Violence Against United States Citizens." American University International Law Review 2, no. 1 (1987): 153-202. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS JURISDICTION OVER TERRORISTS WHO TAKE HOSTAGES: EFFORTS TO STOP TERROR-VIOLENCE AGAINST UNITED STATES CITIZENS Elizabeth R. P. Bowen* INTRODUCTION ............................... 154 I. INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: A GLOBAL CON- C ER N .......................................... 157 A. Hostage Taking: A Terror Tactic ............... 157 B. Definitional Dilemma: Terrorists v. Freedom Fighters ................................... 158 II. UNDERLYING AGITATORS .................... 162 A. State-Sponsored Terrorism ..................... 162 B. The Nature of Terrorist Warfare: Invisible Block- ades ........................................ 164 C. Television: The Role of the Media in the Growth of International Terrorism ........................ 165 1. First Amendment Balance ................. 166 2. Law Enforcement and Media .............. 167 D. Extradition: The Key to Prosecution ............. 168 III. UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO TERRORISM .. 171 A. Domestic Legislation .......................... 172 B. International Efforts of the United States .......
  • Definition of Terrorism Social and Political Effects

    Definition of Terrorism Social and Political Effects

    Review Articles Definition of Terrorism Social and Political Effects Gregor Bruce Introduction using the key words of “terrorism” and “definition”. Social structure and order, governance of society United Nations and politics are dependent on good communication, and good communication requires agreement on Terrorism is international. The command and control definitions of terminology. Terrorism can dramatically of terrorist groups, the recruitment, training, active influence the world, as shown by the far-reaching operations and the target audience can all be located and prolonged effects of the attacks in New York on in different countries and so counter-terrorist 11th September 2001. The definition of terrorism measures will not be effective unless all nations will affect communication and response to this issue cooperate in agreeing to the characteristics of and so have consequences for society and politics. terrorist groups and their activities. Agreement on a However a suitable universal definition remains common definition would be a step towards universal elusive because different bodies, organisations and cooperation in the prevention of terrorism. The UN government agencies have different definitions to unsuccessfully attempted to get universal agreement suit their own particular role, purpose or bias. after the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre. Some nations, particularly in Africa, Asia and the Middle Methodology East, were unwilling to label groups as terrorists if they sympathised with their aims, because of the A broad internet literature search was performed by perjorative aspects of the label. The West has also entering key words in widely used internet search sympathised with groups which have committed engines such as Google and Yahoo.
  • A Theory of Categorical Terrorism

    A Theory of Categorical Terrorism

    A Theory of Categorical Terrorism Jeff Goodwin, New York University Abstract When revolutionaries or insurgents, broadly defined, indiscriminately attack civilians, they generally attack “complicitous civilians,” i.e., those categories of noncombatants which the revolutionaries see as benefiting from, supporting and/or having a substantial capacity to influence the states that the revolutionaries are attempting to displace or overthrow. Such “categorical” terrorism will be most extensive when revolutionaries view these states (or complicitous civilians themselves) as perpetrators of extensive, indiscriminate violence against the revolutionaries and their constituents. However, if significant numbers of complicitous civilians are seen by rebel groups as potential supporters (or as capable of being influenced by nonviolent appeals or protests), then they will not be indiscriminately attacked. Whether specific categories of civilians will be perceived as potential allies by revolutionaries depends mainly on the prior history of political interaction and cooperation between these civilians and the revolutionaries. Categorical terrorism is most likely where there has been little such interaction or cooperation, resulting in weak political alliances between the revolutionaries and complicitous civilians – for example, where the revolutionaries and complicitous civilians speak different languages, practice different religions, claim the same land, and/or are territorially segregated. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have spurred many social scientists to explore the dynamics of terrorism, most for the first time. Before 9/11, terrorism research was the exclusive preserve, with very few exceptions, of small networks of political scientists and non-academic “security experts,” relatively few of whom were interested in social-science theory. Descriptive case studies abound, replete with ad hoc, case-specific explanations of terrorism.
  • Various Definitions of Terrorism

    Various Definitions of Terrorism

    Various Definitions of Terrorism Controversy in Defining Terrorism The difficulty in defining “terrorism” is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate; therefore, the modern definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The majority of definitions in use has been written by agencies directly associated with government, and is systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition. The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative-- it denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. As a practical matter, so-called acts of “terrorism” or terrorism are often a tactic committed by the actors as part of a larger military or geo-political agenda. United Nations The UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60 (adopted on December 9, 1994), titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," contains a provision describing terrorism: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition of terrorism, and this fact has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Terminology consensus would be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favor in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
  • Counter-Terrorism Reference Curriculum

