terrorism by shahzadpervaizbal

VIEWS: 150 PAGES: 25

More Info
									Terrorism
Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population
and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used
throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by
nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually
thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political
institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own
people to suppress dissent; examples include the reigns of certain Roman
emperors, the French Revolution, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under
Stalin, and Argentina during the "dirty war" of the 1970s. Terrorism's impact
has been magnified by the deadliness and technological sophistication of
modern-day weapons and the capability of the media to disseminate news of
such attacks instantaneously throughout the world. The deadliest terrorist
attack ever occurred in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001 (see September
11 attacks), when members of al-Qaeda terrorist network hijacked four
commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the twin towers of the
World Trade Center complex in New York City and one into the Pentagon
building near Washington, D.C.; the fourth plane crashed near Pittsburgh,
Pa. The crashes resulted in the collapse of much of the World Trade Center
complex, the destruction of part of the southwest side of the Pentagon, and
the deaths of some 3,000 people.


Terrorism refers here to the public health consequences and the methods for
prevention of the purposeful use of violence or threats of violence by groups
or individuals in order to serve political or personal agendas. This article
does not include what has been termed "state terrorism," the use of violence
by a nation-state without clear necessity for self-defense and without the
authorization of the United Nations.

Examples of Terrorism

Use or threat of use of violence has long caused concern among those
responsible for public health. Examples include indiscriminate violence,
such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City and
the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and targeted
violence, such as attacks on facilities for the termination of pregnancy or on
those who work in such facilities. The primary responsibility for response to
the health consequences of such violence has resided largely in emergency
medical services and the primary responsibility for prevention in agencies
concerned with public order and safety, such as the police and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.

Recent instances of use or threatened use of biological or chemical agents in
terrorism have raised interest in the role of public health agencies and public
health personnel in primary or secondary prevention. Documented episodes,
although extremely rare, have been dramatic. In Japan, the chemical warfare
agent Sarin was released by the Aum Shinrikyo cult in Matsumoto in 1994
and in the Tokyo subway in 1995. In 1984, an Oregon cult allegedly
contaminated salad bars with a biological agent, salmonella. These episodes,
and recent hoaxes concerning anthrax release, have led to well publicized,
costly responses by public health and public safety officials. Chemical
terrorism could include the purposeful contamination of water and food
supplies or the aerosolization of toxicants within enclosed public spaces.
Biological terrorist actions could include purposeful contamination with
infectious materials, as well as the purposeful release of insects or other
vectors infected with a transmissible disease.

Availability of Chemical and Biological Weapons

Underlying concern about bioterrorism is the long history of use of chemical
and biological weapons (CBW) in war. Since World War II, worldwide
military forces have built up major stockpiles of such weapons and tested
them at a number of sites around the world. Although the Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) outlawed the development, production, stockpiling, and transfer of
these weapons, large stockpiles of chemical weapons still await destruction
in several nations, and it is alleged that stockpiles of biological weapons are
still maintained in a few nations. Although the technical knowledge and
materials needed to produce CBW are relatively available, the ability to
"weaponize" and target these materials remains extremely limited. The risk
of their use appears to be small, but any use constitutes a threat to public
health.

Types of Biological Agents

There are at least seventy types of bacteria, viruses, rickettsiae, and fungi
that can be weaponized, including tularemia, anthrax, Q fever, epidemic
typhus, smallpox, brucellosis, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, botulinum
toxin, dengue fever, Russian spring-summer encephalitis, Lassa fever,
Marburg, Ebola, Bolivian hemorrhagic fever (Machupo), and Argentinean
hemorrhagic fever (Junin). Antibiotic resistant strains of anthrax, plague,
tularemia, and glanders have allegedly been developed. Viruses and toxins
can be genetically altered to heighten their infectiousness, permitting the
development of pathogens capable of overcoming existing vaccines. It is
estimated that no more than 20 to 30 percent of the diseases the
aforementioned agents cause can be effectively treated.

Recent History of Control

In 1994 U.S. president Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order asserting that
the potential use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons "by terrorist
groups or rogue states" represents "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States." This
Order, renewed annually, makes it illegal for anyone in the United States to
help anyone to acquire, design, produce, or stockpile CBW. The Order was
amended in 1998 to include penalties for trafficking in equipment that could
indirectly contribute to a foreign biological warfare program.

In 1995 President Clinton announced a new policy against
"superterrorism"—terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction. The
Departments of Defense, Energy, and State, together with the FBI and the
CIA, were to oversee a wide network of military and civilian agencies,
including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, dedicated to
identifying CBW attacks and to coping with their consequences. In 1997, a
$52.6 million Domestic Preparedness Program was authorized for
emergency response teams in 120 selected cities, whereby police, fire
departments, and public health officials were to receive special training and
equipment to help them combat biological and chemical terrorism.

In 1998 President Clinton announced new initiatives to address bioterrorism.
Hearings before a committee of the U.S. Senate in 1998 included witnesses
who stated that such proposals were misguided because so many resources
were being assigned to military rather than to medical or public health
authorities. Ethical questions raised include whether such funds could be
better spent on providing adequate public health measures, preventive
medicine, and treatment for endemic illness to the population.
Limitations of Counter-Terrorism Measures

Overall, there is little evidence that specific vaccine programs or other
technical defensive programs are effective or ethical preventive measures
against the use or threat of use of biologic weapons. Many public health
experts argue that the best defenses against use of biological weapons lie in
ethical proscription of work on them by health professionals and scientists
and protection of the global population against all serious infectious disease,
not just diseases caused intentionally, by ameliorating poverty and
inadequate nutrition, housing, and education.

As part of this effort, it is argued, industrialized countries should enable
developing countries to build capacity for detection, diagnosis, and treatment
of all disease by providing technical information and needed resources.
Article X of the BWC, encouraging the exchange of information and
materials for peaceful purposes, should be strengthened. Research
organizations, professional societies, and individual scientists should pledge
not to engage knowingly in research or teaching that furthers the
development and use of biological weapons. Furthermore, all countries
could prohibit the development of novel biological agents that do not have
an unambiguously peaceful purpose, even if these activities are promoted for
defensive purposes.

