Law

In this day and age, there is no absolute definition of a terrorist.  In some cases, they are known as  guerrillas.  
Such individuals have ranged from political activists to those who have taken arms and called themselves revolutionaries, freedom fighters and to those who have gone too far, thugs and (of course), terrorists.

Nowadays, the lines that differentiate a guerilla (freedom fighter) and terrorist have become blurred.  Guerrillas are essentially resistance fighters.  They believe they are fighting for a (good) cause and for them, it is necessary to resist or overthrow the regime they regard as evil and opppressive.  They are guided either by religion or idelogy that provides a basis for their ideals and cause.   Their approach is two-tiered.  One one hand is their political arm which is made up of activists and agitators.  They are the overt face or front of the movement.  They  attack  through political agitation such as strikes, rallies and demonstrations as a way to discredit or destabilize the government.  Its other face is the armed movement which carries out guerrilla warfare or rebellion.  They strike at vital centers of the government from military installations to government institutions wherever they may be found.  However, in the process, there would be  collateral damage  which would result in the deaths of innocent civilians who are supposedly not the intended targets of these groups.  This is what makes guerrillas (or whatever name is given to them) different from terrorists.

Terrorists, as the name suggests aims to strike terror or fear.  They share the same roles as guerillas but the difference is they take it a step further by inflicting as much damage as they can even if it means harming civilians.  The purpose of this is to expose the weakness of the state or its inabiltiy to protect its citizens despite the measures they have implemented.  Whats more, in the day and age, terrorists have enalarged their territory.  They are no longer limited to their locale and have gone transnational where terrorist groups have established linkages with other groups who share a common cause with them or serve as their overseas extensions.  The favorite target such organizations are powerful nations like the United States (US) whom they regard as evil and oppressive and they feel justified attacking them even if it means targetting civilians.  This was evident on the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.  These attacks would not be the last as subsequent attacks have followed and have taken place in places other than the US, most notably in the United Kingdom (UK), an ally of the US that dates back to the Second World War. Like the US, the UK has also had its share of terrorism on its own soil, mainly from the more radical elements of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and recently, Al-Qaeda as well, the most recent terrorist attack on British soil was the one that  took place on 7 July 2005. which killed over 50 people.  By far this was the worst terrorist attack Britain ever experienced since the bombing in Brighton by the IRA in the 1980s.  In the light of these attacks, it can be seen that the terrorists appraoch or methods in carrying out his mission has evolved through the years.  From assassination of key individuals and hostage-taking, they have  graduated  into suicide attacks, willingly sacrificing their lives to inflict more casualties and damage in the name of his faith.
According to those who have studied the nature of terrorists, the ones motivated by religion are far more dangerous than those motivated by ideology such as the IRA and the left-wing  national liberation  movements of Italys Red Brigade, the German Red Army Faction and Perus Shining Path to name a few.  For them, innocent lives mean nothing and for them, their belief is far more important and they would not care if collateral damage is caused by their attacks so as long as their goals are achieved.

Upon identifying perpatrators of the attacks, the next thing any government would do is to implement measures in addressing this threat from identifying the perpetrators to dealing with them accordingly.  The full resources of the state are at their disposal.  However, in this new war on terror, no matter where it is waged, one question remains to be answered who is the terrorist  Even though definitions have been given, the line that separates terrorists from freedom fighters and even common criminals are not clearly defined if seen  from a legal perspective.  In other words, there is still no definite definition of terrorism and how does one classify a terrorist.

In his work, Inside Terrorism, Bruce Hoffman attempts to define terrorism in the first chapter of his book.  According to him, the  mainstream  definitions of terrorism are unsatisfying in the sense that they are too pedestrian to accurately define terrorism.  Even though one appears to be acceptable (terrorism aims to induce terror), it still fall short because it is still broad in scope to accurately capture the definition of a terrorist.  For Hoffman, the more acceptable definition comes from OED which means anyone (terrorist) who intends to further his views through coercive intimidation.  He further adds that terrorism is inherently political in nature which entails the acquisition and use of (coercive) power to impose its will on others.  Through his work, let alone this chapter, Hoffman is aware of the contextual, if not cultural differences which makes the classification of terrorism very murky.

