Political repression and domestic terrorism in the United States

Terrorism has been defined as the sub-state application of violence or threatened violence intended to sow panic in a society to weaken or even overthrow the incumbents, and to bring about political change'. The society has observed several practices which are aimed at spreading 'intimidation, panic, and destruction in a population'. In real practice it has been observed that such individuals and groups which have differences with the state or government about policies and implementation are likely to create disorder ness through terrorist means. In most of the cases such institutions and places are more vulnerable to terrorism through which the group or an individual is likely to capture focus, and sent strong message to the government, state or masses, therefore the 'violence is often disproportionate, apparently random'. In some of the cases it is observed that government and law enforcement agencies are involved in terrorists plot for their ulterior motives, 'violence perpetrated by the state or by right wing terrorist groups is anonymous'.

The country under political transition is more volatile for the terrorist activities, therefore in many of the cases states where the people are subjected to authoritarian styled government, the threat of terrorism was more imminent, 'the states which were positioned in the average range of political rights experienced greater risk and potential for the development of domestic terrorism, the mild level of the domestic terrorism was responsible for social unrest in the states where there was extreme degree of political violations were committed by the government, and the government practiced and adopted authoritarian style of governance'. The level of terrorism is based on the political freedom enjoyed by the people of the state, the presence of terrorism and its nourishment occurs when the political rights of the people are exploited by the state elements.

Domestic Terrorism: Principal Drivers behind U.S. Political Violence

The determinants of the transnational and domestic politics are different, the transnational terrorism is based on the concerns and grievances shared by the poverty stricken people against rich people, in the case of transnational terrorism the terrorist individual and group plan to attack the rich citizens, this opportunity is taken to reveal the concerns and demands of the terrorist group. In the case of the domestic terrorism the approach is different. The domestic terrorism has different reasons; the uprising is based on the social, political and ethnic negligence of the state towards its citizens. There is major difference between the historians, according to some the per capita national income has outraged the citizens, and compelled them to bridge association with terrorist groups, and terrorism based activities, on the other hand some historians have regarded the direct affiliation of the poverty with domestic terrorism as nuisance. It has been observed that it is the access to political rights that has restricted and influenced the affiliation of the people towards terrorism, the access to political rights have reduced the frequency of the terrorist events, and have further reduced the number of individuals indulged in such practices. The high levels of terrorism was rampant in the case where the state delivered lower levels of political rights to the citizens, when the sate offered higher possible level of the political rights, the frequency of the terrorist events reduced, and lowest level of terrorism was practiced. In the case of U.S. The relationship between the terrorism and level of political rights was not linear, in situations where the states offered intermediate range of political freedom to its citizens, there were increase number of reported terrorist incidents.

The reasons of such behavior have been based on two different possibilities, 'On the one hand, the repressive practices commonly adopted by autocratic regimes to eliminate political dissent may help keep terrorism at bay, on the other hand, intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism'. It has been also observed that the level and concentration of the terrorist incidents varied geographically, therefore geographical features including weather, elevation and area are the reported factors which have influenced the level of terrorism.

The government was accused of their arrogant practice, and this is considered to be the major reason responsible for the increase in the incidents of domestic terrorism. The governments of states of U.S. were reported failed to ensure correspondence and understanding with the citizens, and therefore the absence of any direct medium between the citizens and the government ignited the cause of domestic terrorism. The U.S. government is also accused of target violence, and was involved in the state terrorism against selected people, having differences with the government over political, social and economic issues. The arrogant approach of the government toward its citizens, or particular group was responsible for the failure in the creation and implementation of the law at different pace and level, which contradicted the stand of the government and the individual citizens, and ultimately the gap shuffled the political conquests of the individuals, and the maneuvering was responsible for the rise of domestic terrorism.

During the period of 1800s the citizens of the U.S. had conservative and critical approach towards the government; the citizens feared that the creation of the enforcement by various agencies against particular class and group was aimed at suppression of rights and freedom. 'When citizens of any nation fear the bureaucracies created in their government that regime becomes a tyranny'.

Left Wing and Right Wing: Approach and Stand

The criminal interpretation and the interpretation of the hostile attitude are different by the right wing and left wing observers. The right wing has observed the criminals as the sole responsible for their actions, and has supported the practice of harsh treatment towards people who express hostile attitude and approach towards the state. The left wing observers are of the opinion that people involve in terrorist plot and hostile approach should be provided with basic amenities, and the resolution of their issues can lead towards the change in their approach towards their violent practices. The left wing are more sympathetic towards the criminals, and believe that these individuals are either compelled or severe psychological unrest and have experienced injustice, therefore the government should take soft stand, and should seek the early resolution of their problems, instead of announcing sentence or harsh punishments against them.

The leftwing and right wing approach can be explained through an example of the beggar on the street. The left wing will be of the opinion that the beggar is innocent, and is victim of social and economic injustice, and right wing will regard the beggar as person who is non-serious towards his profession, and therefore lazy enough to work hard. The left wing will considered the beggar to be at par with others on moral grounds, and will therefore demand the access of the beggar towards loans and welfare scheme. The right wing will condemn the free access of the beggar towards economic reforms, and will doubt that if access to these economic provisions will further involve the participation of the beggar into bad social habits. According to left wing the provided assistance to the beggar will make him contribute towards turning the world into better place for survival, where as the rightwing will consider such a measure as a threat to world peace.

Shane Harris. Domestic Counter-terrorism. 2007. National Journal Publications.

Kevin Jack Riley, Bruce Hoffman. Domestic Terrorism: A National Assessment of State and Local Law Enforcement Preparedness. 1995. MIT Press.pp. 34

Jay P. Farrington. Domestic Terrorism. 2001. HW Wilson. pp. 196

Robert a. Kilmarx, Yonah Alexander. Political Terrorism and Business: The Threat and Response. 1979. Hw Wilson. pp. 94

Jay P. Farrington. Domestic Terrorism. 2001. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 84

Anthony Kubiak. Stages of Terror: Terrorism, Ideology, and Coercion as Theatre History. 1991. pp. 142

Robyn L. Pangi, Arnold M. Howitt. Countering Terrorism:: Dimensions of Preparedness. 2003. MIT Press. pp. 341

Philip B. Heymann. Terrorism and America: A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society. 1998. MIT Press. pp. 110

Col (Retd) Eas Bokhari. The Genesis of Terrorism. National Journal Publications

Philip B. Heymann. Terrorism and America: A Commonsense Strategy for a Democratic Society. 1998. MIT Press. pp. 274