NCJ Number
203262
Date Published
2003
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This paper discusses the two preferred strategies already used in the prevention of terrorism, repressive and preventive war, and their legitimacy; and the two potential alternative strategies, a political response and a juridical-judicial response, against both al-Qaeda and kamikaze groups.
Abstract
In this chapter, the author discusses terrorism prevention strategies before and potential strategies after the attacks of September 2001 on the United States. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks the preferred strategy to prevent terrorism is war, both repressive war (policing war to capture the guilty individuals) and preventive war as in the case of Afghanistan (making war to prevent terrorist actions). The legitimacy of the defense tactics utilized by both the United States and Israel against the Palestinians, seen as repressive, and the tactics against Afghanistan, seen as preventive, are examined and discussed. Two private groups are identified as having triggered-off the “terrorism war” circle, the al-Qaeda and kamikaze groups which both propose themselves as governments of the future. Two possible prevention strategies are proposed that would have the potential in avoiding ever having to witness terrorist events. These identified strategies are a political response and a juridical-judicial response. The possibility of solving the problem of terrorism is through the rigorous application of the law and the power of politics over law. It is insisted upon that continuity be kept first between domestic and international politics, and then between domestic and international democracy. The only response to terrorism is the democratic model of life, the demonstration of its moral superiority which is at the basis of freedom of choice, and the affirmation of rights, the greater capacity to know how things stand and intervene in order to improve them.