An important reason that a few nations, groups, or individuals may continue
to develop or stockpile chemical or biological weapons, known as "the poor
nation's nuclear weapons," lies in the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons
maintained by the United States and other nuclear powers. As long as these
nations fail to recognize their obligations under the 1970 Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty to move expeditiously toward nuclear weapons
abolition, biological and chemical weapons will remain a threat.

Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence
or its threat. Although ancient, it has become a common feature of the late
20th century, when it has raised a host of complex moral and practical
issues. Terror, inflicted by the wholesale slaughter of populations who
resisted, was used by Assyrians and Mongols alike to achieve the rapid
collapse of enemy resolve, and was embodied in the practice (defended by
Wellington even after the Napoleonic wars) of butchering the garrisons of
fortresses which held out to the last extremity. Although terrorism is
generally seen in the context of being employed against a government or its
agencies, its use is not necessarily anti-governmental. The French
Revolutionary ‘Reign of Terror’ was exactly that, and many subsequent
regimes—like those of Stalin in Russia, Hitler in Germany, and Pol Pot's
Cambodia—have used terror against their own citizens. The use of coercive
power by governments—‘state terrorism’—has itself been used by terrorists
to justify their own activities, even when the level of repression used by the
government in question might appear to fall well short of terrorism. Albert
Camus's 1949 play Les Justes, set in late 19th-century Russia—whose
regime was indeed repressive—turns on the relationship between the
damage terrorists necessarily inflict on the innocent and the greater political
goal that they pursue. It underlines the point that the whole issue is
extraordinarily subjective: one man's bomber-pilot is another's terror-flier,
one man's freedom fighter another's terrorist.

One of the first recorded doctrinaire terrorists was Carlo Pisacane, Duke of
San Giovanni, who renounced his aristocratic birthright to further the cause
of Italian nationalism. Employing the revolutionary language of a century
later, he argued that ‘ideas result from deeds, not the latter from the former
and the people will not be free when they are educated but educated when
they are free’. Pisacane was killed in 1857, but his ideas were taken up in
Russia twenty years later by the revolutionary organization Narodnaya
Volya (The People's Will), a group dedicated to achieving political change
by the assassination of high-profile individuals associated with the state.
Their adherence to the principle of committing acts of violence only against
specific individuals contrasts with the relatively random acts of violence
perpetrated by many modern terrorist groups, for whom society itself has
become the target.

That terrorist groups began to emerge in late 19th-century Europe was no
accident. The era was characterized by the growing pains of a new and often
disadvantaged urban class, and by new weaponry such as breech-loading
pistols and rifles, and the invention of dynamite by Nobel in 1862. This
malleable form of high explosive was relatively safe to carry and plant,
while the contemporary invention of mercury detonators enabled a charge to
be set off at will. Similar social change, in this case the shift of populations
from the countryside to the towns, and the ready availability of plastic
explosive, had similar effects in South America a century later.

The relationship between the terrorist and the guerrilla is complex. Not all
guerrillas are terrorists: many have striven to represent themselves as
irregular forces fighting a regular war, while their opponents have
consistently sought to portray them as terrorists in order to deprive them of
legitimacy. Yet the guerrilla's military weakness and his dependence on
popular support both tend to drive him towards terrorism. The former
encourages him to get the maximum publicity—especially in and beyond the
media-rich 1960s—from the meagre means at his disposal, and the latter
drives him to use both stick and carrot in his dealings with the population.
The communists in China and the Vietcong in Vietnam both dealt harshly
with civilian supporters of the hostile regime. Vietcong attacks on the civil
service and local administration during the Tet offensive, often exemplified
by the brutal murder of whole family groups, did much to destabilize South
Vietnam. Independence campaigns against colonial rulers, like those in
Cyprus and Algeria, usually embodied elements of terrorism. It is
profoundly ironic, in view of Israel's subsequent experience of terrorism,
that some of the groups who pursued Israeli independence used some of the
very methods their successors now condemn.

Urban guerrillas, like the Brazilian Carlos Marighela, argued that gangster
actions like bank raids and kidnappings would provoke the government into
action which would turn the population against the government, rather than
against the perpetrators of the original violence, but the process rarely
worked that way. In Uruguay the Tupamaros—as judicious and responsible
in their actions as any urban guerrillas can hope to be—simply polarized
opinion against them and were duly crushed.

Although there had been connections between national anarchist groups in
the 19th century, the internationalization of terrorism really occurred after
1945, as the Soviet bloc and its clients actively supported terrorist groups
with training, equipment, and safe havens; the role of Libya has been
particularly suspect. International terrorism took a new turn in 1968. The
PLO had been founded in 1964 from Palestinian pressure groups who
wished to recover their homeland. Israeli victory in the Six Day War of June
1967 resulted in the Jordanians losing Jerusalem and the West Bank of the
Jordan, swelling the number of Arab refugees. The more radical elements of
the PLO reacted violently, beginning in July 1968 with the hijacking of an
El Al airliner. The Israelis released sixteen Arab prisoners, but this only
encouraged more hijacks, and the PLO (and its splinter groups) mounted
ever more daring and bloody attacks. These culminated with the kidnapping
of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, where all eleven hostages
and five terrorists were killed. It is arguable whether the latter act caused an
invitation to be issued to Yasser Arafat to address the UN General
Assembly, but within eighteen months Arafat had spoken to the UN, and his
PLO had been awarded ‘Special Observer Status’. Despite the success of the
Israeli commando raid at Entebbe in 1976, which released over 100 hostages
held by German and Palestinian hijackers, it is hard to resist the conclusion
that it was the use of terrorism that brought the PLO to its prominent
position on the world's stage.

