Eli D. Boldt

Sociology of Terrorism: Sociology 3315

Professor Edward Crenshaw

State Responses to Terror and Human Rights

Spring 2016

1

Introduction:

Government’s response to an act of terror is one of the most important decisions it can

make as an administration. The response can set the tone for how the aftermath will continue and

how the citizens will react to such a horrific event. This paper will develop an understanding of

terrorism and responses to terrorism on a global scale. We look toward the United Nations, the

intergovernmental body for global cooperation, on how best to handle acts of terror. It is then

important to understand some constants that come with terror response and the balance between

freedom and repression for purposes of security. This paper will examine the delicate balance

between the two and show why in these extreme moments, often times freedom is sacrificed for

security. While many States handle terror response with repressive acts, this paper delves further

into examining what the United States Justice System does in order to combat terrorism and

prosecute those who are involved. Further, while September 11, 2001 changed the lives of many

Americans forever, it also changed how terrorism is dealt with at home and abroad, shown by

examining the United Nations as well as the United States Security measures. The last section of

the paper delves into the roles that citizens play in this process. It is important to get an

understanding of their own response to terror, as well as options they have when repressive

measures are taken against them in times of war and terror. Citizens, as the paper will show, have

much power in influencing the response to terror, weather that is in the justice system and how

they terrorists are prosecuted, or the influence of how their government’s policies are enacted. If

acting to weak, the people will try to preserve their national security, but if acting to repressive,

people will exercise their power to earn back their human rights. It’s a delicate balance for both

sides, and often times the pendulum swings to the side of repression.

2

Global Response:

One of the first topics I mentioned expanding on was the topic of terrorism reactions on a

global level and how to best handle that. The United Nations has tried to implement some

different standards in how to best develop a singular reaction towards terrorism. This is

important because providing one strong, unified voice will be able to carry the weight of a global

authority. Brought on by the United States after September 11th, the United Nations has formed a

smaller task force called the Global Safety Authority (GSA). The GSA encompasses most of the

nations around the world with different missions. One such mission of the GSA is that of

antiterrorism and providing a unified response to dealing to global terrorism (Etzioni 2004:12).

Furthering the effort to counter terrorism, the United Nations released a statement

regarding their plan as an international force to combat and respond to terrorist activities. The

United Nations points that while acts of terrorism are increasing on a global scale, an

international solution is also gaining a firm hand in terror relations. Over the past five years the

United Nations has worked in collaborative efforts with many of its participating nations to

increase counter-terrorism activities, increase inter-agency coordination, and enhance

international partnerships. To initiate their counter-terrorism response, the United Nations is

focused on a five-point plan. First, they believe they must continue to increase security and law

enforcement. By doing so they hope to deprive terrorist of weapons and resources that they

might need. Secondly, education, development, and inter-cultural dialogue are all important to

the response to countering terrorism. Thirdly, the United Nation is focused on studying why

violence attracts people, and why. Believing that if they can understand this, they are able to

respond to terrorism in a more scientific and strategic way. Fourth, they believe that by

strengthening legal regimes, as well as passing and providing more resolutions to the Security

3

Council, more progress will be made in order to fight terrorism with unified laws. Lastly,

information sharing, and collaborative efforts between Nations is an important response to terror

attacks. If this is achieved, a swifter response can be implemented with cross national

information sharing. Following this five-point plan the United Nations stresses that they too

believe no plan will be successfully implemented without the full commitment to the protection

of human rights. Also, holding that an integral part to terror response will be stressing the

support of victims. If they are able to implement successfully implement this five-point plan, as

well as stressing these virtues they set for themselves, a successful counter-terrorism response

will be given, and terror response as a whole will be more unified through an international

community (With Global Response to Terrorism Gathering Steam 2010).

