counter terrorism

 The Random House Webster’s Dictionary (1998) defines terrorism as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.” It is very different from the one that appeared in the 1967 Random House Dictionary of the English Language, which states: “1. the use of terrorizing methods. 2. the state of fear and submission so produced. 3. terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.” The same dictionary’s primary definition of the word terror was: “intense, sharp, overmastering fear: to be frantic with fear.” The 1982 American Heritage Dictionary defined terrorism as “the systematic use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end.” Its primary definition of terror was: “intense, overpowering fear.” The definitions cited from the 1967 and 1982 dictionaries were typical of what was contained in similar publications of their era. It can be seen that the definition of terrorism has changed over time. It has always implied the use of extreme violence intended to generate fear. This could be caused by a variety of factors. A local street gang could induce fright on the part of neighborhood residents. A motorcycle gang riding down the main street of a small community could generate extreme fear to the townspeople. A labor union overturning company trucks during a strike could greatly alarm the business owner. Similarly, strikers could be frightened by “union busters” brought in by the company to clear away picketers. A robber could cause extreme panic in his victim if he suddenly shot out the windows of the person’s store. Although all of these examples could be described as terrorism and may well have been considered terrorism 50 years ago, such

would not be the case today.

During the past two decades, the term terrorism has been used so often with respect to violent political actions that most people assume that any extreme violence labeled as terrorism has been conducted for political purposes. If a newspaper’s headline proclaims that a terrorist attack has occurred at a downtown building, few readers would think that an entity such as a street gang, labor union, or a marauding band of motorcycle club members was involved. They would, instead, believe that the attack was politically motivated. The use of the term terrorism to describe politically motivated violence in the United States is relatively new. As recently as the 1960s and the early 1970s, the perpetrators of destructive attacks conducted in conjunction with the anti-Vietnam War movement were only called “terrorists” by a few. It was just as common for people to label the extremists of the era as “revolutionaries,” “insurrectionists,” “militants,” “new left radicals,” “Bolsheviks,” “Communists,” anarchists, “mad bombers,” or by their own group name, if it was known. Ku Klux Klan members and others who viciously attacked black and white civil rights activists during the 1950s and 1960s were similarly not called terrorists. Terms like “segregationists” or “Klansmen” were used, if any term at all was employed to describe them. Of course, there were occasions when the media might describe the victim of a politically oriented violent attack as having been “terrorized,” but that term was probably used no more during the era than were descriptive words like “frightened,” “scared,” or “shocked.”

The fact that there was no single term to refer to extreme political violence during that period was to have a negative effect on the efforts of the law enforcement community to combat this form of criminal activity. It was difficult to develop a common strategy to deal with the problem, or to even estimate the magnitude of the threat, when the investigators involved could not even agree on a name for it, much less what constituted it. Police agencies often experienced difficulty determining which operational unit within their department should be assigned to handle a case involving political violence.

Developing unique procedures for handling these crimes was an almost impossible situation under these circumstances. By the early 1970s, the term terrorism began to be applied to acts of extreme political violence. The perpetrators came to be called terrorists. It may never be known whether it was the news media, academics, or the law enforcement community who first employed the term with regularity. However, today all of these entities use it almost exclusively to refer to extreme, violent, politically motivated activities. Despite the fact that modern dictionaries have similar definitions for terrorism, there is still no universally accepted definition in the law enforcement community or in the population in general. Various federal agencies that deal with terrorism each seem to have their own definition of the term. Sometimes state, county, and local agencies will use one of the federal agencies’ definitions; however, they often will construct their own. (Non-federal agencies that are members of joint terrorism task forces usually accept the FBI’s definition of terrorism because the FBI is the lead agency in these bodies.) In addition to that, there almost seems to be an unwritten rule that anyone who authors a publication concerning terrorism must create a unique definition of the term. Think tanks and private organizations involved in the area of terrorism also have their own definitions.

