Al Quaida leader

An approach which might be quite suitable for use on a manic-depressive, bent simply on suicide, would be eminently unsuitable if used on a man who suffers from the paranoid delusion that there is some vast conspiracy to imprison and study him for life because he holds the secret of eternal youth; and even an approach suitable for that paranoid would be quite unsuitable if used on a paranoid who is obsessed by some totally different kind of delusion, and would be still less suitable for a schizophrenic in whose crazy universe red ties mean imminent and deadly danger (p.

121). I think that the terrorism caused by crazies could be considered as isolated cases and the damage that they could do is minimal because they usually work alone. Compared to terrorist groups, these “crazies” and “loners” could still undergo psychiatric help. Religious radical terrorists usually do not listen anymore because they believe that what they do is their mission from God and their faith depends on it. No one can argue with that anymore and they will continue to sow hostilities to people who they think is threatening their religious beliefs.

It is also easier to stop these “crazies’ because he is working alone, people just need to call the police. Terrorist groups are organized and it needs military help to put an end to their activities. 4. Public officials routinely talk of killing the terrorists overseas as an objective of our war on terror. Why have public officials refrained from glorifying the killing of domestic terrorists here at home? Is the killing by federal authorities of a violent Klan leader or an anarchist as happy an occasion as killing a member of the Al Qaeda leadership?

Why or why not? In the United States, until recently, terrorism was regarded as a criminal matter, to be handled by the police, the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies. When caught, terrorists were tried in regular criminal courts, and there was no special crime of “terrorism. ” Police kill as well as capture terrorists, and the use of deadly force by police is not uncommon. The agencies responsible for such killings were city police, the FBI, sheriffs’ departments, and state troopers.

However, Hewitt (2002) showed the number of police killed by each group of terrorists, and it is interesting to note that the latter is similar to (and usually slightly higher than) the number of terrorists killed by the police. This parity between the two kinds of fatalities suggests that the police response was generally proportional to the danger they faced. Most of those shot by police were killed when police returned fire, or were apprehending suspects, or when individuals were behaving in a threatening manner (p. 82).

The only member of the Klan ever killed by police, Kathy Ainsworth, was shot to death in a police ambush, when she and Thomas Tarrants attempted to blow up a synagogue in Meridian Mississippi. The ambush was set up by two Klansmen who had been bribed with money provided by the Anti-defamation League and the Mississippi Jewish community (Nelson, 1993). In some countries, anti-terrorist efforts involve mass searches of hostile areas, in which civilians are stopped at random. This has occurred in America on at least some occasions—all involving blacks.

During the Death Angels’ reign of terror in San Francisco, police launched an allout search throughout the black community, stopping and questioning hundreds of black men. Some individuals were stopped and asked for their identification as many as six times. The police invaded a movie theater, shone flashlights on the audience, then pulled out and searched half a dozen blacks. Thus, in this method, many innocent lives could be endangered because the terrorists might use the civilians as their cover.

Killing a violent Klan member could not be a happy situation because innocent civilians might be killed in the process in thwarting their terrorist activities. After the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, Congress granted increased powers to the FBI, and the federal government adopted a proactive policy aimed at preventing terrorist attacks by the surveillance of extremist groups. The goal is to uncover terrorist conspiracies while they are still in the planning stage.

At the Justice Department, a task force holds biweekly meetings to evaluate intelligence reports and coordinate national strategy. Efforts have focused on two groups, Islamic fundamentalists and the far right. The new laws allowed the FBI to investigate individuals even if they were not suspected of any specific offense. Other laws, making it a crime to send money to foreign groups that the State Department classifies as terrorist, and allowing the government to detain or deport immigrants suspected of terrorist links, have been used almost exclusively against Muslim individuals and groups.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI carried out over 5,000 secret wiretaps during the 1990s. Civil libertarians are unhappy with the use of secret evidence in immigration cases, and claim that the FBI equates rhetoric with material support for terrorism, and that several of those prosecuted are victims of guilt by association (“US Muslims Scrutinized in Terror Probes”, 1998). As for killing an Al Quaida leader, this could not be a happy situation also because this is a form of transnational terrorism.

This involves military attacks and different military policies will need to be developed to counter terrorist threats. For example, to counter international terrorist threats, the U. S. president needs a variety of military options within his role as commander-in-chief. Larry Cable (1987) stated that more innovative policies need to be found for counterterrorism. According to Cable, conventional concepts of conflict will not usually work and lawmakers need to draft guidelines in order to minimize the damage and spare the innocent civilians.