States Repressive Measures:

When looking at ways different States respond to terror, one is usually a constant. States

often resort to various types of repressive measures, despite the United Nations efforts to

increase the importance of protecting human rights (With Global Response to Terrorism

Gathering Steam 2010). This response is usually justified by claiming they are prevention,

deterrence, and retaliatory measures. Many of these repressions include: killing or wounding

terrorist or civilians, widespread arrest often without due process of law or imprisonment without

a trial, state kidnappings of those accused of carrying or involved in terror activities, torture,

collective punishments like closures, destruction of homes and property, and curtailment of civil

liberties and freedoms such as speech and assembly (Shor, et. al. 2013:295). While this form of

response is often used all around the globe, levels of repression often vary between countries,

and even inside countries depending on the time period. Evidence shows that transitional attacks

lead governments to engage in more extrajudicial acts such as kidnapping and disappearance, but

4

did not influence a great deal of torture and political imprisonment. States tend to react in this

way regardless of other conditions or limitations the attacks might bring. The use of military is

important part of repressing these human rights. With higher levels of military dependence, such

that the United States has, it tends to have deleterious effects in terms of countries’ respect for

basic human rights. In hopes to combat this response, the Global Human Rights Treaties were

ratified in hopes of allowing citizens to have more control of their rights, even I times of war or

terror. Research has shown however that it has had no statistically significant effect and actually

might be somewhat harmful to human rights practices (Shor, et. al. 2013:307). When it comes to

domestic terrorism, there is now a well-established precedent to use repressive measures in order

to attain maximum control, even though many policies are detrimental to all human’s basic

rights. This form of response seems to be the only constant when dealing with acts of terror

(Shor, et. al. 2013:309).

United States Legal Response:

Legal responses to terror in the United States are very interesting. Social order and public

perception drive how terrorist were prosecuted and how justice would be carried out, more than

any other criminal offenders in the United States. The government as a whole tried to avoid the

use of prosecution as a dual political and conventional crime, and sided toward terrorism as a

conventional crime. Due to widespread fear of repression of political activists, the United States

treated terror as any other crime, however allowed the publics influence to enter the court system

at a greater level. They used two spectrums to decide the best way to respond to terrorism in this

time: terrorism with high levels of consensus, and terrorism with high levels of social conflict.

When high levels of consensus are present the government first and foremost provides a public

condemnation of this act of terror, showing a united front. In order to seek justice then, they will

5

look toward statutes that require discussion of the terrorist’s motives. In the end, conspiracy,

treason, and subversion become the most prominent charges. When however, consensus is not

reached, and there is a growing amount of social conflict, our country will try to avoid the use of

the “terrorist” label. Prosecutors will use statutes to convict; however, will do so without the

mention of motive or proof of the intent. The charges mainly associated with terror attacks that

bring about much social conflict include illegal possession of weapons. Political and social

environments help to define the way in which terrorism is responded to, especially when it

comes to the legal ramifications they face (Smith, Orvis 1993:665).

Terrorism Pre and Post September 11th 2001:

The terror attacks on the World Trade Centers on September 11th, 2001 changed the

world forever. This heinous act of terror will forever be ingrained in many Americans lives and

changed the lives of so many people. This date too changed the way that the United States, as

well as the world, responded to these forms of terror attacks.

The United States responded to terror by trying to find a search for a consensus, finding

cooperation. In a way it seems that the United States took a back seat and tried to collaborate

with other nations and followed their lead pre 9/11 (Smith, Orvis 1993:662). However post 9/11

there seems to be a shift toward a stronger presence. The United States while still trying to keep

up with collaboration, such as we have seen in their formation of the GSA. The United States has

taken a leadership role in how our nation, as well as the rest of the world must respond to threats

of terror (Etzioni 2004:13).

Global response to terrorism has changed the most dramatically since the attacks on the

World Trade Centers. The United Nations did not deal with global terrorism until 1989.

Previously they tried to encourage cooperation between states and encouraged them to resolve

6

the problem between themselves. This strategy was largely used until September 11th, 2001.

After that, the change in response was almost immediate. The United Nations and their Security

Council responded in a more comprehensive manner. A number of resolutions were passed in

order to combat these terrorists groups within days of the attack. These resolutions imposed

binding commitments on all member nations of this organization including the prohibition of all

active and passive support for terrorists, denying them safe haven, as well as larger efforts to

detect passport fraud (Kramerm Yetiv 2007:411). Not only was the haste of the passage

important to sending a message but the increased number of countries aimed at fighting the

problem of terrorism grew. Resolutions were passed on a much more consistent basis. Pre 9/11

the United Nations passed on average one resolution a year, however in the years following,

roughly five a year are ratified. This is a staggering improvement. In 2006, the United Nations

released a Counter-Terrorism strategy, establishing the Counter Terrorism Committee. These

efforts all show great progress to how terrorism is handled at a global scale with responses

becoming swifter and more specific (Kramer, Yetiv 2007:416).

