TERRORISM, AN ANALYSIS

Gone are the days in which international tensions would light the powder keg of conflict and explode in a volley of musket fire. In which armies would face each other and through a cavalry charge, could topple an empire of dissolve a constitution. Today’s soldiers don no uniform bear no rank and rarely die for a specific country. Rather the lives of martyrs and revolutionaries alike are sacrificed on the altar of an ideological feud that erupts in violence and therefore war. terrorists to not represent a classical civilian anomaly such a serial killer , they are the wolves in sheep skin ,who through the masterful exploitation of fear ,enabled by the naivety exhibited by western democracies who continue to prosecute them under criminal and civil law  and attempt to advance their causes through religious, political and violent domination. In light of this terrorism is an invisible assault on a nation and its values. Governmental organizations must recognize this and prosecute enemy combatants under military rather than civilian law. However one must not be as naive as to believe that the only assaults on freedom are presented in the form of horrifying acts of violence executed upon a population .diligence is necessary in order to ensure that governmental agencies do not exceed their mandate and betray the spirit of democracy while fighting invisible enemies or political opponents. This dilemma now posses a complex problem, in which the transaction of liberty must be balanced with legitimate security concerns. On one hand the democratic relationship between the state and the politician is one of suspicion and mistrust   on the other hand it would be ludicrous to suggest public opinion dictate what will become   a component of the justice system. Rather the undertaking at hand must be approached through a careful combination of the military and judicial elements of the society mediated by an external body. Since we have established that terrorists qualify as soldiers rather than civilians we must specify which body is given the privilege to so objectively analyze a situation. As always criminals are brought before the civilian justice system however if the case may be that the judge suspects the defendant as fitting of the term terrorist  he transfers the case to an independent body chosen  in part  military officials and   democratic representatives of the people  .this group torn by  conflicting prejudices may hopefully cast aside their political duties and while acting  in accordance with their moral ones will  determine whether or not   the act in question constitutes war. Based on the verdict the soldier in question may be sentenced by a military court or resume his trial before a justice of the peace. Public perception of terrorism is so entrenched in the mud of personal prejudices and obscured by headlines and psychologists alike that this may serve as a middle ground which will guide democracies, and people as they embark on the treacherous road to security

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s