The spread and sophistication of modern communications has ensured that
modern terrorists have an effect out of all proportion to their numbers, a
factor which has been crucial to late 20th-century terrorists for whom
publicity is indeed oxygen. In Europe, the IRA in the UK and the Basque
separatists ETA in Spain both generated publicity out of all proportion to the
number of activists engaged. The nationalist splinter group that detonated
the bomb at Omagh in Northern Ireland in 1998 probably killed more people
than it had activists. Similarly, although the terrorist groups of the 1970s,
like the Baader-Meinhof gang in West Germany, the Italian Red Brigades,
and the Japanese Red Army Faction, consisted of very few individuals with
little popular support, their activities were nothing if not headline-grabbing.
They saw themselves as ‘class warriors’, directing their venom at
international businessmen, national government, or representatives of the US
military. In a similar nihilistic vein are the Japanese religious cult behind the
Sarin gas attack in Tokyo (March 1995) and the perpetrators of the
Oklahoma City federal office block attack of just one month later, which
resulted in 168 deaths.

Other extremist groups, such as animal rights campaigners, anti-abortionists,
and some extreme ecologists, have also used terrorism, justifying it with the
familiar ‘state terrorism’ arguments already described. Though there is little
evidence that 1990s terrorist groups are as interlinked as those of the 1970s
and 1980s, their rise may be due in part to widely published studies of the
techniques of terrorism and its effectiveness. Modern crime gangs and drug
barons—‘non-state actors’—have also acquired the resources to wage
terrorist-type campaigns. Though the methods may be identical, the
motivation is financial, not political—in this sense they are merely imitators,
‘quasi-terrorists’. The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 and the resultant
numbers of automatic weapons and explosives in circulation are partly
responsible for this development. The portrayal of destruction and terror by
the media underlines the core function of terrorism, which continues to be
achieved by a tiny minority of zealots. Some commentators have now
identified ‘cyber terrorism’, where no physical violence is threatened (or
implied) to humans, but rather information systems themselves are the
target. A computer virus circulated via the Internet is, in its way, as
newsworthy as a traditional terrorist bomb.

Terrorism has caused many nations to develop specialist anti-terrorist units
in the military or police, though the distinctions between the traditional
functions of each sometimes became blurred in the process. In the British
model, troops were used in support of the civil power, well demonstrated in
1980 with the storming by the SAS of the terrorist-held Iranian Embassy in
London. The internationalization of terrorism generated an international
response, particularly in terms of the pooling of police intelligence, although
the old question of value judgements continues to enable one state's
terrorists to emerge as another's political refugees. Most visibly, terrorism
has resulted in the tightening-up of security at ports, airports, and public
buildings, with concomitant delays and frustrations. In this respect its
consequences may prove more enduring than those of many aspects of
conventional warfare, for they will remain with us.

Term with no agreed definition among governments or academic analysts,
but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe
life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed
sub-state groups. But if such actions are carried out on behalf of a widely
approved cause, say the Maquis seeking to destabilize the Government of
Vichy France, then the term ‘terrorism’ is usually avoided and something
more friendly is substituted. In short, one person's terrorist is another
person's freedom fighter.

Terrorism as a pejorative term is sometimes applied, however, to the deeds
of governments rather than to those of sub-state actors. The term ‘state
terror’ is, for example, frequently applied to the actions of officially
appointed groups such as the Gestapo, the KGB, the Stasi of East Germany,
and the like, against dissidents or ethnic minorities among their own fellow
citizens. And the term ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ is often used to describe
the conduct of various governments in directly organizing or indirectly
assisting perpetrators of violent acts in other states. But in practice this might
be said to be simply a form of low-intensity undeclared warfare among
sovereign states. In recent times many countries of divergent ideological
persuasion have engaged in this kind of activity while in some cases strictly
condemning others for the same practices. For example, the United States
during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan denounced many regimes, most
notably that of Libya, in this connection while simultaneously openly
sponsoring sub-state violence against Nicaragua with whose government it
had full diplomatic relations. Such apparent inconsistency should not
perhaps surprise us when we recall that many US dollar bills carry the
portrait of a well-known perpetrator of politically motivated sub-state
violence, or ‘terrorist’, or ‘freedom fighter’, namely, George Washington.

Public interest in these matters grew massively as a result of the assault by
hijacked airliners on the World Trade Center in New York City and on the
Pentagon in Washington DC on 11 September 2001. For it was now widely
acknowledged that the world was a facing a so-called ‘new terrorism’ whose
first clear manifestations lay only in the early 1990s. By contrast, ‘old
terrorism’ had had its heyday during the 1960s and 1970s. Then the
emphasis had frequently been on territorial grievances involving demands
for independence from imperialists or for revision of allegedly unjust
frontiers. Sometimes such terrorism was successful—for example when the
French were driven from Algeria and the British from Cyprus. On other
occasions terrorists obtained compromise concessions that usually failed to
resolve the dispute but nevertheless kept the level of violence contained. The
Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Basque terrorists Euzkadi ta
Askatasuma (ETA) come into this category. But some terrorist groups, like
Baader-Meinhof in West Germany and the Red Brigades in Italy, simply
failed unambiguously and so faded away: typically these were motivated by
ideology rather than by ethnic or cultural identity and had a tendency to
misread the amount of popular support they commanded. What all these
various ‘old terrorists’ had in common, however, was that their operations
tended to focus on limited geographical areas and their methods, though
certainly ruthless, were not intended to maximize bloodshed without any
regard to the impression given to the constituencies they claimed to
represent. In short, they wanted many people watching rather then many
people dead; they usually had aims that were rationally defensible; and they
pursued such aims with some sense of proportionality. So-called ‘new
terrorists’, on the other hand, are nihilistic, are inspired by fanatical religious
beliefs, and are willing to seek martyrdom through suicide. They rarely set
out aims that appear remotely attainable; they give no warnings; they do not
engage in bargaining; they find compromise solutions to problems
unappealing; they are willing and even eager to carry out the mass slaughter
of non-combatants; and they frequently do not even claim responsibility for
their deeds—presumably because they feel ultimately accountable only to a
deity.