In another book written by Eqbal Ahmad and David Barsamian, Terrorism Theirs and Ours, they give us a history of how terrorism evolved on how certain groups were labeled terrorists on one hand, and freedom fighters on another.  Two such examples given are the Haganah, the Jewish underground movement, led by men like Menachem Begin and the Palestinian Liberation Organization of the late Yasser Arafat.  They were hailed as heroes by their ilk and those who sympathize to their cause yet reviled by those whom they attack.  Like Hoffman, Ahmad and Barsamian sees there is no absolute definition or classification of a terrorist.  From the title of the book alone, it serves to underscore the clash of cultures and societies in labeling one a terrorist (or freedom fighter), depending on who one is listening to.  They even cite a statement made by the former Secretary of State George Shultz who said there is no absolute defintion of a terrorist.  Going back to the title of the book, it is a matter of context which would still be debated.

In an article written in the American Sociological Review titled Conceptualization of Terrorism, Jack Gibbs attempted to explain in detail the nature of terrorism.  He begins by asking these questions
Is terrorism necessarily illegal (a crime)
Is terrorism necessarily undertaken to to realize some particular type of goal
How does terrorism necessarily differ from conventional military operations, be it a civil war or a full-blown conflict or even guerrilla warfare
Is it necessarily the case that the opponents of the state engage in terrorism
Is terrorism necessarily a unique strategy in the employment of violence

Gibbs then attempts to answer each one of the questions.  For some, terrorism is regarded as a crime since it entails breaking laws ranging from destruction of property to murder.  Terrorism has a goal to attain and they believe that violence or destruction is the way to get the attention they crave and it would be considered successful if the desired effect, no matter how big or small the magnitude, is achieved.  From the purview of military operations, terrorism has evolved.  It used to be a tactic in guerrilla warfare and can sometimes be performed by military forces but in essence, the war on terrorism is classified as a low-intensity conflict as its participants do not engage in  traditional  warfare strategy and tactics and requires different strategies and tactics in dealing with it.  With regards to the fouth question, terrorism or violence is the ultimate measure the opponents of the state will employ if all other means fail.  This is usually carried out by the most determibned  terrorist  groups who strongly adhere to their ideology or faith which they regard as more important than anything else.  In answering the fifth question, terrorism is a unique strategy as it seeks to undermine the morale of society   to make them lose faith in their government to show they cannot be protected and that their government is weak and powerless to stop them.  Essentially, terrorist attacks are meant to make a psychological impact.  It is not only armed warfare but psychological warfare at the same time and violence is the vehicle to achieve that effect.

Another attempt to define terrorism can be found in an article written by David Rodin in Ethics titled Terrorism Without Intention.  Rodin admits that there is absolutely no definite way to define terrorism especially since the term has been overused and somewhat  distorted  by various sectors.  He has given us various categorical definitions of terrorism based on a particular context.  One is from a tactical or operational context in terms of the weapons and tactics employed by the terrorists.  Basically, what this means is anyone who uses weapons that tends to inflict maximum damage especially on non-military targets, regardless of the delivery method would be considered a terrorist.  But Rodin considers it too narrow.  The other is from a teleological context in regards to the aims and goals of terrorists which is political in nature.  Terrorist attacks, regardless of the size or magnitude, intend to deliver a strong political message to both government and society as it intendsto further a cause terrorists subscribe to whethr it is religion or ideology.  Another context is centered on the agent or perpetrator.  According to Rodin, it eliminates the state from the equation and focuses it on non-state entities.  Gone were the days of state-sponsored terrorism of the 1970s and the 1980s.  Transnational terrorism is not sponsored by any state although Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban gave refuge to Osama bin Laden.  Todays terrorist groups are essentially non-state entities living in the shadows worldwide in cells ready to respond to the call when needed as was the case of the suicidal hijackers on September 11, 2001 and more recently  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian follower of Al-Qaeda who attempted to blow up an American airliner on Christmas Day 2009.  They do not represent a country but if one would ask them, they represent their faith which gives them the impetus to carry out such attacks.  Corollary to this would be the context based on objectives or goals.  Every terrorist has a goal to achieve and so as long as the desired effect is achieved, to sow terror, it is considered successful.

