CRMJ WEEK 3 DISCUSSION

Democracies are constrained by strong constitutions from summarily violating the rights of its citizens. Most democracies have due process requirements in place when security services wish to engage in surveillance, search premises, seize evidence, or detain suspects. However, when confronted by serious security challenges, democracies have resorted to authoritarian security measures. Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all adopted aggressive policies to suppress perceived threats to national security.

For example:

In the United States, periodic anti-Communist “Red Scares” occurred when national leaders reacted to the perceived threat of Communist subversion. Government officials reacted by adopting authoritarian measures to end the perceived threats. The first Red Scare occurred after the founding of the Communist Party—USA in 1919, and a series of letter bombs were intercepted. President Woodrow Wilson allowed Attorney General R. Mitchell Palmer to conduct a series of raids—the so-called Palmer Raids—against Communist and other leftist radical groups. Offices of these groups were shut down, leaders were arrested and put on trial, and hundreds were deported.

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW

A second Red Scare occurred in the 1930s. This Scare resulted in the creation of the House Un-American Activities Committee and the passage of the Smith Act in 1940, which made advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government a federal crime. In the late 1940s Communists were prosecuted, and high-profile investigations were made of people such as Alger Hiss.

A third Red Scare occurred in the 1950s when Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin held a series of hearings to expose Communist infiltration in government, industry, and Hollywood. Hundreds of careers were ruined, and many people were “blacklisted,” meaning that they were barred from obtaining employment.

In Northern Ireland, the British government has periodically passed legislation to combat terrorism by the IRA. These laws granted British forces authoritarian powers in Northern Ireland. One such law was the 1973 Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act, which provided the military with sweeping powers to temporarily arrest and detain people and to search homes in Northern Ireland without warrants. Under the Act, the army detained hundreds of people and searched more than 250,000 homes. This sweep was actually fairly successful, because thousands of weapons were found and seized.

Discussion Questions: Again choose one to answer – be sure to meet the minimum requirements MUST BE AT LEAST 500 WORDS, APA FORMAT, AT LEAST 2 REFERENCES

Are authoritarian methods morally compatible with democratic principles and institutions?

Under what  circumstances are authoritarian policies justifiable and necessary, even in democracies with strong constitutional traditions?

The postwar Red Scare investigations in the United States have been labeled by many as “witch hunts.” Were these investigations nevertheless justifiable,      considering the external threat from the Soviet Union?

The British  security services detained hundreds of innocent people and searched the  homes of many thousands of non-IRA members. Considering the threat from      the IRA, were these inconveniences nevertheless justifiable?

Assume for a moment that some security environments justify the use of authoritarian measures by democracies. What kind of “watchdog” checks and balances are needed to ensure that democracies do not move toward permanent authoritarianism?

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW

READINGS

The 9/11 Commission Report, Chpts. 2, 4, 5
Article on  ISIS: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/03/world/middleeast/syria-iraq-isis-rogue-state-along-two-rivers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&modref=HPInteractiveRefer&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The following article on religious fundamentalism and modernity should also be read:
http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-fundamentalists-4891
Read the following article on two key players in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~orr20l/classweb/worldpolitics116/pages/leaders.html

Chapter 4

Terror From Above

Terrorism by the State

A State Terrorism Paradigm

• Understanding State-Sponsored Terrorism: State Patronage and Assistance
  • Linkages between regimes and terrorism range from clear lines to murky “deniable” associations.
  • Concepts:
    • State patronage for terrorism.
    • State assistance for terrorism.
  • State Sponsorship: The Patronage Model
    • Active state participation in terrorist behavior.
      • Foreign and domestic participation
    • Active involvement by agencies and personnel.
    • Cases: Direct arming, training, and providing sanctuary.
  • State Sponsorship: The Assistance Model
    • Tacit state participation in terrorist behavior.
      • Foreign and domestic participation.
    • Indirect support for extremist proxies.
    • Cases: Indirectly arming, training, and sanctuary.
  • Case in Point: Failed States
    • Involuntary hosts of terrorist organizations and networks.
    • Territory serves as sanctuary for extremist groups, without state cooperation.
    • Cases: Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq.

State Terrorism as Foreign Policy

• Moral Support
  • Politically sympathetic sponsorship.
  • Open embracement of the main beliefs and principles of a cause.
  • Governments may act as ideological role models for championed groups.
  • Case: Iranian support for Islamist movements.
• Technical Support
  • Logistically supportive sponsorship.
  • Providing aid and comfort to a championed cause, directly or indirectly.
  • Permits an aggressive agenda while allowing “deniability.”
  • Case: Syrian regime of Hafez el-Assad.
• Selective Participation
  • Episode-specific sponsorship.
  • Support for a single incident or a series of incidents.
  • Carried out by proxies or agents of the state.
  • Case: Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
• Active Participation
  • Joint operations.
  • Government personnel jointly carry out campaigns in cooperation with a championed proxy.
  • Case: Phoenix Program.

State Terrorism as Domestic Policy

• Legitimizing State Authority
  • Every type of regime seeks to legitimize its authority and maintain its social order.
  • Crazy states.
• Vigilante Domestic State Terrorism
  • Unofficial repression.
  • Terrorism perpetrated by nongovernmental groups.
  • Unofficial support from agents of the state.
  • Case: Paramilitaries and death squads.
• Official Domestic State Terrorism
  • Repression as a state’s domestic policy.
  • Deliberate adoption of domestic terrorism.
  • Overt cases: Policies of Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and Taliban Afghanistan.
  • Covert case: Iran during the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
• Genocidal Domestic State Terrorism
  • Raphael Lemkin’s 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe.
  • Scapegoating a group of people as policy.
  • Acts classified as genocide against a group:
    • Killing members of the group.
    • Creating conditions leading to the partial or complete destruction of the group.
    • Preventing births or forcibly transferring children.

Monitoring State Terrorism

• S. Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism
  • Annual list of countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism.
• Private Agencies Monitoring Political Abuses
  • Human Rights Watch
  • Amnesty International

PLACE YOUR ORDER NOW