The ‘new terrorism’ was maybe first seen 1993 when an attempt was made
to bring about the collapse of the World Trade Center in New York. The
desire to kill thousands was clear even though in the event relatively few
casualties resulted as the basement-based bombs proved insufficiently
powerful to topple a tower. The US authorities blamed Islamic extremism
and eventually a number of Muslims were brought to trial for the outrage. In
the next major US manifestation of the ‘new terrorism’ it was Christian
fundamentalism's turn to be involved: 1995 168 people were killed when a
US Government building in Oklahoma City was blown up—with an
American White Supremacist, Timothy McVeigh, being found guilty of the
attack. Even more alarming was the use of weapons of mass destruction,
both biological and chemical, in Tokyo during the early and mid-1990s.
Actual deaths amounted only to twelve as several attempts were made to
spread botulism and anthrax in the streets and sarin in the subway. The
desire to kill many thousands was undoubted but technological
incompetence prevented a catastrophe. Those responsible were again
motivated by religion—in this case that of the obscure Aum Shinriko sect.

The unambiguous emergence of a ‘new terrorism’ was finally put beyond
question as a result of the attacks on the United States on 11 September
2001. Al-Qaida, an Islamic fundamentalist network, was immediately
blamed by the US Government. And, after much imprecise rhetoric about
the intention to create a global coalition to wage ‘War against Terrorism’,
US-led military action was taken against Afghanistan, whose Taliban-
controlled regime was held to have harboured at least parts of the al-Qaida
network and, in particular, Osama Bin Laden


In the early 21st cent. there were indications that terrorism, which had
previously taken the form of isolated assassinations or bombings, was
becoming endemic and had acquired a formidable international dimension.
On 11 September 2001 two hi-jacked aircraft destroyed the World Trade
Centre in New York, with the loss of nearly 3000 lives. The immediate
result was an economic crisis, particularly in air travel, heightened security
precautions, a search for Osama bin Laden who had encouraged the strike,
and an American-led attack upon the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, to root
out members of al-Qa'eda. This was followed in 2003 by a three-week
campaign in Iraq which overthrew Saddam Hussain. Disagreements on
policy produced severe strains within the United Nations and NATO. In July
2005, a coordinated terrorist attack upon London killed more than fifty
people.




Terrorism is a political tactic that uses threat or violence, usually against
civilians, to frighten a target group into conceding to certain political
demands.

The term "terrorism" was first used to describe the state terrorism practiced
by the French revolutionaries of 1789–1795. Through kangaroo courts,
executions by guillotine, and violent repression of political opponents, the
revolutionaries tried to frighten the population into submission. Two great
terrorist states of the twentieth century, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia,
also practiced the threat and use of violence to keep their own citizens in
line.

In the nineteenth century, terrorist tactics were adopted by individuals and
groups that used assassinations, bombings, and kidnappings to undermine
popular support for what the terrorists saw as unjust policies or tyrannical
governments. Terrorist acts were first committed on a wide scale in the
United States during the latter part of the nineteenth century. On 4 May
1886, an anarchist bomb killed eight policemen during a demonstration in
Chicago's Haymarket Square, and on 16 September 1920, an anarchist bomb
hidden in a wagon on Wall Street killed thirty people and seriously injured
more than two hundred.

Although anarchist violence received the most newspaper coverage during
this period, the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was the most
important terrorist group in the United States from 1850 to the 1960s. The
KKK used marches, beatings, and lynchings to intimidate

African Americans who wished to vote or otherwise participate in the
political process.

Beginning in the late 1960s, extreme-left groups like the Weathermen
engaged in kidnapping and bombings to protest the Vietnam War, while
groups like the Symbionese Liberation Army engaged in armed actions
against civilians or the police, hoping thereby to provoke a "people's
revolution." These groups disappeared in the 1970s and 1980s only to be
replaced by extreme-right terrorist organizations.

On 19 April 1995 a truck bomb exploded outside the Alfred P. Murrah
federal building in Oklahoma City, destroying the building and killing 168
people. An act of domestic terrorism, the Oklahoma City Bombing was the
worst terrorist attack in U.S. history at the time. Testifying before the U.S.
Senate in 1998, FBI Director Louis J. Freeh stated that, "The current
domestic terrorist threat primarily comes from right-wing extremist groups,
including radical paramilitary [militia] groups, Puerto Rican terrorist groups,
and special interest groups."

The period after 1960 saw the rise of international terrorist attacks on
Americans in the Middle East and in Latin America. The most dramatic
instance of terrorism during this period was the 4 November 1979 attack by

Iranian students on the United States Embassy in Teheran, when sixty-six
diplomats were held hostage until their release on 20 January 1981.
According to the U.S. State Department, seventy-seven U.S. citizens were
killed and 651 injured in international terrorist attacks between 1995 and
2000.

By the mid-1970s, international terrorists began to carry out operations on
American soil. On 24 January 1975, the Puerto Rican Armed National
Liberation Front killed four people when bombs exploded at the Fraunces
Tavern in New York City. Eleven months later, on 29 December 1975, a
bomb exploded in the TWA terminal at La Guardia Airport, killing eleven.
No group ever claimed responsibility. The next major incident occurred on
26 February 1993, when a truck bomb exploded in the basement of New
York's World Trade Center, killing six and wounding thousands. At his
1997trial, bombing mastermind Ramzi Yousef stated, "I support terrorism so
long as it was against the United States government and against Israel."

On 11 September 2001, in the most murderous terrorist attack American
history had yet witnessed, almost three thousand people were killed.
Nineteen Middle Eastern terrorists hijacked four airplanes; one crashed into
the Pentagon, two destroyed the twin towers of New York City's World
Trade Center, and one, possibly headed for the White House, crashed in a
wooded area of Pennsylvania. Although the hijackers left no message, they
were clearly motivated by hatred of the United States and by a desire to
force a change in American policy in the Middle East.

The enormity of the attack pushed terrorism to the top of the American
political agenda, with President George W. Bush declaring "war on terror" in
his 20 September 2001 address to a joint session of Congress. President
Bush predicted that this new war could last for years or even decades. The
World Trade Center attack also led to a major change in the way the United
States deals with terrorism. Before 11 September 2001, the United States
followed a police-justice model whereby police and intelligence agencies
identified and apprehended terrorists and then turned them over to the justice
system. After those attacks, however, the Bush Administration adopted a
preemptive-war model, whereby the United States intends to strike at
individual terrorists or terrorist groups anywhere in the world and has
threatened to use all means necessary, from special forces to massive
military force, to attack what it identifies as "terrorist states" that support
international terrorism.