Rodin would then synthesize these four contextual definitions to arrive at his definition of terrorism as a  deliberate, negligent or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantially just legal process.   Rodin further goes on to discuss in detail the characteristics of terrorism such as the use of force which would range from bombing to hostage taking and even murder which includes assassinations of high-profile individuals or large-scale massacres.  Terrorists are guided by ideology or belief that gives them the impetus or motivation to carry out and even justify their attacks.  Looking at it through the prism of their beliefs, they regard themselves as freedom fighters or patriots out to fight a cruel entity or institution that makes them believe what they do is right when others see it as wrong.  Furthermore, it is this belief that distinguishes a terrorist from a common criminal which is the reasons why advocates of stronger measures against terrorism argue that such terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts, not only because of the ideological element but the terrorists themselves regard themselves as soldiers despite waging unconventional warfare .  With regards to noncombatants, they are civilians.  Terrorists favor attacking civilians not only because they are easy to attack but they form the bulk of the citizenry in a state or society and any successful attack would undermine their faith in their government whose responsibility is to maintain peace and order and to ensure their security.  In the absence if legal process, it follows that terrorists do not follow the law and often acts with impunity in defying the laws of a state.  In unconventional warfare, this is the advantage they have over the security forces as they are bound by laws and their disregard for laws allows them to get away with their acts knowing that security forces can only go so far in dealing with them.  And yet in their mind, their acts are a manifestation of their pursuit of justice but it is a justice defined by their beliefs which further emboldens them in committing such acts that others would find abhorrent such as massacring innocent civilians.

Rodins article is complimented by an article by Saul Smilansky also published in Ethics titled,  Terrorism, Justification and Illusion. He defines terrorism as an act that intentionally targets civilians with lethal or intense violence for political purposes.  Although his initial definition is similar to that of Rodin, Smilansky breaks away from the similarity when one arrives at the second part of his article which questions the justification of terrorist acts.  Here he differentiates terrorist acts which are justified (legally and morally to a certain extent) to the ones not justified which is mostly the case.  He cites several examples ranging from the  Troubles  between the British and IRA and Al-Qaaeda against the West.  These are some of the examples of unjustified acts of terrorism.  In the case of the former, Smilansky explains why their efforts are hopeless such as if the IRA are Catholic, they could just live in the Republic of Ireland rather than force the issue in Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom.  Another point is there is hardly any repression commited by British forces against them.  It is also a known fact that the Irish are at odds with the British as the former is Catholic and the latter mostly Protestant or Anglican.  From the looks of things, the Catholics in Northern Ireland are the ones agitating when it is not even necessary given the circumstances on hand that makes for opportunity for them.

With regards to Al-Qaeda, Smilansky explains that this group became emboldened following its success in helping drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan but has become deeply  religious  to the point it has become very radical and intolerant of anything they percieve goes against the teachings of the Quran as they see it.  This is what made them resent and oppose the west as much as they despised the godless communists.  What makes them dangerous is they advocate contnuing struggle to impose fundemantalist Muslim rule even if it means using violence to achieve their ends.  Because of this, there is no moral justification whatsoever of the actions have been taken by Al-Qaeda even in the eyes of Muslim countries whom they try to win over to their side.  Although Smilansky explains instances where terrorism can be justified, the two groups he mentioned would not qualify in his given criterion even though they keep insisting their actions are justifiable in accordance to their beliefs.  Needless to say, neither the IRA nor Al-Qaeda can make the claim that they are patriots or freedom fighters as they lack the moral legitimacy to justify their actions which is why they fail to win over a lot of adherents and tend get only those who are easy to manipulate the poor and ignorant masses, especially Al-Qaeda.

