Counter-Terrorism and Counter-Insurgency in Liberal Democracies

Cite this article: Chrysestoms, O. J. (2021). “Counter-Terrorism and CounterInsurgency in Liberal Democracies”. In Sokoto Journal of History Vol. 10. Pp. 70-79.

 COUNTER-TERRORISM AND COUNTER-INSURGENCY IN LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES

 Ogiral John Chrysestoms
Department of History and International Studies Ajayi Crowther University,

P.M.B 1066, Oyo State, Nigeria.

Tel: +2348075547733E-mail:- john.ogirai@gmail.com

Modern terrorism and insurgency is the result of complex social activity on several levels. Various types of terrorism and insurgency manifested in various ways. During the past few decades, terrorism and insurgency have become frequent, destructive and more international. This explains why liberal democracies have responded to terrorism in a number of forceful ways, because terrorism and insurgency are a direct threat to democracy, people human rights. The paper holds that liberal democracies conducting counter insurgency and the Western states that provide those operations must recognize and understand that the respect for human rights is central to supporting effective counter – terrorism and counter – insurgency strategies. The paper equally reveals that the rise of state – sponsored terrorism and insurgency and the use of the internet to plot and coordinate terrorism and insurgency acts do underscore the need for liberal democracies to coordinate global counter – terrorism and insurgency policies. The paper explores the fact that, people turn to terrorism and insurgency due to lack of opportunities for meaningful expression and democratic change and also due to lack of avenue to express their frustration. The ultimate treatment of the problem is to destroy the environment that produces violence. The paper found out that, some states have allowed their territories to be used to carry out terrorist and insurgency acts. Some of them have failed to ensure that terrorist and insurgency acts are established as serious criminal offences and are punishable. Many states have failed to sign international and regional conventions geared towards combatting international terrorism and insurgency. The paper concludes that, there is a link between terrorism, insurgency and liberal democracies. Political leaders in liberal democracies are expected to act lawfully against terrorism and insurgency without eroding the civil liberties of the populace.

Keywords: Diplomacy, Counter-terrorism, Counter-insurgency, Liberal Democracies, Military Operation.

Introduction

Terrorism and insurgency are a direct threat to democracies in Africa, around the world and to people‘s human rights. In other words, they are global crimes and have to be treated by the global- counter terrorist forces namely intelligence, military and police. There was little will for democracies to fight back with force, until the events of September 11, 2001. Consistency is very important in any anti-terrorist policy. It is only when the government in power can be assured of public support by the local masses that they could effectively counter terrorism. Any attempt by any democratic regime to concede terrorist and insurgent demands or to bargain with them is likely to

 

have very serious repercussion on that particular regime (Cotter,1998). Military support to the police is a tenet of counter-terrorism. Surveillance of suspects likely to commit terrorist acts is allowed under democratic regimes, as long as, it does not become a daily routine by security forces. In situation where military measures have not been taken by democratic regimes; political and economic sanctions have been initiated and the severance of diplomatic relations and expulsion of diplomats involved in terrorist acts (Dewar,1995).

Terrorism ultimately is a human problem, it produces victims, refugees, homeless and internally displaced persons. Counter-terrorism skills are interchangeable among democracies. Also military strikes have been authorized to attack terrorist bases and the use of commando forces and assassination of terrorist has been encouraged by democratic regimes (Bucket 1985). International conventions and cooperation against terrorism have been enacted by international and regional organizations and member states, but they are entirely dependent on the will, capabilities and efficiency of national governments that ratified them. The sharing of counter-terrorism intelligence with other states is an attempt to curtail the activities of terrorists and insurgents to carry out terrorist attacks which has been initiated by democratic states. Effective border checks have been adopted to prevent terrorist groups and individuals moving across international borders to plan or mount attacks, or evade justice or to obtain weapons, funds, training facilities or in search of safe haven (Alexander and Nanes, 1986).

The events of 9^th September 2011, and the subsequent initiatives by democratic states in waging the war on terror require all democratic states to respect the laws of other states because it will go a long way in the extradition and punishment of terrorist and insurgents. Differences in civil laws between democratic states should not serve as an avenue for providing safe haven to terrorist .Terrorism and insurgency are usually carried out by individuals who believe passionately in their cause, some of whom are prepared to die for it (Hacking, 1988) Walker,(1960) was of the conviction that terrorism could never be completely wiped out. The aim of counter-terrorism is to reduce terror to a minimum.