The adoption of this model led President Bush in his 29 January 2002 State
of the Union address to talk about Iran, Iraq, and North Korea together as an
"axis of evil" and to threaten military action against Iraq. This statement led
to much uneasiness among allies of the United States, who feared that the
administration's war on terrorism signaled a move toward unilateralism in
U.S. foreign policy and the destabilization of international relations.

A half-century of Russian history was bloodstained by revolutionary
terrorism. Its first outburst was the abortive April 1866 assassination attempt
against Tsar Alexander II by Dmitry Karakozov. From then on, extremists of
different ideological persuasions, with varying degrees of success, resorted
to acts of terror as part of their struggle against the contemporary
sociopolitical order.

Terrorist activity had a particularly strong impact on the country's life during
two distinct periods. The first was the so-called heroic period, between 1878
and 1881, when the Party of the People's Will (Narodnaya Volya) - the first
modern terrorist organization in the world - dominated the radical camp. Its
campaign against the autocracy culminated in the assassination of Alexander
II on March 1, 1881. Alexander III's government succeeded in disintegrating
the People's Will; yet, after a twenty-year period of relative and deceptive
calm, a new wave of terrorism erupted during the reign of Russia's last tsar,
Nicholas II (1894 - 1917). Its perpetrators were members of various newly
formed left-wing organizations, who implicated themselves in terrorist acts
even when their parties in theory rejected terrorism as a suitable tactic. As
radical activity reached its peak during the 1905 - 1907 crisis, terrorism
became an all-pervasive phenomenon, affecting not only the elite civil and
military circles but every layer of society. During the first decade of the
twentieth century, the terrorists were responsible for approximately 17,000
casualties throughout the empire. Their attacks were indiscriminate, directed
at a broad category of alleged "watchdogs of the old regime" and
"oppressors of the poor."

Although terrorism subsided by late 1907, largely as a result of severe
repressive measures employed by Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, until the
collapse of the imperial order in 1917 it remained a threatening weapon in
the hands of extremists seeking the demise of the tsarist regime.

terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population,
to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize
grievances. The term dates from the Reign of Terror (1793-94) in the French
Revolution but has taken on additional meaning in the 20th cent. Terrorism
involves activities such as assassinations, bombings, random killings, and
hijackings. Used for political, not military, purposes, and most typically by
groups too weak to mount open assaults, it is a modern tool of the alienated,
and its psychological impact on the public has increased because of
extensive coverage by the media. Political terrorism also may be part of a
government campaign to eliminate the opposition, as under Hitler,
Mussolini, Stalin, and others, or may be part of a revolutionary effort to
overthrow a regime. Terrorist attacks also are now a common tactic in
guerrilla warfare. Governments find attacks by terrorist groups difficult to
prevent; international agreements to tighten borders or return terrorists for
trial may offer some deterrence.

Terrorism reaches back to ancient Greece and has occurred throughout
history. Terrorism by radicals (of both the left and right) and by nationalists
became widespread after World War II. Since the late 20th cent. acts of
terrorism have been associated with the Italian Red Brigades, the Irish
Republican Army, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Peru's Shining
Path, Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Weathermen and
some members of U.S. "militia" organizations, among many groups.
Religiously inspired terrrorism has also occurred, such as that of extremist
Christian opponents of abortion in the United States; of extremist Muslims
associated with Hamas, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, and other
organizations; of extremist Sikhs in India; and of Japan's Aum Shinrikyo,
who released nerve gas in Tokyo's subway system (1995).

In 1999 the UN Security Council unanimously called for better international
cooperation in fighting terrorism and asked governments not to aid terrorists.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon-the most devastating terrorist attacks in history-prompted calls by
U.S. political leaders for a world "war on terrorism." Although the U.S.
effort to destroy Al Qaeda and overthrow the Afghani government that
hosted it was initially successful, terrorism is not a movement but a tactic
used by a wide variety of groups, some of which are regarded (and
supported) as "freedom fighters" in various countries or by various peoples.
So-called state-sponsored terrorism, in which governments provide support
or protection to terrorist groups that carry out proxy attacks against other
countries, also complicates international efforts to end terror attacks, but
financial sanctions have been placed by many countries on organizations
that directly or indirectly support terrorists. The 2001 bioterror attacks in
which anthrax spores were mailed to various U.S. media and government
offices may not be linked to the events of September 11, but they raised
specter of biological and chemical terrorism and revealed the difficulty of
dealing with such attacks.

Violence directed primarily and randomly against civilians with the aim of
intimidating them, achieving political goals, or exacting revenge for
perceived grievances.

Since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the twin World
Trade Center skyscrapers in New York City and killed nearly 2,800 persons,
terrorism arising out of conflicts in the Middle East has been a focus of
international media attention. Concern about violence undertaken by groups
and states it considered to be terrorists prompted the United States to declare
a war on terrorism, two manifestations of which have been the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite this close association of terrorism with the
Middle East, with the notable exception of the year 2001, the majority of
terrorist incidents committed worldwide and the majority of victims of
terrorism have been outside of or unrelated to political conflicts in the
Middle East. Nevertheless, it is true that civilians somewhere in the Middle
East have been victims of politically motivated violence every year since at
least 1992.

Defining Terrorism

In trying to assess the significance of terrorism, the most difficult problem is
the lack of an agreed-upon understanding of what the word terrorism means.
Political scientists tend to restrict terrorism to acts of violence carried out by
nonstate actors against civilians. Historians, sociologists, and experts in
international humanitarian law, however, tend to use a broader definition
that includes all premeditated acts of violence against civilians, whether
carried out by nonstate political groups or by states. Governments -
especially those confronting armed opposition groups - and the media
generally use the political-science definition of terrorism, often expanding it
to include violent acts against military as well as civilian victims. In
contrast, the nonstate perpetrators of violence consider their actions to be
legitimate forms of resistance to state terrorism aimed at suppressing self-
determination, even though they may be directed against civilians
(Kimmerling, p. 23). The notion of a legitimate right to resist state
oppression is controversial, and no international legal convention addresses
this matter. Nonstate groups generally cite the 1960 United Nations General
Assembly Resolution on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries
and Peoples as recognizing their right of resistance. Indeed, that resolution
declares, "forcible resistance to forcible denial of self-determination . . . is
legitimate," and it says that nonstate groups may receive external support
from other governments.