In his article, Defense Against Terrorism, Brian Jenkins emphasized that the war on terror is unlike any wars fought by any nation, even the great powers such as the US.  According to the article, the early terrorist attacks in thw 70s was considered (by the terrorists themselves) to be the start of the third world war, it was a war nobody expected since it was the height of the Cold War and everybody dreaded more the specter of a nuclear war than a terrorist war.  Americans, as well as their allies have been under constant attack and the challenge thrown was how does one take on terrorists.  In his article, Jenkins, explains how a conventional war would be impractical and inappropriate.  One reason is that the adversaries, especially at present, are non-state actors.  They are not necessarily harbored or coddled by the governments of the countries where they are based and are in fact not welcome there as well and are harbored by local insurgent groups whom they share a common cause such as Osama bin Laden being accomodated by the Taliban in the mountains bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Furthermore, terrorist groups are getting more clever as time passes making use of the latest technology at the time, making them all the more dangerous than before.  He also explains the complexity of defining a terrorist since not all countries share the same problem or issue such as the US and its allies such as the United Kingdom and Israel which are also on the receiving end of terrorist threats and attacks.  The clash of criteria in defining terrorists led to the clich or aphorism of one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, making it very difficult if not impossible to arrive at an absolute definition of a terrorist and who should be considered a terrorist, especially at present as transnational terrorism has become the  rage  of those extremist groups who wanted to strike a blow at the great powers.

There is also the ambiguity on how to treat terrorists whether as combatants  at war  or criminals.  The debate goes on in this issue on how terrorists captured or arrested should be treated.  Because terrorist acts also violate local laws which make concerned groups demand they be classified as criminals.  The danger of this is that if people like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are to be classified as criminals, they are entitled to the same due process as common criminals which would make it difficult for intelligence and security services to get information from him which would be vital in the ongoing war on terror.

In his article,  Poverty, Political Freedom and the Roots of Terrorism published in the American Economic Review, Alberto Abadie explains through statistical data the causes of terrorism which can be summed up by poverty and political marginalization.  His study forms the core of this article.  According to Abadie, terrorism emerges whenever governments are weak and unstable.  It is during this time the lack of a strong central government invites conflict betweeen diverse groups who vie for power, both eco and the weaker ones would be marginalized and seeing nowhere else to go or no other measures to be taken, they employ violence as the only  feasible  way to further their cause.  For them, the use of force seems to be an  equalizer  giving them the leverage they need to make themselves feel superior.  Indigenous groups like the Japanese Red Army, the German Red Army Faction and even the Colombian FARC fall under this category.  They feel that what they are doing is right as they use force to defend themselves and the  defenseless  against the oppression and  persecution  of the state.  The likes of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates take it to a much higher level as they are not limited to national boundaries and have gone transnational, taking the fight to the bigger powers like the United States whom they saw as persecuting them and keeping them inferior and worse, corrupting their culture.

In his book, Terrorism and US Foreign Policy, Paul Pillar, a former milirary and intelligence officer of the Central Intelligence Agency gives insights on the nature of terrorism   its origins, motives and goals.  One salient feature of his work is how should governments deal with terrorism.  He said that it is best to undermine the base of terrorism by addressing the social and economic problems of the masses.  These poor and less educated folk are susceptible to the teachings of radicals which make them easy candidates for terrorism.  By addressing their social and economic needs, nobody would think of becoming terrorists.  The only challenge now is how to deal with terrorist groups whose goal is to see to the destruction of the United States and its allies which they see as evil entitites that must be wiped off the face of the earth.  It is in this regard that he sees military action is the only viable solution although he gives a caveat that it is not the absolute solution to dealing with terrorists.  If there is one significant thing military action can do is to  send a message  to terrorists to prove that they are not beaten nor would they allow themselves to be cowed.  It also sends a strong message to its citizens to have faith in their government, that it will be there to protect them and keep them safe.

The book, Keeping Us Safe Secret Intelligence and Homeland Security was written by Arthur Hulnick a former intelligence officer who served in the United States Air Force and the Central Intelligence Agency with considerable years of experience prior to becoming a university professor at Boston University.  In his book, Hulnick gives us his view on how the United States should protect itself from terrorism from an  insider s  perspective that is completely devoid of any political undertones.  The way he describes the nature of homeland security is something fans of Tom Clancy s novels would be easily familiar with and appreciate.
Hulnick explains the existing system in practice and at the same time identifies its weaknesses, especially in counterintelligence.  He admits that this is where the United States is wanting if it ever thinks of defeating terrorists.  One is to recruit agents from the ranks of the enemy, in this case Al-Qaeda which has proven to be a challenge since it is virtually impossible to infiltrate the organization, especially its core leadership which explains why Osama bin Laden and even Mullah Omar remain at large to this day.

