Domestic Terrorism Every Discussion Related

Domestic Terrorism

Every discussion related to the phenomenon of terrorism must take into account certain aspects of this flagellum. On the one hand, it is important to consider the connection between domestic terrorism and international terrorism, taking into account the fact that they both use violence means in attaining their goals and influencing political leaders and governments. On the other hand, in an era of communication, the role of the Internet will prove essential both for the harmless communication between people worldwide and for the terrorist groups as well. It is important to consider the role of Internet for these terrorist groups and its use for creating across the border connections. Also, terrorist groups tend to have common violent techniques for conducting their activities, but at the same time, they tend to vary their means of action. Another element that must be taken into account is the issues that tend to encourage criminality and violence, such as gun possession which can make it easier for terrorist groups to provoke violence. However, there are views such as Peter Hamm's that see small cheap guns to be the real issue in terms of gun control and not expensive un affordable ones which have been the focus of government control. Finally, despite long discussions over domestic and international terrorism, there is a question lingering that of an eventual end to such violent threats, both internally and externally. Thus, it is important to see the extent in which terrorism can be defeated or it is a modern reality people around the world and citizens from the U.S. must deal with from now on.

Domestic terrorism has affected the American society for the most part of its history. Since the early days of the Union there have been groups that used violent means in order to achieve some sort of social and political goal. The Ku Klux Klan is representative in this sense, as their actions included serious attacks especially on the black population in the South of the country.

At the same time, however, the historical development of the American society has placed other minority groups as targets for extremist organizations. Thus, domestic terrorism also relies of hatred based on religion, race, or special interests. On the other hand, international terrorism has become a seriously discussed issue taking into account recent developments in the United States as well as outside the country. The 9/11 attacks, together with the Madrid and London bombings have proven the increased impact such types of actions have on the population as well as on the governing structures of the state. Therefore, it cannot be argued precisely which of the two types of terrorism has a bigger importance because each in its own way gives rise to certain effects that put in question the actual balance of the society: domestic terrorism affects the country from the inside, while international terrorism affects it from the outside.

Although the terms of domestic terrorism and international terrorism differ in their definition, the ever changing relations in the world and especially the continuous process of globalization has led to the situation in which even the terrorist phenomenon is internationalized and global. This is why it cannot be said that domestic terrorism in not to a certain extent influenced by international forces. More precisely however, there are certain forms of domestic terrorism represented by groups with ties all over the world.

The most common groups are the ones engaged in special interest domestic terrorism. This can be justified by the fact that their goals, such as the protection of the animals, the protection of the environment are in fact global issues and are not issues that affect strictly the American society. Therefore, the Animal Liberation Front for instance has important international ties with organizations from the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. (Animal Liberation Front, 2007)

Their common enemies are most often governments and legislative bodies that either refuse to pass laws to protect animals from abuses, or encourage different practices such as animal testing or torture. At the same time however, especially groups that militate for the protection of the environment and against global warming tend to direct their actions against companies that they consider to be responsible for increasing pollution or the degradation of the climate. This justifies the constant protests that take place every year at the meetings of the G8 or the Davos summits. (Greenpeace, 2007) the most outspoken voices in this context are considered to be the Greenpeace activists.

The internet has become one of the most important means of communication for people around the world. It breaks through national barriers, time zones, and it offers the informational framework that enables real time communication. However, the same means available to common people are available to terrorist groups as well. In this context, the government's initiatives to restrict or drastically monitor the activities conducted on the Internet tends to affect the average citizen to a larger extent than the terrorist groups because unlike the normal citizen, terrorist groups can easily find other means of communication which are rarely subject to state monitoring. At the same time, there is another issue that arises, in terms of the right to privacy which, in the conditions in which the government controls Internet connections and conversations, is drastically breached. Thus, there are two ideas which come in conflict regarding this aspect. On the one hand, there is the right to privacy, guaranteed by the Constitution, and on the other hand, there is the increasing need for protection against unconventional threats such as domestic and international terrorism.

Despite this dilemma between the right to privacy and the need to be protected, there are limited solutions which can be taken into consideration in order to cater for both needs. There are limited, if any, means through which the government can actually monitor the activities of terrorist groups without monitoring a wider spectrum of possible suspects. This is due to the fact that terrorism is not considered to be a completely identifiable crime, but rather it is an unconventional threat, unlike any traditional ones seen in the past. Plots are being conducted via the electronic mail, contacts are being established through virtual correspondence; therefore, the threats are not visible and most of the times when discussing the communication on the Internet, the authors of these threats are not identified but through an IP address. In the light of such realities, I consider that the action undergone at the level of the government, which includes satellite surveillance, internet surveillance, and even the breach of one person's privacy is justifiable if this contributes at stopping a terrorist attack or the planning of a subversive action.

Indeed, however, the question arises on the issue of possible abuses that can take place at the level of the FBI agencies which conduct these surveillance and monitoring operations. This is why it is important that these activities of control be conducted under the legal authorization of the Congress, and with a clear mandate from the higher authorities.

Domestic terrorism, despite the fact that it can be divided into right wing, left wing and interest-based terrorism, most often employs similar techniques. This can be explained through the fact that, in general, they tend to have the same goal that of influencing the political and social environment in achieving their goals. This cannot be done but through acts of violence and intimidation along with destructive measures. At the same time however, in order to influence the political factors of decision, the abuses against a certain group of the population is also important. For instance, in the case of racial groups, they often target black or Asian people in order to draw the attention of the discontent the presence of such minority groups represent for the society terrorist groups think they represent. According to the FBI, "Terrorism and crime are inextricably linked. International and Domestic Terrorism Organizations and their supporters engage in a myriad of crimes to fund and facilitate terrorist activities. These crimes include extortion, kidnapping, robbery, corruption, alien smuggling, document fraud, arms trafficking, cyber crime, white collar crime, smuggling of contraband, money laundering and certainly drug trafficking." (FBI, 2003) These means are also used in order to attract funds for their activities and to expand their scope of action.

One of the most important issues under discussion related to domestic terrorism is gun control. Indeed, there is an increased worry about the right to own guns due to the fact that in this way, the number of guns on the market and in people's homes would dramatically rise. Also, it would offer domestic terrorists the opportunity to acquire guns without any additional illegal actions and this in its turn would facilitate the possession and use. However, on the other hand, an easier legislation allowing people to have fire arms would cater for their right to self-defense. Therefore, the discussion is taken between the idea or the right to protection and the danger of increasing the number of guns on the streets and thus the feeling of insecurity.

There have been analyses made regarding this aspect and opinions are both for an easier gun regulation as well as against such a legislative initiative. On the one hand, it is considered that indeed legally allowing people to buy guns would automatically trigger a greater number of fire arms. (Workman, 2006) on the other hand however, Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, suggests that the government's activities is directed in the wrong place because "it's the guns that have been around a while that could wind up in criminal hands not the guy who's going out and buying a new $700 handgun.... The guns that cause the worst problems in this country are not selling for very high prices." (Workman, 2006) Therefore, it can be said that the most important issue is not exactly the restriction of expensive guns, but rather the restriction of cheap, easy to use fire arms because those are most appealing to domestic terrorist groups who do not have large financial resources or members with good gun skills.