Giving a measure of international legitimacy to resistance struggles has
complicated the problem of defining terrorism because it essentially has
become a political decision whether a nonstate actor is deemed a terrorist or
a genuine national liberation movement fighting for independence from
foreign control or occupation. During the Cold War rivalry between the
Soviet Union and the United States (1947 - 1991), such decisions tended to
be based more on ideological factors than on objective assessments of the
goals and motives of particular nonstate groups. For example, the Soviet
Union provided clandestine support for the South Yemen independence
movement (1963 - 1967) and for the Dhufar liberation movement in Oman
(1965 - 1971) primarily because both areas at the time were under the
control of Britain, a major U.S. ally. Similarly, the United States provided
covert assistance to the Kurds in Iraq (1970 - 1975) and the Mojahedin in
Afghanistan (1979 - 1989) primarily because in both cases the nonstate
groups were fighting for independence from Soviet client regimes. The
Soviet Union and the United States condemned as
terrorists those nonstate groups that were fighting against regimes the other
country favored, and they praised as national resistance heroes those groups
fighting against governments they opposed.

Over time, a special vocabulary of terrorism emerged. For instance, the term
state terrorism came to be used for violent acts used by disfavored states to
suppress resistance movements. The Soviet Union used this term to describe
the policies of two U.S. allies: Israel, for the repression of Palestinians in the
occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip after 1967; and Turkey, for the
repression of its Kurdish minority after 1984. The United States, in turn,
used state terrorism as early as the mid-1970s to describe the repressive
domestic policies of states it considered to be Soviet allies, such as Iraq,
Syria, and South Yemen. During the 1980s another term, state sponsor of
terrorism, emerged to describe the support for nonstate groups provided by
countries that clearly were not allied to either the Soviet Union or the United
States. Iran and Libya were identified as the main state sponsors of
terrorism, the former because of its assistance after 1982 to Hizbullah in
Lebanon. In the case of Libya, the United States accused that country of
supporting Palestinian groups that targeted U.S. and Israeli interests in
Europe and of assisting several terrorist groups operating in north and
central Africa.

Origins of Terrorism in the Arab - Israel Conflict

The superpower rivalry in and rhetoric about the Middle East tended both to
obscure the local origins of terrorism and to frustrate efforts to address the
multifaceted consequences of violence. This problem is best revealed in the
Arab - Israel conflict, which began in 1948 separately from but in tandem
with the Cold War and still continues unresolved even though the
superpower conflict has ended. One significant legacy of the Cold War
relationship to the Arab - Israel conflict has been a great volume of partisan
literature, especially in the years after the formation of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. The Israeli - Palestinian struggle
over pre-1948 Palestine (which became Israel plus the territories of the Gaza
Strip and the West Bank in 1948) is the core of the Arab - Israel conflict.
The literature on this aspect of the conflict illustrates the controversies in
trying to achieve any relatively objective consensus on what groups merit
designation as terrorists and what kinds of violent acts constitute terrorism.
For this reason, it is a useful case to study.

For nearly thirty years prior to the signing of the Oslo Accord in September
1993, the State of Israel proclaimed the PLO and the various Palestinian
resistance groups that comprised its membership to be terrorist
organizations. Inevitably, there emerged a body of writings that supported
the Israeli position, not just in Israel but also in Europe and North America.
Although some of these studies were sophisticated and scholarly analyses of
the PLO's goals and methods, other accounts were merely polemical
denunciations of PLO tactics. Beginning in 1968 and continuing for more
than a decade, armed Palestinian groups known as fidaʾiyyun (guerrillas)
carried out numerous, violent operations that resulted in the deaths of
civilians. Many of their actions were sensational incidents that attracted
considerable media attention - a PLO objective, as the guerrillas hoped
publicity would further their cause. The several international airplane
hijackings, for example, culminated in September 1970 (known as Black
September) with the hijacking of four planes in as many days, precipitating a
civil war between the PLO and the army of Jordan. Attacks on Israeli
interests abroad culminated in the seizing of Israeli athletes as hostages at
the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, an incident that left eleven athletes
dead. Sporadic cross-border raids into Israel (from Jordan and Lebanon)
culminated in the temporary seizure of buildings in the northern Israeli
towns of Kiryat Shmona and Maʿalot (April and May 1974) and the deaths
of thirty-eight civilians, including many children. Rather than winning
sympathy for the Palestinians as the perpetrators expected, such incidents
created and reinforced a public image of the PLO as a terrorist organization.

In contrast to the official Israeli and U.S. views, the PLO saw itself as a
national liberation movement dedicated to achieving Palestinian rights and
resisting what it termed Israeli state terrorism. Its fighters were lauded as
heroes and martyrs, and its operations against Israeli civilians were justified
as defense of, or reprisals for, Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps
and assassinations of PLO leaders. The Soviet Union, the primary
international backer of the PLO after 1968, tended to remain silent about
many of the more sensational acts of violence by Palestinian guerrillas, but it
continued to promote the PLO as a national liberation movement. Soviet
support was especially significant after 1974 when Moscow encouraged
diplomatic recognition of the PLO as the legitimate representative of the
Palestinian people. Quite separate from the Soviet backing for the PLO, a
few academic studies and advocacy articles appeared that were sympathetic
to Palestinian claims and rights. Although these writings were scarcer than
the volumes of pro-Israeli literature and never achieved a similar impact on
the mainstream U.S. media, they did have some influence on intellectuals in
Africa, Asia, and Europe.