Insurgency

Insurgency is a struggle between authorities, in which the former consciously employs political resources (organizational skills, propaganda or demonstration or both) and instruments of violence to establish legitimacy for some aspect of the political system which the ruling authorities consider legitimate (Cotter 1988). Insurgents seek through violent means to separate themselves from existing arrangements and establish a separate political community. Good government is the best method to avoid insurgency. There are wide range of political situations in which insurgency occurs, or may occur, depending on the nature of the arena chosen urban or rural and the status of the territory in which it occurs, as well as on the political order of the state that is combating the insurgency, either in liberal democracy, authoritarian government, or dictatorship (Cotter,1998).

Different Types of Insurgent Movements

(i)           Secessionists Insurgents.

(ii)         Revolutionary Insurgents.

(iii)       Reactionary Insurgents.

(iv)       Conservative Insurgents.

 

(I)           Secessionists Insurgents:

Reject the existing political community of which they are part and parcel and seek to constitute an independent organization or state. (Oganski, 1958)

(II)        Revolutionary Insurgents:

Seek to impose a new regime based on egalitarian values and centrally control the structure to activate the people and change the social structure.

(III)     Reactionary Insurgents:

Seek to change the regime by reconstituting a past political order, but their vision relates to an idealized golden age of the distant past in which religious values and authoritarian structure were predominant.

Insurgent movements all over the world use both political resources and instruments of violence against the ruling authorities in order to accomplish their objectives.

Internal warfare of insurgent movements include, Algeria war of independence and Portuguese‘s conflicts in Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and the insurgent wars in Cambodia, and Vietnam. Conspirator Insurgencies include the Red Brigade in Italy, Bolshevik in Tsarist Russia and the Red Army in Japan.

Insurgency is more of a political phenomenon than a military one, good government is the best method to avoid insurgency (Deware, 1995)

Counterterrorism

It is the use of personnel and resources to preempt, disrupt or destroy capabilities of terrorists and their support networks. It is an offensive as opposed to defensive approach to the threat involving diplomacy and intelligence operations. Diplomacy involves local enforcement military operations, counterterrorism training and also the following features;

(i)           Diplomacy:

The diplomatic dimension of counterterrorism is associated with foreign relations and international terrorists. Diplomacy is the art of persuading others to do things that serve mutual interests. The use of diplomacy involves reaching international consensus how to handle issues ranging from imposition of sanctions on state sponsors, aviation security and developing response to terrorism.

(ii)         Intelligence Operation:

Intelligence is a tool of counterterrorism and has several dimensions, field operations covert action, and technical cooperation. Under field operation, the aim is to identify the members of terrorist organizations, learn how they get their money, locate where they carry out covert operation, with the use of information and/ or disinformation to attack and weaken the opponent with the aim of creating an environment that supports overall counterterrorism policy such as in the United States and Great Britain (Higgins, 1997).

The technical dimension of intelligence activities  includes efforts to intercept and monitor all communications by terrorists. Such as wiretapping to enhance penetration of a terrorist computer, a good example is the United States (Dobson and Payne, 1982).

 

Law Enforcement

Arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating terrorists have occupied center stage of many countries on the war on counter terrorism. Arresting terrorist‘s helps in sending a message to other terrorist that people who carry out terrorist acts will be caught and punished, a good example was in Uganda.

Military Operations:

Military operations play a very important role in combating terrorism, even though there are very few opportunities for its usage. The threat posed by terrorist in democratic regimes is likely to continue and requires new and creative response by governments through the application of diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement, military operations and training have to be continued to be employed in a variety of manners to attack groups and individuals engaged in terrorism. France, Britain and Spain has made use of the military to counter terrorist acts in their respective countries (Waugh,1982).

Social Factors Causing Terrorism and Insurgency

Some terrorist experts are of the view that social injustice and the denial of equal participation in a political system are the root cause of terrorism. They are of the conviction that if such causes were eliminated, terrorism would not develop. According to Rubenstein (1987:49) social conditions such as poverty, injustice and hopelessness, were the major cause of terrorism in many third world countries for example in Afghanistan.