Citizen Response to 9/11

After looking into the State Reponses to 9/11, I think it is important to look into how

citizens respond to terror. Studies however have shown that most citizens when dealing with this

topic lack cognitive capacitates to understand the real issues and underlying concepts of

terrorism. A studied preformed pre and post 9/11 categorized people into two groups when

dealing with terror responses, the Traditionalist Expectations, and the Revisionist Expectations.

The Traditionalist Group is categorized by widespread fear and panic with very extreme

reactions to terror events. That anxiety and vulnerability to group panic prevent them from

logical thinking. Citizens in this category are vulnerable to the reactive and repressive policies

7

that we know come after acts of terror. They surrender their individual human rights for security

measures. A retribution form of justice is demanded with widespread support for punitive force

is felt by the Traditionalist expectations. The Revisionist Expectations however respond quite the

opposite, with very controlled rational assessments of threat. They find themselves less

dependent on traditional responses and more willing to examine all the evidence. While

repressive measures usually occur as a Sate response to terror, support from this group dampens

quickly and their beliefs in individual rights is steadfast(Jenkins-Smith, Herron 2005:605).

Similarly, support for military force is initially given, but it soon subsides toward pre 9/11 levels

(Jenkins-Smith, Herron 2005:599).

When comparing the support of both of these groups, the initial reports show a broad and

consistent shift toward the traditionalist expectations. Responses show a substantial move toward

a greater perceived feeling of threat following the 9/11 attacks as well as a higher willingness to

support policies that will reduce the threat, even at the expense of basic human rights (Jenkins-

Smith, Herron 2005:617).

Response to Terror in Wartime:

In many cases acts of terror are followed by acts of war. Analyzing a response to war is

key in understanding how states react to terrorism. The two subjects seem forever intertwined.

Recent history shows that the balance of power between order and freedom shifts toward order in

times of war and terror. This gives governments the ability to deal with threats to national

security. Over the course of history, repressing right and increasing executive power has been a

common response to terror. In 1798, President Adams signed into effect the Alien and Sedition

Acts of 1798. These Acts, arising from the fear of the Napoleonic Wars in France, authorized the

President to deport any non-citizens he deemed dangerous to peace and safety of the Nation.

8

Following the tensions brought on by the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended writs of habeas

corpus and declared anyone found to be disloyal to the Nation would be subject to a court martial

and tried by military tribunals. While the President was not constitutionally permitted to use

these practices, they occurred non-the less. Experts say in defense however, that this was

necessary to protect the troops and to save many States, including Maryland. If this was not

done, the Union might have fallen. It acts the question, does this repression ultimately serve the

greater good? The next example, The Espionage Act, which came about during Would War I,

prosecuted more than 2,000 people due to their opposition to the War, thus, silencing the critics.

One of the most egregious examples of repressing human rights was Executive Order 9066.6

signed by President Roosevelt following the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and World War II. This

order designated military areas to hold citizens, and became a holding place for Japanese-

Americans. More than 110,000 Japanese-Americans were forced from their homes and sent to

these holding camps. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality (Rosenzweig 2004:668).

While this has now been widely thought of as large error, it is a perfect example of how when

wartime and terror become a present force, a States response is to limit human rights. As Mr.

Rosenzweig puts it, “the balance between liberty and security is like a pendulum that gets pushed

off center by significant events” (671).

Patriot Act:

The most recent example of State repression of rights following a terror attack is the

United States Patriot Act following the attacks of 9/11. This Act gave the United States

government an extended amount of executive power as well as restricted basic human rights to

citizens, mainly the First Amendment. As this paper discussed before, there is a balance in times

of terror between security and freedom, and after 9/11. The response, like always, turned to

9

security, at almost any cost. With the passage of the Patriot Act, the Federal Government was

granted an increased authority to engage in surveillance activities. Some of which included

wiretaps, and phone bugs, without the consent of those who they were tapping. It also limited

the rights of immigrants, blurred lines between criminals and intelligence investigators, creates

new definition of domestic terrorism, and allowed for FISA information requests without having

to provide any person with information regarding the request. While Attorney General John

Ashcroft argued that this was important and a necessary evil in order to achieve national security,

the opposition claim that this was a far reaching repression of human rights, affecting all who

dissent politically (Saito 2002). Funding to the Justice Department increased greatly, allowing

for innovative and more intrusive screening process to be used on those entering the country. As

well, the increased funding allowed the Department of Justice to use its further reaching powers

granted by the Patriot Act in terms of investigation and surveillance (Weidenbaum 2002). Critics

also argue that this allows for the Government to explore ways of taking advantage of Americas

super capacity to manage mega data, by collecting mass information on millions of people,

abusing its intended use (Rosenzweig 2004:664). Whatever side people fall on of this argument,

it is clear that the United States Patriot Act was another example of repressing human rights, just

as before, in the face of terror or war.

