NCJ Number
192104
Journal
Terrorism and Political Violence Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Dated: Summer 2001 Pages: 1-26
Date Published
2001
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This article elaborates on the operational aspects of the “war” model and “criminal justice” model in the war against terror and presents an “expanded criminal justice” model. The application of these models and the reasons for the transition from one model to another are also examined.
Abstract
For many years, scholars have been preoccupied with one of the central dilemmas facing liberal democracies that wish to maintain their legitimacy in view of the varying degrees of challenge posed by terror and political violence. At the core of this dilemma is to what degree a democracy can lead an effective struggle against subversive elements while at the same time uphold its liberal, or even democratic character. In the effort to defend itself against terrorism, how can a liberal democratic state avoid the slippery slope that so easily may lead it to adopt the exact same methods as those who wish to undermine it? A great deal of research and academic debate have been devoted to the democratic dilemma of the fight against terror that in turn has spawned a number of different theoretical models. Two contrasting types of models of response have been delineated: the “war” model and the “criminal justice” model. In the “war” model, a stronger emphasis is placed on the actual restraint of terror than on the maintenance of liberal democratic rights. In the “criminal justice” model, the preservation of democratic principles is a fundamental premise in the fight against terror. The primary aim of this article is to present an expanded taxonomy between the “war” and “criminal justice” models or a tertiary, mediating model that reconciles these models and provides a more direct relation to the empirical reality of Israel’s changing response to Jewish terrorism and subversion over the last fifty years. This model is predicated upon two levels of analysis. The exogenic level stresses the cultural and social context of the process of determining policy and how policymaking is affected by these conditions. The endogenic perspective examines the degree to which the employment of the counter-terrorist model is based on consistent and professional grounds and whether it is possible to identify alternative motives for the use of one model of response over another. The development of a third “mediating” model is necessary for assisting in the clarification of the boundaries between the “war” and the “criminal justice” models, and may be referred to as the “expanded criminal justice” model. This model acknowledges the fact that the war against terror may have to stray from liberal standards, but at the same time significantly differs from the rules of war and customary military methods. The goal of this model is to include all those “gray” areas that are commonly practiced in the war against terrorism yet are not accounted for in either the “war” or the “criminal justice” models. The advantages of the “expanded criminal justice” model are twofold. First, it allows for a continuum between the first two models that will reduce the discontinuity between them. Secondly, the tertiary model will provide a framework for integrating theory and empirical reality, making it easier to classify and detect the changes in various countries’ responses to terrorist threats. Based on a set of deductive inferences drawn from the literature, the two traditional models as well as the proposed model can be classified according to the following criteria: general features, state interests, democratic acceptability, constitutional, legal and operational aspects. The use of a range of three models offers the possibility of a dynamic continuum. This continuum of models is then tested on the Israeli response to Jewish terrorism and possible explanations for the state’s decision to move from one model to the other. One of the central conclusions is that the most successful anti-terrorist campaigns led by Israel against Jewish terrorists were the ones in which the state’s authorities did not cross any democratic boundaries. 77 notes