Terrorist actions are ultimately justified by social circumstances. There is however social factors that produce act of terrorism and this is especially true when terrorism is employed as an extension of military policy. It is very important to differentiate forms of terrorism, by isolating the types of terrorism and their identities and the social conditions that produce them. Rather than calling every low level action terrorism. Walter Lagueur (1987) observed that social conditions had very little to do with terrorism He was of the conviction that the more a repressive a government becomes the less terrorism it suffers. According to him social conditions were relatively immaterial. He made reference to ETA terrorism as an example of which he argued that, the Basque terrorism did not burst forth until the repressive hand of President Franco were lifted (Hewitt, 1984).

Some terrorist experts are of the conviction that, terrorism could be eliminated by attacking poverty and injustice. At the same time they were of the view that, counter-terrorist policies should be geared towards improving the social conditions and creating new avenues for political expression. This is because terrorist like criminals are the products of their environment, they turn to violence because they have no other avenue to express their frustration. The only alternative left for them is to destroy the environment that produces violence (Lodge, 1981).

Alfred Juergensmeyer (1988) commenting on the environment factors as the major cause of terrorism, opined that, lack of opportunities and democratic change were at the root of violence in Ireland. Christopher Hewit (1984) was of the conviction that when governments fail to improve the conditions that produce terrorism, it often produces an unlimited effect.

Democratic Regimes and Counter Terrorism

The main challenge facing democratic regimes is how terrorism could be curtailed without jeopardizing democratic rights and liberties. Democratic regimes are however obliged to follow the role of law whenever possible. In some democratic countries laws have been enacted by legislative

 

chambers in keeping with democratic norms with string emphasis on individual rights. In such democratic institutions, terrorism has been regarded as a criminal offence rather than a political behavior for example in Spain, Portugal and Italy.

Modern technology namely, satellites, electronic surveillance, scanners, robotic vehicles and drones, have greatly enhanced existing counter-terrorist capabilities for obtaining information about terrorist hideouts, movements and plans for example United States, Spain and Great Britain.

The freezing of terrorist assets and the disruption of financial networks has today become an important policy in some democratic regimes in the western world. Billions of dollars have also been allocated by the United States and some Western democrats to enhance airport security and also invested heavily in training and equipment procurement to enhance national and local disaster response capabilities. Many states such as United States, Spain and France have also sought to isolate states that sponsor terrorism and the seizure of their assets and also sought cooperation with other States. In some democratic States, the military has been used as an extension of police force to ensure domestic peace. Wardlaw 1990 was of the conviction that the use of the military force often exaggerates the threat of terrorism. He argued that the police were more prepared and suitable for counter terrorism operations than the military due to their military training which lays emphases on respect human rights.

Government Policy Response to Terrorism and Insurgency in Democratic Regimes

There are a number of measures which can be taken in response to terrorism namely, detecting, capturing and prosecuting terrorists. Any policy adopted to enhance security measures in democratic regimes, usually generates controversy among policy makers and academicians. The reason is that enhanced security increases the power of the state. Any approach involving counter-terrorism is controversial and all approaches tend to be dominated by ideology rather than hard data. Lack of academic data on counter-terrorism has led to a proliferation of assumptions and common beliefs that repression is the answer to terrorism. (Probet 1989). Walter Laqueur (1987:7) was one of those who argued that terrorism could be destroyed through repressive measures. He was of the conviction that the pool of potential terrorist was not unlimited and that the elimination of the majority of terrorist would reduce incidents of terrorist attacks. Neil Livingstone and Arnold, (1983) also shared the same view with Lagueur, they argued that, repression is the enemy of terrorism. They went further to observe that terrorists could not operate in a repressive state. Some scholars were of the conviction that lack of acts of terrorist attacks in Eastern Europe before the end of the cold war in 1991 was due to the policy of repression adopted by the former communist states. Walter Laqueur cited the case of Ayottolah Khomeni regime in Iran, the observed that under the regime of Ayotollah, Iran experienced little internal terrorism, because its citizens were very happy with his administration (Taheri, 1987).