    Counter-Terrorism Reference Curriculum

    COUNTER-TERRORISM REFERENCE CURRICULUM CTRC Academic Project Leads & Editors Dr. Sajjan M. Gohel, International Security Director Asia Pacific Foundation Visiting Teacher, London School of Economics & Political Science [email protected] & [email protected] Dr. Peter Forster, Associate Professor Penn State University [email protected] PfPC Reference Curriculum Lead Editors: Dr. David C. Emelifeonwu Senior Staff Officer, Educational Engagements Canadian Defence Academy Associate Professor Royal Military College of Canada Department of National Defence [email protected] Dr. Gary Rauchfuss Director, Records Management Training Program National Archives and Records Administration [email protected] Layout Coordinator / Distribution: Gabriella Lurwig-Gendarme NATO International Staff [email protected] Graphics & Printing — ISBN XXXX 2010-19 NATO COUNTER-TERRORISM REFERENCE CURRICULUM Published May 2020 2 FOREWORD “With guns you can kill terrorists, with education you can kill terrorism.” — Malala Yousafzai, Pakistani activist for female education and Nobel Prize laureate NATO’s counter-terrorism efforts have been at the forefront of three consecutive NATO Summits, including the recent 2019 Leaders’ Meeting in London, with the clear political imperative for the Alliance to address a persistent global threat that knows no border, nationality or religion. NATO’s determination and solidarity in fighting the evolving challenge posed by terrorism has constantly increased since the Alliance invoked its collective defence clause for the first time in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on the United States of America. NATO has gained much experience in countering terrorism from its missions and operations. However, NATO cannot defeat terrorism on its own. Fortunately, we do not stand alone.
  • Terrorism and Ideology: Cracking the Nut by Donald Holbrook and John Horgan

    Terrorism and Ideology: Cracking the Nut by Donald Holbrook and John Horgan

    PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 13, Issue 6 Terrorism and Ideology: Cracking the Nut by Donald Holbrook and John Horgan Abstract An enduring bugbear in the study of terrorism is conceptualizing the role ideology plays for individuals involved in such activities. Explanations range from presenting ideology as a key determinant to those who argue that it is often barely relevant at all. In this article we seek to reconcile competing notions of ideology in the emergence of terrorism by making the case for a non-binary conceptualization of ideology. Our approach here emphasizes interpretations of social identity over depictions of the doctrinal. We divide key concerns about ideology in individual processes to terrorism into three related arguments: ‘cognition’, ‘causation’ and ‘exposure’ and explore how these can be reconciled. This more nuanced conceptual understanding of ideology in processes leading to terrorism, we suggest, will aid our analysis of terrorism and the way in which we may approach ideological variables in its context. Keywords: terrorism, ideology, cognition, belief, violence. Introduction The question ‘what causes terrorism?’ is perhaps both the most frequent and inevitable response to violent extremist events today. Though the search for satisfactory answers continues to elude even the most dedicated researchers, one common assumption centers around the role of ideology. That is to say, despite not necessarily knowing much about the precise mechanisms involved, we might safely assume that when it comes to explaining terrorism (as opposed to other kinds of illicit violent activities), that ideology plays at least some role in the development of violent extremist activity. However, there is no consensus in discussions about terrorism of what the role of ideology in these processes may look like.
  • Definition of Terrorism by Country in Oecd Countries

    Definition of Terrorism by Country in Oecd Countries

    DEFINITION OF TERRORISM BY COUNTRY IN OECD COUNTRIES There have been some definitional differences in the use of the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘act of terrorism’ between OECD countries. It is for this reason that a comparison is necessary to clarify the scope of the operation of the terrorism risk insurance programmes. The OECD International Platform on Terrorism Risk Insurance shares information and identifies good practices for the financial management of terrorism risk, to contribute to fast economic recovery in the event of attacks. This comparative table is regularly updated. It is the product of joint work between national terrorism insurance schemes, the OECD and the World Forum of Catastrophe Programmes. www.oecd.org/daf/fin/insurance/terrorism-risk-insurance.htm DEFINITION OF TERRORISM BY COUNTRY IN OECD COUNTRIES Status of definition of Intention of terrorist act Identification of those Means used Targets/effects terrorism behind the act Contained in s 5 Terrorism Insurance Action done or threat made, with the Not specified An act (or threat of an act), that is not advocacy, An action that causes serious harm to a Act 2003 intention of advancing a political, religious protest, dissent or industrial action, that causes person, serious damage to property, or ideological cause, with the intention of specified damage. causes death or endangers life or creates a Act of terrorism has to be certified by coercing or influencing by intimidation the serious health or safety risk, or seriously the Commonwealth Treasurer, after government of Australia or the Australian interferes with, or disrupts or destroys an consultation with the Commonwealth States or Territories, or a foreign country, or electronic system.
  • Terrorism - the Efinitd Ional Problem Alex Schmid