The Israeli - PLO conflict affected both regional and international politics by
the late 1970s. This is because the PLO used Lebanon, where a large number
of Palestinian refugees had lived since 1948, as a base for operations against
Israel throughout the 1970s, and Israel responded with retaliatory raids
against what it termed "terrorist nests" - suspected PLO facilities in refugee
camps. Many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians died in these raids, and
their deaths were described officially as "collateral damage" in a larger
operation against "terrorist infrastructure." The PLO condemned Israeli air
strikes as further evidence of state terror and also cited them as justification
for its own continuing attacks across the Lebanon-Israel border. The
escalating cycle of attacks and reprisals contributed to the civil war in
Lebanon (1975 - 1989) and also led to an Israeli invasion of southern
Lebanon in 1978. Israeli forces occupied a 6-mile-wide security strip,
ostensibly to prevent attacks into Israel; this occupation lasted until 2000. A
second Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 resulted in a war with the PLO,
its forced withdrawal from Lebanon under international protection, and the
Israeli occupation of Beirut and all of southern Lebanon. However, almost as
soon as the threat from the PLO seemed to be contained, Israel faced a new
source of terrorism that stemmed directly from its occupation of Lebanon
(which lasted until 1985).

A Lebanese group, Hizbullah, was formed in late 1982 with the initial aim of
expelling Israeli forces from Lebanon. Hizbullah's tactics, which included
suicide bombings against French and U.S. military forces in 1983 and,
beginning in 1984, the kidnapping of European civilians to use as hostages
for the release of its members held in Israeli jails, earned it an international
reputation as a terrorist organization. Hizbullah, however, neither sought nor
received any support from the Soviet Union. Like the revolutionary
government that assumed power in Iran in 1979, Hizbullah was equally
hostile to Soviet and U.S. policies in the Middle East. Although its
objectives were first and foremost political, Hizbullah also was inspired by
its own interpretation of Shiʿite Islam. Its frequent use of religious rhetoric
to explain or to justify its actions tended to alienate the Soviet Union even
more than its direct criticisms did. Thus, Hizbullah became one of the first
major nonstate groups in the Middle East to lack a superpower patron.
Despite or perhaps because of this status, Hizbullah succeeded in
establishing a permanent presence in Lebanon's politics and in becoming a
nonstate group whose actions Israel neither could control nor ignore.

Meanwhile, the removal of the PLO to Tunisia did not end its political
influence among Palestinians, and when an intifada (uprising) erupted in
December 1987 among Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip, the PLO gradually emerged as a main
coordinating force for the resistance. New groups unaffiliated with the PLO
also emerged during the intifada, principally HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.
Unlike the PLO, which claimed to be inspired by secular ideas, HAMAS and
Islamic Jihad cited religious ideals and percepts as at least partial
justification for their resistance against Israeli rule. Concern about the
increasing influence of groups such as HAMAS and Islamic Jihad may have
prompted the leaders of Israel's Labor Party to begin negotiations with the
PLO to end the long conflict. The political rapprochement between Israel
and the PLO in 1993 not only was unexpected, but it also necessitated a re-
evaluation of the negative ways each side had depicted the other. However,
the years of intellectual and emotional investment in the terrorism paradigm
made it difficult for some people on both sides to view formerly hated
terrorists as legitimate partners in peace negotiations.
Thus, from the outset of the Oslo peace process, some Israelis and
Palestinians were skeptical of the agreement and even were determined to
overturn it. The assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in
November 1995 (by an Israeli opposed to the Oslo Accord) and the first
suicide bombings undertaken in 1996 by HAMAS were significant terrorist
incidents that led to multiple actions and reprisals that cumulatively
undermined popular support for the peace process among both Israelis and
Palestinians.

It was in this increasingly tense atmosphere that Israeli politician Ariel
Sharon intervened in a manner that would have the effect (albeit at the time,
unforeseen) of overturning the peace process. Sharon was one of those
Israelis who distrusted and even opposed the Oslo Accord, and it is plausible
that he never had changed his conviction that the PLO was a terrorist
organization. When in September 2000 he led a group of Knesset members,
under armed escort, into the Muslim religious complex in Jerusalem known
as al-Haram al-Sharif, his intention was to assert Israeli sovereignty over a
site that Jews claim is the Temple Mount - the location of their ancient
temple destroyed by the Romans more than 2,000 years ago - and thus to
prevent its possible return to Palestinian sovereignty, which had been
proposed by some members of the Labor Party. The incident provoked
clashes with Palestinian worshipers, and the next day Israeli police killed
four protesting Palestinians as they emerged from Friday prayers at the al-
Aqsa Mosque in al-Haram al-Sharif complex. The situation escalated rapidly
as Palestinian policemen, in an effort to protect civilians, clashed with Israeli
soldiers at checkpoints in the West Bank. The al-Aqsa intifada thus began,
and subsequently its characteristic features included targeted assassinations
of suspected Palestinian resistance leaders by Israel and retaliatory
Palestinian suicide bombings at crowded civilian sites inside Israeli cities.
By early 2001, Israel and its supporters were labeling all acts of violence
from the Palestinian side as terrorism.

The U.S. "War on Terrorism"

Middle East terrorism, except for incidents such as the attack at the Munich
Olympic games in 1972, generally has stayed within the region. However,
Middle East - related terrorism acquired a global dimension with the 11
September 2001 attacks in the United States by nineteen members of the al-
Qaʿida network. Al Qaʿida is a political organization founded by Saudi
                      -
Arabian national Osama bin Ladin, and its objectives after 1991 were to
attack the United States and its interests because it viewed the U.S.
government as the main sponsor of regimes that it defined as "unjust,"
oppressive, and illegitimate. Ironically, bin Ladin collaborated with U.S.
officials during the 1980s when he and the United States shared the same
goal of forcing the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.
But when the United States dispatched troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990, bin
Ladin viewed this development as being no different from the situation of
Soviet troops in Afghanistan - in both cases the army of an "imperialist"
superpower occupying a weaker and Muslim country. Furthermore, the
presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia meant that a non-Muslim
army for the first time in more than 1,400 years was occupying the
religiously sacred land in which were located Islam's two holiest sites, the
cities of Mecca and Medina. Even though bin Ladin believed and practiced a
very conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam, his primary objectives vis-à-
vis the United States are political, not religious. Beginning with the bombing
in the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in 1993,
persons close to his al-Qaʿida organization were implicated in several
terrorist attacks. The most sensational incidents included suicide bombings
outside the barracks housing U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia in 1996
and outside two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. The 2001 attacks
prompted the United States to declare a "war on terrorism," and the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan became the first target because it provided sanctuary
to al-Qaʿida and rejected requests for the extradition of bin Ladin and other
leaders.