As countries that have been targets of terrorist attacks, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom crafted laws that aims to address the threat of terrorism.  In the United States, a month after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the 107th Congress of the United States passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act, or simply the Patriot Act which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on 26 October 2001. This gives the United States government expanded powers in performing its duty in protecting the nation against terrorist attacks such as going over erstwhile confidetial records such as banking and financial records, tap into telephone and other electronic communications and even detaining and deporting foreign individuals suspected of terrorist affiliations.  Theoretically, these measures are intended to be preventive or proactive, going after terrorists before they could even commit their acts.  The argument of the government is that saving (American) lives is the primary goal of the government in this ongoing war on terror and the rationale behind it is prevention is much better than a response following a terrorist attack.  The law itself has come under fire from liberal, especially left-wing groups who regard it as unconstitutional as it violates the civil liberties of individuals and they feel these civil liberties also apply to non-American citizens who are living on American soil much to the consternation of the officials in the security and intelligence agencies who lament these actions taken by  sympathizers  and  defeatists  whose interference is making them lose the war on terror with their insistence that suspected and arrested terror suspects be given due process like common criminals.

As a measure for combatting terrorism in the United Kingdom, the British Government, through Parliament passed the Crime and Security Act  2001.   The law is akin to the American Patriot Act in the sense that it also intends to protect its citizens from further terrorist attacks following the events in the United States and it received royal assent on 14 December 2001.  Some of the salient features or provisions of the Act include the seizure of suspected terrorist asset and property, disclosure of certain information such as financial records for security purposes, to detain and deport any foreign national with suspected ties to terrorist groups.  In addition, it forbids the creation and dealing of weapons of mass destruction whether it is nuclear, chemical or biological, the detention of aircraft where an act of violence is suspected to have happened, it allows the police to forcefully fingerprint individuals to determine their identity and to regulate telephone companies and internet providers to preserve any data for national security (investigation) purposes.  However, like the Patriot Act, it has been subject to intense criticism by the Law Lords as being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as several of its provisions threaten to violate the rights of the individual.  Because of this, this Act was replaced by The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 which received royal assent on 11 March of that same year.  Under this law, the Home Secretary can impose  control orders  on those suspected of being terrorists or affiliated with terrorist organizations in any way or form.  Such control orders would entail the prohibition of the possession of certain materials that might be used in the performance of terrorist activities even those innocous such as a mobile phone, restriction in the use of certain utilities such as internet access which may be perceived as getting or sending instructions among terrorists, restrictions on movements and even trying to get consent or permission to travel, to surrender ones passport and to report to a person of authority at all times to name a few of these control orders the Home Secretary or the courts can impose on an individual suspected of being a terrorist.  Like the earlier law it replaced, this law came under fire from human rights groups, notably Amnesty International among others that regard these measures as  cruel  and oppressive as well as still incompatible of the human rights laws both in Great Britain and the European Community.  In addition to the opposition of these control orders, Amnesty Internatonal deplores the illegal detention of suspected terrrorists without trial and even the use of torture.

By way of conclusion, both the US and the UK have been victims of terrorist attacks and it is incumbent upon its leaders in government to take measures not only in protecting its citizens from terrorist attacks but also to deal with terrorist threats accordingly, even if it means operating outside their borders to do so.  Both countries face terrorist attacks being the object of resentment of people who claim to be  victimized  or  oppressed  by these two nations hence the use of terrorism  where they aim to bring them down and see to their destruction for nothing would satisfy them more than to see them wiped off the face of the earth, especially by Al-Qaeda, the latest enemy.

Besides fighting the enemy on the battlefields of Afghanistan and other parts of the world, the war on terrorism is also waged on the home front as the enemy they face is a non-state entity who fights unconventionally.  Capable of infiltrating their borders and living there for long stretches, taking time to assimilate themselves into mainstream society waiting for the right moment to strike. One of the difficulties of fighting terrorists on the home front is the laws of the countries.  It just so happens that both the US and the UK are democratic countries and one of the advantages terrorist groups capitalize on is that these governments are not so repressive nor are their laws draconian as they place value on and respect the rights of the individual and is guaranteed by their laws, even those accused of crimes.  The terrorists of the twenty-first century are far from being the ignorant or illiterate drones who are brainwashed into bloodthirsty fanatics.  Todays terrorists are more clever with several of them educated (ironically) in western universities and using this knowledge to their advantage to gain the upper hand.