Despite all of the different definitions, almost everyone in the field believes that terrorism involves the use of extreme violence intended to force a change in the government and society. Most accept that terrorist acts are illegal. However, there are some special-interest organizations that would like an expanded definition that would place some legal activities, including marches, demonstrations, leafleting, and similar forms of protests, within the scope of their understanding of terrorism. They become particularly adamant about this if the activity involves implied threats of violence or the violation of any relatively minor laws, including marching without a permit, blocking public access, and impeding traffic. Most law enforcement and government agencies do not consider such forms of protest activity to be within the realm of terrorism even if they escalate into riots. (An exception might occur if it can be determined that the riot was staged, and that certain people committed pre-planned violent acts during the seemingly spontaneous riot. 

Issues Related to Terrorism

There are certain questions with respect to terrorism that must be addressed in order to understand the concept. Does a terrorist have to seek the overthrow of the government? Through most of history, terrorists did indeed seek major changes in, or the toppling of, governments. Certainly those who attempted to kill the leader of a country wanted significant change. In the modern era of terrorism, however, there are many single-issue extremists who do not want the overthrow of the government.

Indeed, a good number are supportive of the government and use violence in an effort to force the government to take action with respect their cause, such as banning abortion or outlawing genetic engineering. Does a terrorist have to attempt to kill people? Obviously, a political extremist will generate great fear by killing his opponents or members of the population in general. However, not all terrorists want to kill people. An international terrorist group like al Qaeda clearly believes that deaths will promulgate their cause. By contrast, domestic groups like the New World Liberation Front of the 1970s and the United Freedom Front of the 1980s usually went out of their way to avoid killing anyone. The Puerto Rican independence group FALN had it both ways. While they usually placed bombs and incendiaries that were seemingly meant to cause only property damage, in at least three of their attacks they clearly intended to kill people. 

Does a terrorist have to frighten the entire population? If one would view al Qaeda’s September 11, 2001, attacks as a standard, the answer would be a resounding “Yes.” That attack affected the entire country. However, that tragic event was not typical. The fact is that many terrorist attacks are directed against the government, law enforcement, certain people, businesses, or other specific entities. These attacks are intended to cause alarm, fear, and concern on the part of the targeted victims, not necessarily in the whole population.

Does a terrorist have to employ physical violence? Traditionally, terrorists have used brute force to generate fear. Beating, shooting, bombing, burning, assaulting, and killing would accomplish their objective. In the modern world, the aim remains as it always has been, generating fear. Today that can be accomplished in a variety of ways. Letting animals out of cages will scare people involved in the fur business. Sending a virus to the computers of a bank will likely scare a bank president just as much as if someone punched him or her in the nose. Animal rights activists in 2002 and 2003 stole credit cards belonging to businessmen whom they opposed, and charged large amounts of merchandise to their accounts. In mid-2007 the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) tampered with a company’s Web site, forcing that firm to sell its shares in an animal testing company that the ALF was protesting against.

These actions got the message to the victims just as effectively as would have firebombing the firms’ company vehicles. Is there a minimal amount of damage that must be done before an attack can be classified as being terrorism? Obviously, large attacks involving visible damage as well as deaths and injuries will likely garner more attention than would a broken window or a car damaged with acid. However, all of these forms of attack qualify as terrorism if the motive is to generate fear in order to force social change.

Types of Terrorism

All terrorist attacks fall within the following two broad categories

regardless of the political cause involved or the composition of the group

perpetrating the act.

Domestic Terrorism

Domestic terrorism is politically oriented extreme violence that is perpetrated

by residents of a country within that country in order to force a change

in government or in how society functions.

International Terrorism

International terrorism is politically oriented extreme violence that is

perpetrated by residents or representatives of one or more countries against

the interests of another country, or by members of a violent foreign politically

directed organization not affiliated with the country being attacked for the

purpose of forcing a change in government or in how society functions.