Experts on counter-terrorism believe that the policy of repression does not destroy terrorism. For instance in EI Salvador the use of death squads by the government in power at that time failed to stop acts of terrorism. Instead, it increased the activities of insurgents to continue with guerrilla tactics, against the government in power (Smith, 1990). In the case of Irish Republican Army (IRA) and (ETA) in the Basque region of Spain, the use of repression by the police lead to escalation of terrorist acts by the two groups, resulting in wining sympathy among the local population for the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Basque (Post 1987). According to Hewit (1984) the use of

 

repression by the military in Central America did not completely deter terrorism, but that it had a short-term effect and continuous use of repression had very little effect on terrorism.

The use of suppression by the government to be successful, need to gain the support of the local population; that could be achieved by mobilization of public opinion against terrorist campaigns. Act of repression by security agents outside democratic norms is likely to be condemned by the populace. When there are signs of violation of democratic norms, frustrated groups of soldiers, police and para-military forces might end up taking matters into their own hands. It is important to note that the emergence of death squads in El-Salvador and Argentina started when some members of the security forces lost faith in the government in power. (Henderson, 2000).

Counterterrorism and Counter Insurgency Strategy- the Military Versus Terrorists and Insurgents

Military units have been used to counter terrorist acts in two different ways. First military force has been used as an extension of police force. Second, military units have also been used to strike at terrorist base camps. The use of military force has been attributed to the fact that, the problems and challenges associated with terrorism have become too great, to be left in the civil power of the state. The use of the military against terrorists is of the belief that, civilian police is weak due to lack of sophisticated weapons in dealing with violence associated with terrorism, due to the fact that terrorist have become too strong (Leeman, 1981). Grand Wardlaw (1982:87) carried out a study on the role of the military in counterterrorism operations. He was of the conviction that the police was more suitable for counterterrorist operations as they are well trained for these activities due to its respect of civil regulations. In a situation where the police is unable to handle a terrorist situation, then the military may be mobilised on condition that it respects civil regulations norms because at times the military tends to exaggerate the threat of terrorism. There is controversy in the use of the military by states in counterterrorism operations. This is because in many democratic regimes it is outlawed according to their countries‘ constitution to use the military to maintain domestic peace, most often is associated with overreaction on the part of the military forces which on many accession is associated with repression.

International Co-operation in the War against Terrorism and Insurgency

Since the events of September 11, 2001, it is lucidly clear that, terrorism can never be eradicated but could only be contained or deterred. Today the first phase of the war against terrorism is the American war on terror with the support from its allies performing a secondary role. The greatest threat to mankind today since the end of second world war in 1945 comes from rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction and some of them today have acted as force multipliers by supplying them with explosives, cash, arms, travel documents safe-haven and encouragement which enabled them to carry out successful terrorist attacks world wide (Dobson and Payna 1982).

Terrorists today have become more sophisticated in terms of transnational communication and transportation networks. The events of September 11, 2001, have clearly shown that even in advanced technologically societies like the United States, Britain, Spain and France could be attacked by terrorists. Today many of the weapons used by terrorist are getting smaller and harder to detect. States which sponsor terrorist organizations have successfully been able to deliver sophisticated equipment to various terrorist groups and individuals to carry out terrorist acts. All citizens the world over are entitled to life, liberty and security. This is the hallmark in the internationalized globalized world in which we live in. A basic premise of international law on

 

terrorism is that it is a crime against humanity and terrorist are enemies of humanity (Morris and Hoe, 1990). When one speaks of the policy response to terrorism, terrorism is complex and creates a set of challenges for the policy makers and for the countries. Terrorism is an organized system of extreme and violent intimidation to create instability within democratic regimes, it is the most amoral of organized violence (Morris and Hoe, 1987).

As many observers have noted, especially since September 11, 2001, there is mutual suspicious and rivalries between some intelligence agencies. There has been public and political resistance to the introduction of a European Union (EU) identity card system. At the same time different national legal systems have created problems regarding extradition of terrorist involved in terrorist acts.

In Africa there is limited cooperation to counter-terrorism. Within the European Union there are improved levels of counter-terrorism co-operation and technological developments including better protection for and on civilian aircraft and at airports (Lodge, 1981). Since the events of September 11, there has been a very rapid expansion by the democracies to co-operate at government level to promote links between respective counter-terrorist agencies. Border controls have been strengthened in countries most often experiencing terrorist acts.

