Terrorism in America

Robin Maria Valeri, Kevin Borgeson, Robin Maria Valeri, Kevin Borgeson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781138202085
• eBook ISBN:
  9781315455990
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Social Psychology
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Offering a fresh perspective on the changing face of terror attacks, Terrorism in America focuses on domestic groups, examining the beliefs, actions, and impacts of American-based terrorists and terror organizations. Editors Robin Valeri and Kevin Borgeson and their contributors draw on theories from criminology, psychology, and sociology to explore the ideologies of right-wing, left-wing, and extremist religious groups—how and why they convert followers, recruit financially, and take extreme action against others. No competing text offers such in-depth and nuanced coverage of the radical ideologies behind these attacks, or the ensuing fear domestic terrorism creates, as well as the strategies to combat violent extremism.

A core text for domestic terrorism courses and an excellent supplement for any counterterrorism or homeland security course, Terrorism in America brings its singular focus to the growth and evolution of terrorism in the United States. Interviews, case studies from the field, and chapter themes make this a highly readable text for criminal justice, psychology, sociology, and homeland security students, professors, or practitioners.

Part I
Roots of Terrorism

Chapter 1
The Criminology of Terrorism

Theories and Models

Thomas R. O’Connor

Overview

• Theories, motives, and causality
• Anarchism, fascism, and religion
• Rational choice and globalization
• Sociology, psychology, and psychiatry
• Biology and physiology
• Traditional criminological theories
• Unique criminological theories

This chapter discusses the major criminological theories of terrorism, or those theories that offer insights into what might be called explanations of terrorist behavior as criminal conduct. Explanations, as opposed to understandings, are designed to provide scientifically valid guides to research and, sometimes, policy. Theory-driven policy is rare, but far more common is theory-driven research. A good theory has practical uses if it provides, for example, some fairly clear ideas about what are the independent variables (the causes) and the dependent variables (the effects). Criminological theory is mostly about attempting to correctly identify the causes of behavior, and often this quest takes us into the realm of concepts we cannot see or observe directly. It helps if the concepts in a theory have clear meanings so researchers can test them by collecting and analyzing data that prove or disprove a theory. Admittedly, not all theories are inherently testable, and few offer crystal-clear meanings, but the job of explanation is never easy. By reviewing those theories that have stood the test of time, this chapter hopes to encourage more interest in theories of terrorism, the development of which is urgently needed.

Most of the major theories of terrorism are derived from theories of collective violence in the field of political science. Indeed, prior to the emergence of criminal justice as a separate discipline in the early 1970s, it can be safely said that political science pretty much had a monopoly over theories of terrorism, followed perhaps by the disciplines of religion, economics, sociology, and psychology. Criminological theories have also certainly had a role to play with some relevance. We will begin, first, with the theories of politically motivated collective violence—with the goal of providing an objective overview of theoretical concepts, causal factors, and models connecting cause and effect. The underlying concern should be to answer the questions, “Why does terrorism occur?” or “What causes it?,” rather than pass judgment or assess any of the theories at this point. With the political theories, it is often the case that the form of governance is held to be the main cause of terrorism, and with the other theories, a number of subcultural and personality factors are usually found to be at work. With other theories, such as sociology, the interplay between social movements and societal response is often looked at to help explain terrorism.

It should be noted that theory is more than the study of motive. In criminology, theories tend to take on more than the explanation of offender mind-sets and behavior. They often tackle issues such as victimology and criminal justice system response. Motive itself is frequently ignored in the prosecution of terrorists (Smith, 1994; Smith, Damphousse, Jackson, & Karlson, 2002). Justice itself is often evasive. Sentencing variations in bringing terrorists to justice occur mostly because of “structural-contextual” effects (when components of criminal justice work at odds with one another), because of “liberation” effects (when judges and juries nullify the law or follow their own sentiments), or because of justiciability issues (prosecutors decide not enough evidence exists to prosecute a case). Inconsistencies in sentencing affect the ability to collect research data because an unindicted or acquitted terrorist is not, legally, a terrorist. For this reason, and others, terrorism databases have limitations. However, analyses using such databases afford opportunities to test theories, tease out relevant variables or factors, do comparative theory testing, and so on—all of which help the larger purpose of theory development. It should be remembered, as the following theories are reviewed, that a strict legalistic conception of who is or is not a terrorist makes for a more rigorous approach. Just because somebody shares some of the ideas mentioned as causal factors in this chapter does not make them a terrorist. A court of law determines if a person is a true terrorist, and any theory that can explain court behavior as well as terrorist behavior definitely has some added value.