On the surface, these definitions appear straightforward, but they are

sometimes difficult to distinguish. A number of violent political attacks could

fall into either of these categories. If a United States-based group, such as the

FALN, bombs a building in the United States in an effort to gain freedom for

Puerto Rico, this is clearly a domestic terrorism incident. However, this was

not so clear when in 1986 the Libyan government allegedly conspired with a

Chicago street gang known as the El Rukns to perpetrate violent attacks in the

United States. Some considered this domestic terrorism because the perpetrators

and targets were located within the United States. Others contended that the

situation was international in nature because it was being done on behalf of a foreign government. Another situation occurred one year earlier, when a group

of Indian Sikhs were arrested while conspiring in the United States to assassinate

India’s then-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi during a visit to the United

States. Although the conspirators lived in the United States and the attack

was to occur in the United States, the political cause was in India. During the

mid-2000s there have been several conspiracies perpetrated by residents of the

United States intended to attack targets inside of the United States in support

of foreign extremist philosophies. One involved a group of men in New Jersey

who in 2007 allegedly conspired to attack soldiers at the Fort Dix Army base

on behalf of Islamic extremism. Some would describe such plots as domestic

terrorism, while others would say that the foreign philosophical influence was

sufficient to classify these conspiracies as international terrorism.

Specific Types of Terrorism

Left-Wing Extremism

In its purest form, left-wing extremists would like to see the creation of

a nation in which the means of production will be commonly owned. Every

person will receive what he or she needs, and every person will contribute

what he or she can best provide. Education will be available to all in accordance

to natural skills and abilities. Medical needs will be met as required.

Everyone will be equal in the eyes of the state. In essence, there will be a

classless, peaceful society. Most supporters of this socialist concept believe

that some form of transition period must occur between the present form of

government and the society that will ultimately be created. This is usually

referred to as the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat.” In theory, this transition

is occurring in Cuba and was occurring in the former Soviet Union prior to

its breakup and in China during the Mao Tse-Tung era.

Not all left-wing extremists envision the same ideal state. Some would

retain some private ownership or other aspects of the present government.

Others would oppose any private enterprise. Many differ on the methods for

achieving the ends, and on the time required to bring them about. Not all

socialists agree with what common ownership of the means of production

involves. Most seem to accept that any strong, dictatorial government that is

necessary to bridge the transition from capitalism to socialism will eventually

be replaced by something that will be weak and not oppressive. However,

the exact kind of government that will ultimately develop is unclear to many

left-wing adherents.

Probably the most vocal left-wing extremists of the early twenty-first

century are anarchists. In theory, they would advocate no government at all

because the term originates from the Greek words an, meaning “without,”

and arkos, meaning “ruler.” However, many of the modern adherents of this

philosophy are practical enough to realize that in a technologically developed

and crowded country, the idea of everyone being on his or her own will not

work. So they talk about direct democracy and very localized government—

tribal or town councils—but no large, distant, amorphous ruling body. They

all seem to agree that capitalism is wrong and causes many social evils, and

must be replaced. While a number of the modern anarchists in the United

States will accept being described as socialists, they tend to shun the term

communism. To them the idea of having a “dictatorship of the proletariat” is

unnecessary and a change from capitalism to socialism can be made rapidly

without the need for a strong government to “educate” the masses. In fact,

some believe that the doctrine of communism is hypocritical in the sense that

the communist party dictators have no intention of ever stepping down from

power, and are therefore no different or better than the oppressive government

that was overthrown.

Right-Wing Extremism

On the surface, it would seem that if left-wing extremists seek a classless

society with everyone being equal, which in the end will almost run itself, rightwing

proponents must want the exact opposite—a strong central government

that owns the means of production and rigidly controls the lives of its residents,

or a government that offers citizenship to a chosen class with others being

denied full membership or excluded completely. A fascist state with all of its

nationalist and supremacist philosophies comes to mind. As a matter of fact,

almost everyone agrees that a fascist Nazi dictatorship is a right-wing form of

government. A monarchy would also qualify as a right-wing government.

However, the continuum is not a straight line with the left wing on one

side and the right wing on the other side. It is better viewed as being multidimensional,

with right-wing philosophies extending away from the left wing in

varying directions. Fascism or Nazism would be located at one extreme away

from the left wing. Along that line would fall groups like the National Alliance

and the Aryan Nations. However, followers of a concept like the Posse

Comitatus and related theories, including the Freemen and sovereign citizens,

would be equally far from the left wing in another direction. Generally, Posse

Comitatus followers fear the idea of a central government and prefer a localized

authority that only loosely governs in accordance with the desires of the

people. In reality, the Posse Comitatus and related philosophies would prefer

virtually no government and are, therefore, anarchist in nature.