Its war on terrorism policy led the United States to focus on groups it
designated as terrorist to an unprecedented extent. One consequence of this
new preoccupation was that after 2001 Washington accepted the argument
of Israeli prime minister Sharon that PLO chairman and Palestinian
Authority president Yasir Arafat was condoning terrorist actions by groups
such as HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and his own Al-Fatah movement. When in
spring 2002 the Israeli army reoccupied West Bank towns and villages that
were supposed to be under the control of the Palestinian Authority, the
United States effectively did not protest. Thus, the peace process between
Israel and the PLO, seriously ailing since fall 2000, became an indirect but
fatal casualty of the war on terrorism.

The war on terrorism is cause for concern among legal experts in the field of
international humanitarian law, especially because states identified as
sponsors of terrorism, such as Iraq, become legitimate targets for attack
because they are thought to possess weapons of mass destruction that they
might provide to terrorist groups. The experts believe that civilians, who
have been the primary victims of violent conflicts since the early 1990s, will
be the main victims again, and they cite statistics that demonstrate that this
has been the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The phenomenon of terrorism has prompted the drafting of several
conventions, most notably the Rome Statute, that would make the intentional
killing of civilians a war crime, no matter who is responsible (i.e., a
government or a nonstate group). The intent is to criminalize violence
against civilians so that individuals can be prosecuted. The European Union
generally, and its member states such as Belgium specifically, have made the
most progress in terms of accepting the idea that violence against civilians,
whether undertaken by a state or nonstate organization, is terrorism and
needs to be punished. Other states, including major countries such as China,
Israel, Russia, and the United States, reject categorically the notion of state
terrorism and insist that international laws pertaining to terrorism must limit
definitions to nonstate groups that target civilians. Ultimately, one of the
most effective ways of reducing terrorism is for states to identify and
remove the causes that motivates terrorists, such as the denial of freedom
and political participation, repressive political occupation, and poverty and
despair.

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property in order to
coerce or intimidate a government or the civilian population in furtherance
of political or social objectives.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror or violence to achieve political
goals. The targets of terrorism include government officials, identified
individuals or groups, and innocent bystanders. In most cases terrorists seek
to overthrow or destabilize an existing political regime, but totalitarian and
dictatorial governments use terror to maintain their power. In the United
States, a series of terrorist actions in the 1990s led to the enactment of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-
132). This act sought to combat and prevent terrorism through the
development of antiterrorism programs and the strengthening of procedures
and penalties.

Terrorism has been used throughout human history and in every part of the
world. Roman emperors practiced terror to maintain their regimes, the
Spanish Inquisition used it to root out religious heretics, the French
Revolution went through a period called the Reign of Terror, and in the post-
Civil War southern United States, the Ku Klux Klan used illegal threats and
violence to intimidate supporters of Reconstruction.

In the late twentieth century, terrorism became a tool of political groups in
Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. The growth of international terrorism led
to kidnappings, hijacking of airplanes, bombing of airplanes and buildings,
and armed attacks on government and public facilities. In the 1980s several
countries including Libya, Iran, and Iraq were identified as supporting
international terrorism by providing training, weapons, and safe havens.

In February 1993 the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City,
New York, killed six people and injured more than a thousand others. The
bomb left a crater 200 by 100 feet wide and five stories deep. The Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Joint Terrorist Task Force identified
and helped bring to trial twenty-two Islamic fundamentalist conspirators.
The trial revealed extensive plans for terrorist acts in the United States,
including attacks on government facilities.

In the 1990s the United States also became more concerned about domestic
terrorist activities carried out by U.S. citizens without any foreign
involvement. Beginning in 1978, a person who came to be known as the
Unabomber targeted university scientists, airline employees, and other
persons he associated with a dehumanized, technology driven society. The
suspect killed three people and injured twenty-three others with package
bombs. At his insistence major newspapers published his 35,000-word
manifesto describing his antitechnology philosophy. In April 1996 a suspect,
Theodore Kaczynski, was arrested for crimes associated with the
Unabomber.

More than the Unabomber, however, the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995,
galvanized concerns about domestic terrorism. The bombing killed 168
people and injured more than 500 others. The FBI arrested Timothy J.
McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who were charged with murder and conspiracy.
McVeigh and Nichols have been connected to the right-wing militia
movement, which opposes the powers held by the federal government and
believes that its members' right to bear arms is threatened. In June 1997
McVeigh was found guilty of murder and conspiracy and sentenced to death.

In the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, President Bill Clinton and
members of Congress proposed measures to address terrorism. The
Antiterrorism Act was signed into law in April 1996. The law allocated $1
billion to fund federal programs to combat terrorism. The act also
established a federal death penalty for terrorist murders and strengthened
penalties for crimes committed against federal employees while performing
their official duties. In addition, the act increased the penalties for
conspiracies involving explosives and for the possession of nuclear
materials, criminalized the use of chemical weapons, and required plastic
explosives to contain "tagging" elements in the explosive materials for
detection and identification purposes.

Under the law, the U.S. secretary of state can designate groups as terrorist
organizations and prohibit fund-raising on behalf of these groups in the
United States. The secretary of the treasury is authorized to freeze assets of
these terrorist organizations and forbid U.S. citizens from conducting
financial transactions with known terrorist states. In addition, any person
who is a representative or member of a designated terrorist organization can
be denied entry to the United States, and the U.S. attorney general can deny
asylum to suspected terrorists.

								
To top