Another advantage they have is they have on their side as (unwitting) allies liberals and left-wing groups of these countries who have a penchant for opppsing the policies of the government on a regular basis.  Such as the case when there was opposition to the Patriot Act (US) and the  Crime and Security Act  2001 (and later the  The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005).  Their  allies  would invoke the violation of human rights and civil liberties which proved to be a detriment to the efforts of the government to combat terrorism in their borders.  For these liberals, even though they do not regard these terrorists as  freedom fighters,  to them, the terrorist acts they committed is nothing more like criminal acts which is why any terrorist arrested should be given the same due process accorded to criminals.  Such measures are hamstringing the governments in Washington and London in addressing terrorism which makes Al-Qaeda boast that this is how the west will lose the war on terror even though their enemies are numerically and technologically superior to them.  Furthermore, it puts the society in a dilemma whether to regard terrorist activities as an act of war or a common crime.

However, if there is one thing that needs to convince the public that a state of war exists with terrorist groups, one needs to go back to the time when Osama bin Laden issued his declaration of jihad against the West.  In his declaration, anyone is fair game, military or civilian.  It in light of this declaration that the governments of both the US and UK believe that the civilian justice system or the currently laws in place are inadequate in addressing the problem of terrorism thus the need for special powers and institutions which they feel are necessary to combat the threat of terrorism even on their native soil.  In an article written in the American Journal of International Law, Ruth Wedgwood explains that civilian courts are not the appropriate places to try terrorists and fully supports military commissions.  There is an apparent incompatability of the criminal justice system to the counter terrorism and counterntelligence efforts of the government such as the presentation of evidence which also serves as vital intelligence material needed by security and military forces in the continuing fight.  To use this as material evidence in a civilian court would compromise operational security and jeopardize ongoing operations.

Besides this, both governments are in a dilemma on how to deal with terrorism as they fear that any attempt to introduce harsher measures might create more terrorists than lessening them.  Whats more, there is a delicate balance in prosecuting an ongoing war while trying to maintain some semblance of normalcy in the home front.  If one were to look at life in both the United States and Britain, they do not appear to be nations at war and everything looks like it is peacetime as opposed to the conditions both countries faced in the Second World War where the citizens also took part in the war effort and were also mobilized.

It is the opinion of the author that terrorists should be dealt with diffrently from common criminals.  Basing it on the related literature given above, terrorists like Al-Qaeda have long declared themselves to be soldiers or warriors and bin Laden had already made a declaration of war against the west.  The problem with the west is that they tend to look at things from their perspective, waiting for a formal declaration of war and insisting on classifying terrorists as criminals, especially the ones arrested on American or British soil.

One of the duties of the state is to protect its citizens and in order for it to do so, they should not be hamstrug by too many laws.  While it is true that the rule of law is a characteristic feature in any democracy, there are times when not all the laws are applicable especially in timesof war or extraordinary conditions.  The problem with left-wing groups is they regard the rule of law to be absolute in both war and peace.  Such a thinking is dangerous and to do so would give an undue advantage to the enemy who is very clever and knows this inherent  flaw  in democractic societies and will use it to their advantage.  The government must be allowed to suspend these laws to protect its citizens.  It is once said that laws are not  suicide pacts  entered by the government and its citizens.  Laws are meant to regulate the conduct of (democratic) society to ensure that the rights of an individual will not interfere with the rights of another individual.  The challenge faced by governments now which is made very difficult by pressure groups is to maintain order, fight terrorism but at the same time adhere to the rule of law.

It is the opinion of this author that this is very unrealistic.  Security and freedom are trade offs.  If one wants to ensure that they can live in peace and have that feeling no harm will befall them or their loved ones, certain sacrifices in personal freedoms have to be made for allowing too much freedom is also very dangerous to a state and there has to be a need for stronger regulation, most especially under wartime conditions.  The war on terror should be considered a wartime condition much like the one during the Second World War and the public must be aware of that.  People should not be under the illusion that there is no war even though their soldiers are fighting elsewhere.  There should be a revival of that same mobilization the home front had shown in the last war if it is to win the war on terrorism for as long as the civilian population are living under this illusion that everything is normal, the enemy is confident tin winning the war.