Fascism and the Posse Comitatus have little in common other than the

fact that they express similar hatreds, prejudices, and fears and oppose the

current United States government. Nonetheless, both are usually classified

as being right-wing in philosophy. The Ku Klux Klan, militias, tax protest

groups, survivalists, and certain religious groups, including Christian Identity

and the World Church of the Creator, more recently renamed the Creativity

Movement and largely defunct by 2008 (which some do not accept as being

an actual religion), are also characterized as right-wing in nature. Some of

these groups would fall close to fascism/Nazism, while others would seem to

be more related to the Posse. However, a few of these entities have their own

paths away from the left-wing apart from fascist and posse adherents.

Both left-wing and right-wing groups can be domestic or international in

nature. A person like Benjamin Smith, who went on a murderous rampage in

Illinois and Indiana in July 1999, could be described as having been a rightwing

domestic terrorist because he had been a very prominent member of

the World Church of the Creator. The now-defunct Weather Underground

Organization could correctly have been characterized as having been a leftwing

domestic terrorist group. The leftist-oriented Kurdish Worker’s Party

(PKK) is an international Turkish-based terrorist group that has perpetrated

violent attacks in various parts of the world. The revolutionary organization

17 November is usually described as being a leftist-oriented Greek domestic

terrorist group, although some might also consider it international in nature

because it has attacked American and Turkish targets inside Greece.

Religious Terrorism

Religious terrorism refers to the use of extreme violence by religious

fanatics for the purpose of forcing changes in the government or on the part

of the population. Some people believe that violent struggles within a particular

religion or church constitute religious terrorism. Most people, however,

include only situations in which the target is a government or a specific geographical

area, or all or part of the general population. An example might be

an effort by a terrorist group to violently force the government to transform

itself into a theocracy based on their religion.

Religious terrorism is often entwined with other forms of terrorism. For

example, a right-wing extremist may derive some of his views with those of

the Christian Identity Church. Middle Eastern extremists seeking a homeland

for Palestinians may allow Islamic extremists to influence their views and

actions. These people may become convinced that their political views and

actions are blessed by God. An extremist may believe that he is a Phineas

Priest following God’s mandates as he sees them outlined in the Bible.

National or Ethnic Terrorism

There are people who will use force and violence to forge a homeland for

their ethnic or national group. Often they are considered domestic terrorists

because their battle is with the government that controls the area where their

group resides. The Puerto Rican independence movement is an excellent

example of this situation. Violent terrorist groups have attacked American

interests on various parts of Puerto Rico and on the island of Vieques for

many years in an effort to force the U.S. government to allow Puerto Rico

to become a sovereign nation.

Sometimes these conflicts are international, because the ethnic group

is spread across several countries, or they view another country as being

responsible for the plight of their people. In Europe, the battle for freedom

for Northern Ireland from English control has gone on for may years. It has

involved both England and Northern Ireland, with some attacks against the

English occurring in other European countries. The Irish terrorists have also

used other countries to procure funding and weapons. The English-Irish

conflict could also be characterized as religious terrorism in that the violent

groups seeking Irish freedom are Catholic and the English are Protestant.

Race-Based or Hate Terrorism

The fact that an individual or group hates someone because they belong

to another race, nationality, creed, sexual orientation, or age, or for any

other reason, does not automatically make them terrorists. To be considered

a terrorist, the bigot or hate group must commit violent attacks against

those they despise in an effort to cause them extreme fear. Conceivably, the

person or group could also attack the government in an effort to force it to

create restrictions against the hated group. Furthermore, they could attack

businesses, organizations, and citizens whom they believe are sympathetic

to the targeted group in an effort to convince them to disassociate from the

hated group.

Most people who hate enough to commit violent attacks also harbor views

that would better classify them in other forms of terrorism. For example,

many right-wing terrorist groups have agendas of hate against some nonwhites

and Jewish people. Some religious terrorists have hatred for particular

groups of people. Ethnic terrorists also commonly hold such hatreds.