Foreign Countries Response to 9/11:

As this paper has show, following the events of 9/11, human rights were infringed upon

in the United States in hopes of strengthening security. These same legal restrictions of human

rights were made in countries all around the world as well. This section will examine two very

different countries, the United Kingdom and Australia and their similar responses to terror.

These two countries are very different, the United Kingdom is quote used to act of terror and

10

how best appropriately to respond, however, Australia’s first real taste of global terror came

following the bombings of the World Trade Centers in 2001. How different their past experience

to terror might be, both countries responded in similar fashions. In the United Kingdom, the

parliament passes a piece of legislation designed to strengthen their grip on terror. The Anti-

Terrorism, Crime Security Act was passed in 2001. Much like the United States’ action, this act

did two main things to restrict human rights and maximize security. First, this act allowed for the

indefinite detention of suspects of terror. This was passed in hopes of receiving as much

information as possible for suspected terrorists, however, was very dangerous to everyday

citizens. The Act did not set a high standard of proof for people to be considered a “suspect of

terror” thus many citizens were being able to be detained, indefinitely, without legal remedy

(Michaelson 2003:278). Secondly, to also combat tying up the British judicial courts, limited

judicial review was granted to suspects. Suspects of International Terror held in the United

Kingdom could not appeal to British higher courts, only to a Special Immigration Commission.

This too is an example of a breach of some basic human rights (Michaelson 2003:280).

Similarly, Australia, a country new to terror, passed their own law. This law again

presented the Australian government with two mechanisms to remove human rights to further

keep order and control. First, this new law allowed for the arbitrary detention of non-suspects.

This allowed the government to detain and question anyone, even without being suspected of a

crime. Secondly, again limited Judicial review was granted to anyone charged with an act or

terror. Those too being held without being suspected of a crime were not permitted to appeal

their treatment and legal standing to Australia’s appellate courts (Michaelson 2003:282). Both

provide examples of laws, similar to the Patriot Act in the United Sates, the restricted human

rights in a major way to respond to the growing fear from acts of terror.

11

Predicting 9/11: Assessing the President:

The United States has evolved in the way they have responded to terrorism over the last

40 years. It was not until the beginning of the 1980’s that the use of counterterrorism became a

useful tool in predicting attacks (Smith, Orvis 1993:661).

Terror threats were imminent prior to 9/11. In 1993, the first attack on the World Trade

Centers occurred, killing six people. Following those attacks, embassy bombing killing hundreds

more and in 2000, a suicide bombing took place on the U.S.S. Cole. President Clinton and his

advisors were set to leave office and provided incoming President Bush and his advisors details

of his plan they were set to combat these attacks with, however, due to turf wars between the

staff of the incoming and outgoing Presidents, consensus was not reached on how to handle the

situation. Other reports came in regarding the use of planes and missiles and potential vehicles

for destruction, however, in the midst of these continued training process, these reports went

virtually unnoticed until that fateful September 11th day. President Bush following the attacks

responded swiftly as we saw with the United States Patriot Act. This, a swift action, is crucial to

responding to terror, however, the use of predicting terror became an ever-increasing effort.

Trying to streamline the process or credible threats so events like these become fewer. While

knowing how to respond effectively to terror is a must in any government, a further push by the

United Nations in Counter-Terrorism, as well as by the United States sees their best way to

respond to terror is have clear information to better predict their occurrence (Hall 2003:23).

These turf wars show the importance of group work and unity when dealing with acts of terror.

