Hi all; Interesting chapter on Terrorism:
COMBATING TERRORISM
MAJ SMIDT, International & Operational Law Department
...
HISTORICAL USE OF TERRORISM
Terrorism can be traced back to the Ancient Greek and Roman Republics. According to its classical definition, the assassination of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. was an act of terrorism.
The Zealots-Sicarii, a Jewish group, lead a campaign against Roman and Greek occupation forces in Judea. Their technique was to murder individual victims using daggers or swords in an attempt to incite a mass uprising. They later turned to open warfare. Their activities had various unintended consequences such as the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the mass suicide at Masada.
The word “assassin” is a literal translation of the Arab phrase “hashish-eater” or “one addicted to hashish.” From 1090 to 1275, a group of sectarian Moslem fanatics, while under the influence of drugs and motivated by political and religious zeal, spread terror among Christian forces as a result of their unconventional acts of extreme violence. Their objective was to establish a “purified” version of Islam. These Assassins, the Ismalis-Nizari, would stab their victims in broad daylight, which made their escape impossible. Much like today’s modern car bombers, they considered their lives a worthwhile sacrifice.
...
Terrorist groups that were willing to kill or injure large numbers of people ran the risk of unfettered reprisal by the state.
...
In 1995, only 25% of terrorist attacks were by religious groups but were responsible for 58% of the deaths.10 Religious groups seem to be far less concerned with causing mass casualties.
...
Loss of popular support is of little or no concern. Acting for God not popular opinion.
...
DOS says that Afghanistan is not fully cooperating with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.
...
Arguably however, the concept of reprisal does not apply to nonstate actors. Reprisal is an intentional violation of international law to deter another from violating international laws. To say that it is even possible to conduct a reprisal against a terrorist is to raise the status of the terrorist to state actor level.
Modern military actions against terrorism blur the lines between self-defense, deterrence, retribution, and punishment. Punishment may be an effective method of deterrence, which then translate to self-defense against continuing or future attacks.
...
The law of war will not normally apply to counterterrorist attacks as a matter of law. However, as a matter of policy, the U.S. will generally apply the law of war to attacks on terrorists as a matter of policy.
...
As a matter of policy, the U.S. applies the law of war in all armed conflicts, however characterized, and the principles and spirit of the law of war in all operations other than war.
...
au.af.mil
I'm guessing that the book that this comes from is linked somewhere in this extensive list:
au.af.mil
-- Carl |