Narco-Terrorism

Narco-terrorism became a buzzword that was frequently used by the

media in the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Like the

term terrorism, narco-terrorism does not have a universally accepted meaning.

Most definitions include the following:

Narco-terrorism is the use of extreme force and violence by

producers and distributors of narcotics against a government or

population, intended to coerce that body to modify its behavior

in their favor.

There is little question that narco-terrorism has existed in foreign countries,

particularly in South America, for decades. Drug cartels have attacked

government buildings, law enforcement facilities, police officers, and courts

with regularity in nations such as Colombia and Peru. Furthermore, some

politically oriented extremist groups have become involved in the drug

trade to support themselves. These groups have employed violent attacks to

promote both their political agendas and to protect their drug income from

government intervention.

In the early 1990s there was a fear that, as the U.S. government initiated

efforts to curtail foreign drug trafficking into the United States, the foreign

drug cartels and political organizations would respond by attacking facilities

and government/law enforcement personnel within the continental United

States. Similarly, there was concern that indigenous drug distributors would

follow suit and also violently attack the government in an effort to force the

government to ease enforcement of narcotics statutes.

Computer or Cyber-Terrorism

The personal computer has become a significant part of the lives of most

of the populations of developed nations. Anyone who attacks a computer can

have an impact on many people. If the attack is designed to destroy or alter

data, or to cause something to malfunction or fail, it can certainly cause fear.

Merely attacking the computer for the sheer joy of being able to do so, as is the

case for many hackers, does not constitute political terrorism even though it

may do damage and cause fear. Similarly, stealing information from the computer

of another person, a business, or the government may be of concern to

the victim, but it is not political terrorism unless the perpetrator is attempting

to force the victim to change his or her thinking or policies. Political terrorism

requires that there be an effort on the part of the perpetrator to use fear to exert

pressure on the government or the population to modify its behavior.

There is little question that terrorists can use computers to accomplish

violent ends. Indeed, it is remarkable that it has not already been widely done.

It is a virtual certainty that some terrorist groups will attack the cyberworld at

some point in the near future. The first attacks will likely be in the arena of

finance, and will involve banking facilities as well as government facilities.

What Investigators Need

to Know About Terrorists

In the United States it is not illegal to be terrorist per se. It does not

violate the law to belong to a terrorist organization, including those listed

by the U.S. State Department. Further, it is not against the law to criticize

or otherwise speak against the government. In some countries, any and all

of these “crimes” can result in a person being jailed. However, it must be

understood that in America a person claiming to be a terrorist or saying that

he is a member of a militant group like al Qaeda is not likely to be given a

free pass by the law enforcement community. Such utterances would at the

very least give investigators the right to give a cursory look into the background

and activities of the person. Claiming membership in a clandestine

extremist group that has perpetrated terrorist attacks in the United States

or against American citizens or American-owned property abroad could

logically cause detectives to consider that person to be a suspect in such

illegal actions. Indeed, such a person could possibly find him- or herself in

court explaining why he should not be held culpable for the violent actions

perpetrated by “his” group. Of course, a person claiming membership in a

specific terrorist organization could also find himself being sued by victims

of that group’s attacks.

Law enforcement officers have a responsibility to investigate terrorist

attacks. While merely speaking out against the government may be perfectly

legal, taking violent action in an effort to force the government or population

to modify its behavior does violate the law. Terrorists are criminals. Their

violent political actions could include just about anything that will frighten

people. Within this area fall such crimes as bombings, arsons, kidnappings,

physical threats, assassinations, airline hijackings and, sadly, using an airliner

as a missile. Although some terrorists have outside funding, including

wealthy benefactors, surface supporters, their own employment, and even

foreign governments, many find it necessary to raise funds through illegal

means. Some of these activities could involve robberies, including banks and

armored trucks, burglaries, extortion, kidnapping for ransom, and white-collar

crimes. Furthermore, most terrorists find it necessary to commit crimes in terrorist attacks and to raise funds. Some instrumentalities of the crime, like

vehicles and explosives, are often stolen. Others, including firearms, might be

purchased and later illegally altered to make them untraceable. Some may be

purchased or rented “legally,” but through the illegal use of false identification.