Prior to the events of 9th September 2001, international efforts to combat terrorism were undertaken by the United Nations, the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe, which were very ineffective in combatting terrorism. After the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration enjoyed the full cooperation of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in its war on terror. Intelligence sharing among democratic regimes has improved tremendously. International intelligence organization for example Interpol has been very successful in capturing terrorists in some states and at the same time preventing terrorist acts from being carried out by terrorists. At the same time there has been cooperation between the United States and European Union on matters related to boarder control and police matters. (Kristin Archick 2006). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) cooperated with Russian internal security agency (KGB) to fight groups involved in the smuggling of nuclear materials and organized crimes.

Conclusion

Terrorism and insurgency are human problem that produce victims, refugees, and displaced persons. There are a number of measures which can be taken in response to terrorism and insurgency; such measure inlude detecting, capturing and prosecuting terrorist and insurgents and avoiding terrorist and insurgent‘s acts by counter-measures such as physical security of facilities, personal security of targeted officials and behaving in ways that make the person or place difficult to target. Terrorists are becoming more sophisticated in terms of transnational communication and transportation network, as the events of September 1, 2001 showed. Terrorists and insurgents must not in any way, be allowed to wage battle against liberal democracies no must criminal terrorists and insurgents be allowed to wage war against society in pursuit of their selfish private ends. Members of the military need to be alert to meet up with the challenges posed by terrorists and insurgents in order to curtail their atrocities. Good intelligence network among the different branches of the defense forces is necessary to curtail the activities of terrorist and insurgents. Terrorism and insurgency have great implications for national security. Apart from the killing of innocent civilians and the destruction of lives and properties, terrorism and insurgency subvert the operations of military forces by demoralizing their morale, resulting in the breakdown of law and order.

 

In liberal democracies one has to balance and enlighten the security against infringement of civil liberties. A basic premise of international law on terrorism is that it is a crime against humanity and terrorists and insurgents are therefore the enemies of humanity. Nation must not become safe haven of terrorists and insurgents. Terrorist must be dealt with under the democratic process of the law. International cooperation among liberal democracies should be encouraged by working together for greater concordance of laws on the prosecution, extradition and punishment of terrorist. Counterterrorist acts and prevention action on terrorism and insurgency is aimed at making it harder for terrorists to act in the first place, to stop terrorist acts being carried out, to reduce massive casualties while inflicting damage on the terrorists and insurgents. At the same time educating the general public on the evils of terrorism and insurgency, because terrorist and insurgents believe they are powerful and liberal democracies are weak, brutal, corrupt and inept and only by meeting their demands would their problem be solved. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in democratic regimes. It constitutes a threat to the rights of freedom of democratic states all over the world. Counter-terrorism measures have been adopted and focused towards, prevention and protection of innocent lives and in tackling the factors which contributed to radicalization, which is responsible for young people joining terrorist groups.

References

Alexander, Y. and Nanes A. (eds) (1986), Legislative Response in Terrorism, Dordrecht. M. Nijhdf. Bailey W. G. (ed) (1986), Encyclopedia of Police Service, New York/London: Garland Publishers.

Berwick, H. (2002) ―Legislation: The Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001‖. A Response to September 11 A maiden Law Review Vol.65 No.5.

Bucket, F. W. (1985), Armed Focus and Modern Counter-Insurgency. New York St. Martin‘s Press. Bucket, I.E.M. (1985), Armed Forces and Maiden Counter-Insurgency, New York: St. Martin‘s

Press.

Carruthers, S. L. (1999), The Media at War, Communication and Conflict in the Twentieth Century.

New York. St. Martin‘s.

Cinballa, S. J. (ed) (1987), Intelligence and Intelligence Policy in a Democratic Society. Dobbs ferry. New York. Transnational Publishers.

Dobson, C. and Payne, R. (1982), Counter-attack: The West‟s Battle against the Terrorists. New York: facts on file.

Deware, M. (1995) Weapons and Equipments of Counter-Terrorism, London: Arm & Armor Press. Cotter, (1998) ―Towards a Counter – Terrorism Law and Policy Terrorist and Political Violence,

Vol.1, No 2.‖

Farnen, R. F. (1990), ―Terrorism and the mass media. A systematic Analysis of a Symbiotic Process‖ Terrorism, Vol. 13, No 2.

