Is There a Universal Definition of Terrorism?

Over the past several weeks we have come to learn that different agencies of the United States including the branches of government and law enforcement agencies have yet to agree on a single definition of terrorism. The international community has also been unable to reach an agreement for a definition. If we intend to hold terrorists criminally liable for their actions, how do we do so without a definition of terrorism/terrorist? Being that there is no agreed up definition, each agency within the United States and abroad follows their specific definition accordingly. For the purpose of this post I will use the U.S. Department of Defense's definition of terrorism. They define it as "the unlawful use of -or threatened use of- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives" (Howard & Sawyer, 2006, pg.19).

"The U.S. has no legal definition of terrorism and there is not an organized body of legislation one might call the laws of terrorism, and there is no inherent crime of terrorism" (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/429/429lect01.htm). So, we charge terrorists with the crimes they commit or plan to commit. The most common criminal charges against terrorists include bombing, arson, hijacking, assault, kidnapping, murder, theft and homicide. The most common criminal charges against terrorists who were captured before completing an act include illegal possession of explosives and weapons, illegal raising of funds, and conspiracy (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm). The U.S. does have a codified law of terrorism although it is mainly directed at foreign terrorism. However, some of the codified laws include...

* Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 2: Aircraft and Motor Vehicle Safety: outlaws the use of destructive vehicle.
* Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 10: Biological Weapons: Bans the possession of any biological weapon.
* Title 50, Chapter 36: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance: allows roving wiretaps on suspected terrorists.

We also have case laws of terrorism which assist us in the investigation and prosecution of terrorists. For example, Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203 (1966): "The Supreme Court rules that persons who belong to enemy groups with only a supportive, passive, or inactive role are just as indictable as those who play more active roles" (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm). Public law which is basically legislation signed into law is also used to combat terrorism. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 bans terrorist funding within the U.S., increased penalties for conspiracies involving terrorist crimes, as well as other things related to terrorism. Then of course everyone is aware of the PATRIOT ACT of 2001. The PATRIOT Act (a.k.a. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) was enacted "to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes" (Bullock, Haddow, & Coppola, 2006, pg.41). The Patriot Act itself it too great in detail to go over everything so I will provide just a few of the details. The Patriot Act "streamlines" wiretap authorizations, set-up anti-terrorism asset forfeiture procedures, approves the detention of suspected terrorists, removes obstacles to investigating terrorism, and increases penalties for terrorist crimes (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm).

The United States Constitution provides citizens with individual rights. And several years after the panic wore off from the 9/11 attacks, those rights seemed to be relinquished by the Patriot Act. Civil liberty groups have been in an uproar for awhile. Not only is investigating and prosecuting terrorists difficult because there is not a legal definition of terrorism in the U.S., it is also difficult because the constitutional frameworks provides us with individual rights that the government can not take away. However, the Patriot Act did take some civil liberties away in order to protect America.

Following codes, cases, and legislation, there are executive orders, decisions, declarations, or directives that are made by the executive branch. An Executive Order on Terrorist Financing was created in 2001 that "prohibits financial transactions designated to support terrorist groups not yet designated by the U.S. Department of State as foreign entities that support terrorism" (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm). Although having no accepted definition of terrorism makes it more difficult to investigate and prosecute terrorism we do have the codes, cases, legislation and executive orders that make it possible to do so. We are capable of criminally prosecuting terrorists by charging them with crimes.

Reference list:

Howard, R.D., & Sawyer, R.L., 2006. "Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New Security Environment, (2nd ed.)". Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw-Hill. (CH. 1, pg.19).

Connor, T., 2006. "The Criminology of Terrorism: History, Law, Definitions, Typologies". Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm

Bullock, J.A., Haddow, G.D., & Coppola, D., et al., 2006. "Introduction to Homeland Security, 2nd ed". Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann (CH.1 pg.41).