    Terrorism - the Efinitd Ional Problem Alex Schmid

    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 36 | Issue 2 2004 Terrorism - The efinitD ional Problem Alex Schmid Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Alex Schmid, Terrorism - The Definitional Problem, 36 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 375 (2004) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol36/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. TERRORISM - THE DEFINITIONAL PROBLEM* Alex Schmidt "Increasingly, questions are being raised about the problem of the definition of a terrorist. Let us be wise and focused about this: terrorism is terrorism.. What looks, smells and kills like terrorism is terrorism." - Sir Jeremy Greenstock, British Ambassador to the UnitedNations, in post September 11, 2001 speech' "It is not enough to declare war on what one deems terrorism without giving a precise and exact definition." - PresidentEmile Lahoud,Lebanon (2004)2 "An objective definition of terrorism is not only possible; it is also indispensable to any serious attempt to combat terrorism." - Boaz Ganor,Director of the InternationalPolicy Institutefor Counter- Terrorism3 * Presented at the War Crimes Research Symposium: "Terrorism on Trial" at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, sponsored by the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, on Friday, Oct. 8, 2004. t The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the author and do not represent official positions of the United Nations which has not yet reached a consensus on the definition of terrorism.
  • Comments on the Law on Combatting Terrorism of the Republic of Uzbekistan

    Comments on the Law on Combatting Terrorism of the Republic of Uzbekistan

    Warsaw, 20 December 2019 Opinion-Nr.: TERR-UZB/355/2019 [JG/AlC] www.legislationline.org COMMENTS ON THE LAW ON COMBATTING TERRORISM OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN based on an unofficial English translation of the Law commissioned by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights These Comments have benefited from contributions made by Richard Clayton QC, Barrister, London, United Kingdom; and Professor Helen Duffy, Professor of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, University of Leiden. OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Ulica Miodowa 10 PL-00-251 Warsaw ph. +48 22 520 06 00 fax. +48 22 520 0605 These Comments are also available in Russian. However, the English version remains the only official version of the document. OSCE/ODIHR Comments on the Law on Combatting Terrorism of the Republic of Uzbekistan TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 3 II. SCOPE OF REVIEW ................................................................................... 3 III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 4 IV. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 7 1. International Standards on Preventing and Combatting Terrorism .................... 7 2. General Remarks ..................................................................................................... 10 3. Definition of “Terrorism” and related Terms ......................................................
  • Terrorism Against Democracy

    Terrorism Against Democracy

    Terrorism Against Democracy By M. Merrick Yamamoto CISSM Working Paper January 2015 Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland 4113 Van Munching Hall, School of Public Policy University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 (301) 405-7601 Terrorism Against Democracy Based in Part on Stansfield Turner’s University of Maryland Course, “Terrorism & Democracy” By M. Merrick Yamamoto © 2015 by M. Merrick Yamamoto Preface & Acknowledgements This monograph approaches the problem of terrorism from the perspective of the process of a terrorist attack; that is, how terrorism is intended to “operate.” Comprehension of the intended process of the terrorist attack can help defeat terrorists, reduce terrorism, and avoid the damage that can result from poor responses to attacks. Part I of the monograph analyzes terrorism. Chapter 1 analyzes what terrorism is, and what kinds of acts are and are not terrorism. Chapter 2 analyzes the ways that terrorism is intended to operate on third-parties—the governments, organizations, individuals, and groups from which terrorists seek to elicit responses. Chapter 3 analyzes the causes of terrorism, and the threats that terrorism poses. Part II addresses what to do about terrorism—how to prevent terrorism, respond effectively to attacks, and defeat terrorists. Analysis of the steps of the terrorist attack shows that terrorism can be prevented and countered at each step. The monograph then addresses a general counterterrorism strategy. The monograph uses the Turner-Yamamoto Terrorism Model as a guide to comprehending terrorism and how to combat it. The model illustrates the steps of the terrorist attack, and shows how terrorism is intended to operate.