RSS
Home
Acts of terrorism should be investigated, prosecuted and punished as criminal offenses
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In a previous post, I suggested that the way to best challenge and defeat terrorists would be to use well established and experienced civilian law enforcement agencies to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and, if appropriate, punish and incarcerate those convicted through the regular judicial system.
Almost ten years ago, the United States General Accounting Office published a report studying the manner in which Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and the United Kingdom addressed the issues. Certainly, no one can doubt that the United Kingdom has had years of terrorist acts by the I.R.A. and Israel has been under the threat of imminent attacks from the day it was established
The G.A.O. summarized its findings that these countries do not use military personnel or operations as an initial approach. Among the findings,
The five countries we examined have similarities in how they are organized to combat terrorism.
The countries have clearly designated who is in charge during a terrorist incident—typically their national or local non-military police.
The countries have national policies that emphasize prevention of terrorism. To achieve their policies, the countries use a variety of strategies, including intelligence collection, police presence, and various security measures such as physical barriers at the entrances to public buildings.
These countries primarily use their general criminal laws (e.g., those for murder or arson) to prosecute terrorists. The countries also have special terrorism-related laws that allow for special investigations or prosecution mechanisms and increased penalties.
In the instances of terrorist activity in this country, we have had the most success when our regular law enforcement agencies did what they do best, investigate the specific crime involved, locate and arrest the perpetrator and, after affording him or her a fair trial that follows our legal and moral guidelines, punish the guilty. Thus we can combat acts of terrorists and the terrorists while keeping to our values of due process, prompt trial or at least a judicial review of the reasonableness of the arrest and detention, the right to counsel and so forth.
Example: the bombing of the Federal Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was bombed by Timothy McVeigh in 1995. He was apprehended, tried, convicted and, on June 11, 2001, executed.
Earlier this month, four Muslim men plotted to bomb synagogues in New York as well as fire a missile and destroy an airplane.
Those involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center were extradited, tried and convicted in a Unites States court.
A number of apparent terrorists have been tried in a United States court, all with fair and just proceedings, adjudication of guilt and legally appropriate sentences.
So we know the system works. We know that are values would not be compromised. It seems like a win-win proposition.
The Rand Corporation, a "think-tank" used by the United States to advise the military and civilian agencies on policy and approaches to issues, an organization universally respected as being non-partisan, has issued a report stating that the "War on Terror" is ineffective and will not reduce the threats caused by terrorist organizations. The Report continues, in part:
"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members
"All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory.
Following 9/11, the nation demanded action. I submit the use of war as that action was ill-advised.
We will not “win” a conventional “war” and more people will die unnecessarily because of that.
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
SLB has submitted her opening statement in which she takes issue with some of my views. To make matters clearer for the readers of these points of …
- Email criticisms and accolades to jstillman@iqzero.net
- Check out advertisers on this page
