Chapter 17 - Defining Terrorism

1
Chapter 17 - Defining Terrorism
2
Terrorism in the US prior to 9/11

• Bombings with the Union movement - Haymarket
  Square
• Have any presidential assassinations been
  terrorism?
• Abortion clinic bombings and shootings?
• Oklahoma City
• The earlier bombing of the World Trade Center
• Were the Black Panthers a terrorist group?
• PETA?
• The Unibomber?

3
What are We Fighting?

• Is terrorism the problem, or is terrorism just a
  technique, like the blitzkrieg?
• Can we fight terrorism or do we have to fight the
  groups that sponsor it?
• Why is this harder for NGO terrorists?
• What about individuals with personal agendas?
• Is terrorism a natural part of the modern world?
• Asymmetric warfare?

4
What makes a Crime a Terrorist Act?

• Can you tell from the act itself?
• Blowing up a city market as part of a protection
  racket?
• Murder of a politician because of her views?
• Drive by shootings in a drug war?
• How is this like the definition of hate crimes?

5
Terrorists v. Freedom Fighters?

• How does the frame of reference determine whether
  an act is terrorism or freedom fighting?
• Is killing civilians the key?
• Does it have to be intentionally killing
  civilians?
• Do we give violent antiabortion groups the same
  attention as Islamic extremist groups?
• How does the characterization of the acts change
  in history when the terrorists win the conflict
  and become the legitimate government?

6
Why does the Legal Definition of Terrorism Matter?

• The designation by the Secretary results in
  blocking any funds which the organization has on
  deposit with any financial institution in the
  United States.
• Representatives and certain members of the
  organization are barred from entry into the
  United States.
• Perhaps most importantly, all persons within or
  subject to jurisdiction of the United States are
  forbidden from knowingly providing material
  support or resources to the organization.
• Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
  1996, 8 U.S.C. 1189

7
Definitions of Terrorism
8
NSDD-207

• that terrorists use or threaten violence against
  innocents to achieve a political objective
  through coercion or intimidation of an audience
  beyond the immediate victims.

9
State Department

• premeditated, politically motivated violence
  perpetrated against noncombatant targets by
  subnational groups or clandestine agents.

10
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)

• (I) The hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance.
  . . .
• (II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to
  kill, injure, or continue to detain, another
  individual in order to compel a third person
  (including a governmental organization) to do or
  abstain from doing any act as an explicit or
  implicit condition for the release of the
  individual seized or detained.
• (III) A violent attack upon an internationally
  protected person . . . or upon the liberty of
  such a person.
• (IV) An assassination.
• (V) The use of any
• (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear
  weapon or device, or
• (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapons or
  dangerous device (other than for mere personal
  monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly
  or indirectly, the safety of one or more
  individuals or to cause substantial damage to
  property.
• (VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any
  of the foregoing.

11
Must there be One Definition?

• It is estimated that there are more than 150
  slightly different definitions of terrorism in
  the USC
• What is the legal significance of multiple
  definitions of terrorism?
• Does this pose constitutional problems for
  vagueness?

12
First Trade Center Bombing - U.S. v. Yousef, 327
F.3d 56 (2nd Cir.(N.Y.) 2003)

• Is terrorism banned by jus cogens?
• Are there acts that do violate jus cogens that
  could also be terrorism?
• Were the Nazi death camps terrorism?
• Rounding up people in towns and shooting them?
• What did Justice Bork say about the definition of
  terrorism in customary international law?

13
Why did Justice Robb say it was non-justiciable?

• International law, or the absence thereof,
  renders even the search for the least common
  denominators of civilized conduct in this area
  defining and punishing acts of terrorism an
  impossible-to-accomplish judicial task. Courts
  ought not to engage in it when that search takes
  us towards a consideration of terrorisms place
  in the international order. Indeed, when such a
  review forces us to dignify by judicial notice
  the most outrageous of the diplomatic charades
  that attempt to dignify the violence of terrorist
  atrocities, we corrupt our own understanding of
  evil.

14
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v.
Department of State, 327 F.3d 1238 (D.C.Cir. ,
2003) - cite is wrong in the book

• What are the plaintiffs contesting?
• What happens if they lose?
• What did the court require the secretary to do
  for due process?
• We held that the Constitution requires the
  Secretary in designating foreign terrorist
  organizations to provide to the potential
  designees, notice that the designation is
  impending. We further required that the
  Secretary must afford the potential designee an
  opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time
  and in a meaningful manner.

15
Did the Secretary Comply?

• Why did plaintiffs say the notice of charges did
  not comply with the due process requirements?
• What did plaintiffs admit they have done that the
  court thinks justifies the classification? (475)
• Plaintiffs claim this law interferes with their
  1st Amendment right of free speech. How does the
  court answer this?