In a previous article (Where Has the "New Terrorist" Been Lurking Since 9/11?) it was argued that “old” and “new” terrorism are two concepts that are rather identical. It was, also, argued that the need for the creation of the concept of “new” terrorism should serve some purpose. This article will attempt to shed light on this purpose, albeit in a concise fashion. A few scholars who defy the objectiveness of the concept of “new terrorism” and their research will assist this attempt.
According to Freilich and Guerette, “new terrorism” is a concept intentionally created to legitimate political decisions that are beneficial to the supposedly harmed country and to spread confusion to the wide public. As they explicitly state:
“Beginning in the late 1980s, the catchword putting penal law on the move around the world was “organized crime”, since September 11, 2001, it is terrorism. Under the pretext of terrorism, domestic security becomes an issue of external security thus alleviating or even ignoring legal and judicial restraints” (Freilich and Guerette, 2006: 17).
Indeed, the “deactivation” of law after 9/11 and the exploitation of the “new” and lethal terrorism to implement measures that would — otherwise — be considered overly intervening have been more than evident throughout the sequence of political actions following the 9/11 Apocalypse: on September 14, 2001, only three days after the inconceivable disaster, the Congress passed legislation, (S.J.Res. 23), which gave the President authority to:
“…use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons….” (Grimmett, 2007: 1).
The legislation was signed into law by the President on September 18, 2001 (P.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). In general, this law gave the USA authority to attack terrorist targets, even to survey electronically potential terrorists with no need of authorization of the special court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.
Having reported all the aforementioned facts, it could be claimed that the concept of “new terrorism” and its properties - as analyzed in the previous article - may have been deliberately adopted by the sovereign political status quo in order to legitimate political decisions of internal and external surveillance or even exonerate polemical projects. The ethical mind may find this sequence of events disturbing or insane and may refuse to accept that the death of thousands may have been used as a pretext for acts of war aiming at profit, but in politics and economics there is no room for conscience.
Further Source
Freilich, J., D. and Guerette, R., T., eds., 2006. Migration, Culture Conflict, Crime and Terrorism. Abingdon: Ashgate Publishing Group.
Stavroula Dimitropoulos - MSc, BSc