Frey R. and Morris, C. (eds) (1991), Violence, Terrorism and Justice. Cambridge University Press. Freedman L. Hull, C. Roberts et.al (1988), Terrorism and International Order. London. Routledge. Gearty, C. A. and Kimbrell, J. A. (1996), Terrorism and the Rule of Law. Oxford: OUP.

Greenwood, C. (2002), ―International Law and the War Against Terrorism‖  International Affairs, Vol. 78, No 2.

Hacker, E. J. (1976), Crusaders Criminals, Grazies: Terror and Terrorism in Our Times. New York Newton.

Higgins, R. (1997), Terrorism and International Law, New York, Routledge.

Hocking, Jenny (1988), ―Counter-Insurgency as Counter Terrorism. The British Experience‖ Social Justice, Vol.15.

Leiden, C. and Schmit, K. M. (1968), The Politics of Violence Englewood Cliffs, New York Prentice Hall.

Leeman, R. W. (1991), Rhetoric of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism, Wesport, CT. Greenwood Press.

Levinson, D. (ed) (2002), Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. Vol 4, London Sage. Lesser, I. O. (1999), Countering the New Terrorism, Santa Monica, CA Rand Corporation.

Livingstone, N.C. and Arnold T. E. (eds) (1986), Fighting Back: Winning the War against Terrorism, Lexington, MA. Lexington Books.

Long, D. E. (1990), The Anatomy of Terrorism, London: Free Press.

Lodge, J. (ed) (1981) Terrorism. A Challenge to the State, New York: St. Martin‘s Press. Kozlow, C. (1997/8), Jane‘s Counter-terrorism, Jane Information Group.

Merkl, P. H. Weinberg L. (eds) (1983), Encounter with the Contemporary Radicals Right. Boulder, CO Westview Press.

Merari, A. (1999), ―Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency‖ Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol.

5, N0. 4(Winter)

Miller, A. H. (ed) (1982), Terrorism: The Media and the Law, Dobbs Feerry, New York: Transnational Publishers.

Netanyahu, B. (1995), Fighting Terrorism. How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorism, New York: Avon.

O‘Neil B. E. (ed) (980), ―Insurgency: A Framework for Analysis‖ in B. E. O‘Neil (ed) Insurgency in the Modern World. Boulder, CO View Press.

Payne, S. (2002), Britains, New Anti-Terrorist Legal Frame Work London, Rusm Journal (June). Q Neil, B. (1990), Insurgency and Terrorism, London: Brassey‘s.

Q Neil, B. (1984), ―Insurgency: The Context of Terrorism‖ in H. H. Han (ed) Terrorism, Political Violence and World Order. Lanham MD. University Press of America.

Silverman, J. M. and Jackson P. M. (1970), Terror in Insurgency Warfare. Military Review, Vol.

50.

Shipiro, S. (2002), ―Conflict media Strategies and the Politics of Counter-terrorism‖ Politics Vol.

22, No2.

Smith, G. Davidson (1990), Combating Terrorism, New York: Routledge.

 

Thackrah, J. H. (1983), ―Army-Police Collaboration against Terrorism‖ Police Journal (Jan. – Mar.).

Trivalio, G. M. (2000), ―Terrorism International Law and the Use of Military Force‖ International Law Journal, Vol. 18, No1.

Tugwell, M. A. (1986), ―Terrorism and Propaganda: Problems and Response‖ Conflict Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2.

Thackrah, J. R. (1982), ―Army-police Cooperative: A General Assessment” Police and Society

October.

Waugh, W. L. (1982), How Nations Respond to Terrorism Salisbury, NC, Documentary publications.

Watson, F. M. (1976), Political Terrorism. The Threat and Response. Washington, DC, Robert B. Luce.

Wilkinson, P. (1990), ―Terrorism and Propaganda‖ In Alexander. Y. and Latter, R. (eds), Terrorism and the Media. New York: Brassey.

Williams. G. Lee (2002), Can Terrorism be Defeated? Annual Conference; Stoke Rochford Granthan England. February.

Whittaker, D. J. (2002), Terrorism: Understanding the Global Threat. Harlow and London Pearson Education.

Wolf, J. B. (1976), “Controlling Terrorism in a Free Society” Orbis Vol. 19. No. 34.

Click to download PDF.