12

Response on the Ability to Govern:

Now that we have reviewed how governments respond to terror, it is important to

understand how their response affects their ability to govern. Terror events have a large impact

and influence on governments to survive outside of their risk period. How they handle times of

terror in many cases predict their ability to continue to govern. Terror events often times directly

influence voter patterns and determining if their governments acted appropriately affect their

decision to support or oppose their incumbent. On the whole, terror attacks allow incumbent

governments to remain in office longer than they might have otherwise been subject to. This is

especially the case for right-oriented governments as they perceive life-oriented governments as

less competent on the issues of national security. When looking again at the United States,

research showed that a majority of voters listed terrorism as a major concern when deciding who

to cast their vote for, when following a major act of terror. Politicians in office are accountable

for their own policy outcomes; thus, governments pursue policies that are often consistent with

how secure they are in office. This means that governments can fall if they encounter critical

events, such as terror, and fail to act appropriately. If their policies do not show a willingness to

protect and do not provide evidence that they have enhanced national security, they are

vulnerable to opposition. Evidence has shown that terrorism influences expectations about

upcoming election, and voters will punish those for not fulfilling their promise to take steps to

protect them, even if that means their government changing their policies (Williams, Koch

2013:346). This very policy change was show by President Bush in the wake of the 2004

election. Prior to the midterm election, the President strongly opposed a 9/11 commission by

Congress to tie up loose ends regarding the information backlog. His opposition left the

American people very skeptical that their President was not doing all he could to protect the

13

citizens form outside threat. When this opposition grew, the President approved of the

commission, changing policy in order to sway voters back towards his side (Hall 2003:24).

Conclusion:

A countries response to terrorism effects many roles in the aftermath of a terror attack.

This paper has shown that in most cases, a balance between freedom and repression of rights is

often swayed toward repression in order to ensure security. While many countries respond in

different ways, one constant is that whenever terror is present, there is a large likelihood that

human rights will be repressed. Following 9/11, this became ever more the case, with the United

Nations finally getting involved with global terrorism on a larger scale, many countries around

the world were handling terrorism in a way that would squash even some of the most basic

human rights. This paper has also shown the large impact that citizens play in determining the

appropriate response to terror attacks. Starting with the Justice Department, citizens play a major

role in determining how a terrorist is prosecuted, the larger the consensus, the more vigorous the

prosecution. Also, citizens influence their own government and the policy choice they respond to

terror with. While citizens seem willing to give up some of their basic rights for security, they

expect their Government to keep them safe. Failure to do so will result in that government being

ousted. Politicians know this, so they much play that balancing game, enacting policies that will

ensure as much security as possible, without being to much of a repressive force. When terror

occurs, human rights will be stripped away, and largely done so at the approval of the people.

Citizens use the large influence they have over their government’s responses to terror, especially

in the United States.

14

References:

Etzioni, Amitai. 2004. “Forming a Global Authority.” World Trends and Forecasts. pp.12-14.

Hall, Burt. 2003. “9-11 and a Lack of Presidential Leadership.” The Humanist. pp.23-26.

Michaelsen, Christopher. 2003. “International Human Rights on Trial- The United Kingdom’s

and Australia’s Legal Response to 9/11.” Sydney Law Review.

Jenkins-Smith, Hank. Herron, Kerry. 2005. “United States Public Response to Terrorism: Fault Lines or Bedrock?.” The Policy Studies Organization.

Kramer, Hilde and Steve Yetiv. 2007. “The UN Security Council's Response To Terrorism:

Before and After September 11, 2001.” 3rd ed. Political Science Quarterly.

Rosenzweig, Paul. 2004. “Civil Liberty and the Response to Terrorism.” Duquense Law Review.

Saito, Natsu. 2002. “Whose Liberty? Whose Security? The USA PATRIOT ACT in the Context

of the COINTELPRO and the Unlawful Repression of Political Dissent.” Oregon Law

Review.

Shor, Eran. Charmichael, Jason.Nazif Monoz, Jose Ignacio. Shandra, John. Schwartz, Michael.

2014. “Terrorism and state repression of human rights: A cross-national time-series

analysis.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology.

Smith, Brent. Orvis, Gregory. 1993. “America’s Response to Terrorism: An Empirical Analysis

of Federal Intervention Strategies During the 1980’s.” Justice Quarterly.

Weidenbaum, Murray. 2002. “Government, Buisness, and the response to Terrorism.” USA

Today. Pp.26-28.

Williams, Laron. Koch, Michael. Smith, Jason. 2013. “The Political Consequences of Terrorism:

Terror Events, Casualties, and Government Duration.” International Studies

Perspectives.

15

2010. “With Global Response to Terrorism Gathering Steam, Secretary-General, In Remarks to

Security Council, Urges Focus on Root Causes, Information Sharing, Human Rights.”

State News Service.

16