A safe house or storage locker are likely to be procured through fictitious

documentation. Some items gathered for use in a terrorist attack, including

explosives and dangerous chemicals or biological agents, are almost certainly

not going to be stored in accordance with federal or state statutes.

Terrorists can commit just about any crime in furtherance of their cause.

Often they follow the philosophy of the “ends justifying the means.” Although

it might seem to be “macho” to hold up a supermarket or crowded movie theatre,

a clandestine group is just as likely to turn to something less glamorous.

One terrorist group in the United States created and sold counterfeit music

tapes to raise funds. A few have even violated their own “ethics and morals”

by selling drugs to support themselves. Of course, when their revolution ultimately

succeeds, their “new” government would ban narcotics. Selling stolen

goods and transporting cigarettes from low-tax states to high-tax states have

also been used by terrorists in the United States to raise revenue. Creating

false and misleading “charities” is still another illegal vehicle employed by

terrorists—particularly with respect to support of foreign groups.

Terrorist groups sometimes use a fund-raising criminal action to make a

political statement. In this respect, a group might rob a bank for the money,

but then issue a claim of credit stating that the robbery was intended to be an

attack on the capitalist system. A right-wing group could take proceeds from

a Jewish or minority firm, and claim that the whole action was motivated by

white supremacy.

Training is another reason for terrorist groups to commit criminal actions

that on the surface do not appear to be have political extremist overtones.

Obviously, any terrorist group wants to avoid apprehension in connection

with a violent political attack. Indeed, they desire that the operation come

off so smoothly that authorities will find themselves left without a clue. For

some terrorists, only a “trial by fire” can prove that the group can function

with precision during a clandestine political attack. To them, a criminal

action that involves weapons or real danger fills the training bill. If group

members can remain calm and work as a team during such an endeavor, it

can be reasoned that they would do the same during a political attack. The

fact that such an action will yield funds for the group’s treasury is an extra

benefit to be derived from this form of training.

The fact that terrorists violate many of the laws that common criminals

break does not mean that they are similar to other law violators, or that they

should be investigated in the same manner. Investigators soon learn that

terrorists are different from most other lawbreakers. They are not driven by

a selfish profit motivation. Their political cause is what moves them. Most

criminals are well aware that their actions violate the law. And most do not try to justify their crimes, although in court they may offer excuses for them.

For the terrorist, the crime, whether it be a political attack or an action to

raise funds, is justified because it promotes the cause. He is not violating

the law for his own benefit. Instead, he is doing it as part of a progression

that will ultimately result in a better world. Some anti-government terrorists

do not even recognize the country’s laws as being valid. These factors are

noteworthy, because they mean that terrorists will often act differently from

other criminals. For example, investigators are sometimes able to develop

good robbery suspects from a group of possible candidates, by determining

which ones are living beyond their means. This technique is not going to work

with respect to terrorists, because the fruits of their criminal activity go to

the “cause” with no benefit to them. The terrorist will be driving the same

old car a week after the bank robbery, whereas the more common criminal

might suddenly have a new SUV in his driveway.

“Know thy enemy” is a philosophy that law enforcement officers should

embrace with respect to terrorism investigations. Understanding the terrorist

will go a long way toward having success in investigating him. Knowing

the extremist will also make it much easier to try to co-opt him. The wise

investigator will make every effort to learn as much as he can about the

political movement. He should know how the members perceive it, and how

they fit into it. It helps greatly to know what kind of support each member

can expect to receive from his group should he be questioned or arrested by

the police or be called before a grand jury. Similarly, it would behoove the

investigator to know the kind of assistance group members would receive if

they were forced to flee.

The following are questions that an investigator studying a terrorist

should attempt to resolve during the course of an investigation: 

Philosophy of the Group to Which the Terrorist Belongs

What is the political philosophy of the terrorist group to which the

subject belongs?