The Political Theory of Anarchism as a Theory of Terrorism

Terrorism is most definitely not a form of governance, but anarchism is. Most anarchists reject terrorism in its vanguard varieties (for nationalist or religious purposes), but in a theoretical sense, anarchism justifies terrorism as a form of criminal action that attacks the values of an organized, complacent society. Anarchism is a theory of governance that rejects any form of central or external authority, preferring instead to replace it with alternative forms of organization such as shaming rituals for deviants, mutual assistance pacts between citizens, syndicalism (any nonauthoritarian organizational structure that gives the greatest freedom to workers), iconoclasm (the destruction of cherished beliefs), libertarianism (a belief in absolute liberty), and plain old rugged individualism. An extreme form of it is called nihilism, which holds that all truths, values, and organizational structures are meaningless and that chaos is preferable to anything else, so one might as well destroy everything. Not all anarchists are nihilists, but they do share some compatibilities. Anarchism is often referred to as the 19th-century root of terrorism, the term first being introduced in 1840 by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Anarchism is defined as the rejection of the state, of any form of coercive government, and of any form of domination and exploitation. It involves the notion of free and equal access to all the world’s resources to enable positive freedom (freedom to) in place of negative freedom (freedom from, or the basis of most constitutional rights).

As a theory, anarchism holds a unique place in history because it was the first revolutionary movement to come up with systematic ideas about the purpose of agitation. The reader will surely recognize some of these ideas as terrorist tactics, but it’s important to first understand them in the context of anarchism. Proudhon contributed the idea of finding the “moment,” as when the moment is ripe for revolutionary action. Another anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin, popularized the idea of “propaganda by deed,” or letting your actions speak for themselves—which was a theory originally developed by Carlo Pisacane, an Italian revolutionary who argued that ideas spring from deeds and not the other way around. Over the years, this notion has evolved into a fairly coherent philosophy of the bomb as part of a propaganda campaign to stimulate awareness and sympathy with the cause, and in this respect has been noted as a defining feature of terrorism (Georges-Abeyie & Hass, 1982). Bakunin’s ideas strongly influenced anarchism because his concept of propaganda by deed also included a prohibition against large-scale group action (it being better, he thought, for anarchist action to be individualized or done in small groups). Most anarchists operate on the principle of leaderless resistance, or acting on your own, with little knowledge or support of the groups to which they may belong. Another anarchist, Sergei Nechaev, who was an associate of Bakunin’s, glorified the “merciless” aspect of destruction, but it was Bakunin who laid out the six steps necessary to destroy a social structure. These steps are paraphrased as follows:

• Kill the intelligensia (kill those who are intelligent and influential in society).
• Kidnap the rich and powerful (those who yield the biggest ransoms).
• Infiltrate the politicians (to find out their secrets and discredit them).
• Help the guilty criminals (to confuse society over justice and punishment).
• Defend the loudmouths (those who make dangerous declarations).
• Nurture the supporters (help fellow travelers who believe in societal destruction).

Major anarchist figures, such as Karl Heinzen and Johann Most, contributed the idea that murder, especially murder-suicide, constituted the highest form of revolutionary struggle. Both advocated the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Other anarchists contributed additional ideas, such as Peter Kropotkin’s notion of “propaganda by word,” or radicalizing the public by use of subversive publications. Anarchism (like fascism) has also had some influential female figures such as Emma Goldman (1869–1940), who comes to mind as an early founder of free speech (the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU) and sexual liberation movements. Minor figures in the history of anarchism—such as Charles Gallo, Auguste Vaillante, Émile Henry, and Ravachol (François Claudius Koenigstein)—advocated the idea that to have the most effect, the targets must be innocents (in places such as crowded dance halls or shopping centers) or symbols of economic success (for example, banks and stock exchanges). It may be worth noting, in passing, that the famous Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso developed his notion of the “born criminal” in part by being called in to examine the physical features of some minor anarchists who were really nothing more than criminals justifying their behavior with anarchist talk.

Between 1875 and 1912, anarchists alone or in small groups managed to assassinate or attempt to assassinate the leaders of nine different countries, including the United States (President William McKinley in 1901). These crimes were just the best-known acts of anarchism because anarchists were also involved in numerous ordinary crimes such as theft, robbery, murder, kidnapping, assault, and bombing. The most famous incident was the Haymarket riot in Chicago in 1886. During these peak years for classic anarchism, May Day celebrations became famous as all-out, crime-rampant days. Police departments around the world became convinced there was an international conspiracy, and suspicious foreigners were locked up by the hundreds in many countries. Perfunctory trials were held, and many defendants were hanged or deported. The most famous of these trials was the 1920 case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who were more antiwar and labor activists than anarchists. Anarchism in the classical sense was largely erased from the face of the earth by 1917 via a number of factors: the rise of communism and fascism (both of which are opposed to anarchism), strong xenophobic deportation (Red Scare) laws in democratic countries, and the fact that classic anarchism never became an organized movement. Twentieth-century terrorist groups that emerged later and claimed an ancestry with anarchism include the Japanese Red Army, the British Angry Brigade, the German Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Weathermen in the United States, and the Mexican Zapatista movement (Kushner, 2003). During the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, something called anarcho-syndicalism developed, which is a loose confederation of various protest groups. Those who call themselves anarchists today (see Purkis & Bowen, 1997) are more likely to be environmentalists or part of the antiglobalization movement, and they target such institutions as the Wor...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• PART I Roots of Terrorism
• PART II Terrorist Beliefs and Ideologies
• PART III Recruitment and Radicalization
• PART IV Effects of Terrorism
• Index