What aspects of this philosophy does the subject strongly support,

and what aspects does the subject least support?

Does the subject fully understand the group’s philosophy, and can

he verbally defend it?

Is the group’s philosophy rational?

Is the philosophy based on religion, and if so, which religion?

Is there a “Bible” or “manifesto” that outlines the group’s philosophy?

Does the philosophy include deadlines and ends—is there an exact

doomsday?

Does the philosophy revolve around one person? If so, what will

occur if something happens to that person?

Do other terrorist groups follow similar political philosophies? If

so, what keeps them from merging or keeps the subject from joining

one of these other groups?

Does the terrorist group exclude anyone because of their race,

creed, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or for

any other reason?

Is the political cause popular, such that many non-terrorists might

lend sympathy to members of the group?

Did the group split from another organization, and does that other

group continue to exist? If so, was the subject a part of the other

group?

Group Rules and Policies with Respect to Its Members

Under what rules does the terrorist group permit the subject to

operate?

Are all group members treated equally and if not, how is the subject

treated in comparision with other members?

Is there a written document that outlines the group’s rules and

regulations or operating procedures?

Does the subject need group permission to do certain things?

Does the subject live in a commune or safe house?

Is the subject a member of a covert cell?

Does the subject live totally under a false identity?

Is the subject forbidden to talk with law enforcement personnel?

Is the subject expected or permitted to carry a firearm or other

weapon?

Does the subject receive direct financial assistance from the group,

or is he (and possibly his family) entirely on his own?

What are the subject’s options if he is arrested, or if he is merely

confronted by a law enforcement officer?

Is the subject regarded as an obedient member or a maverick and

rule violator?

Can the subject leave the group, and if so, what does he lose?

Group Structure and How the Individual Fits Into It

What is the group’s hierarchy and structure?

Is there a written document outlining the structure?

Is the structure cellular in nature?

Where does the subject fit within the group’s structure?

Does the subject have power and authority in the group?

Does the subject have expertise needed by the group, and does it

give him some form of special status?

Does the subject know the identities of all group members above,

below, and at the same level as himself?

Does the subject have any close associates in the group?

Is the subject in a sexual relationship with another group member,

and if so, do other members know about it and approve of it?

Personal Aspects of the Terrorist’s Commitment to the Cause

and Group

Is the subject a “thinker” or a “doer” with respect to the political

movement?

Is the subject involved in recruitment for the cause?

Has the subject actually committed a violent act?

Will the subject kill someone if it is deemed politically justified?

Would the subject perpetrate a suicide attack?

How did the subject get involved in the cause? Who recruited him?

Does the subject have any outside interests that are separate from

the political cause?

Does the subject have friends who are not involved in the cause? If

so, who are they, and what kind of contact does the subject maintain

with them? Does the group know about them?

Does the subject have any forms of personal problems, including

physical or mental illness, sexual deviation, or narcotics/alcohol

addiction; and does the group know about them?

How Does the Subject Fit into the Group?

Is he a “perfect fit” or is there something about him that makes him

different from other group members?

Are other group members likely to directly assist the subject should

he be injured or arrested?

Does the subject have a particular skill or expertise that the group

needs?

Does the subject have any “secrets” relating to himself or his family

of which the terrorist group is not aware?

Are there things going on in the group that affect the subject of

which the subject is unaware?

Has the subject belonged to terrorist groups in the past? If so, why

did he leave them?

How Does the Subject Regard Himself with Respect to the

Group?

Is the subject a confident, self-assured member, or is he constantly

concerned about his status and membership?

Is the subject popular with other group members?

Does the subject need the group more than the group needs the

subject?

Is the subject jealous of any other group members, and if so, why?

How will the subject hold up in custody away from the group? Has

he ever been incarcerated?

Skills of Value Possessed by the Subject

Is the subject proficient in using weapons?

Is the subject knowledgable about explosives, and has he used

them in the past?

Does the subject possess skills in flying an airplane, piloting a boat,

speaking a foreign language, programming a computer, or in any

other area that may be of value to the group?

Has the subject been in the military or had experience in law

enforcement?

Has the subject attended a terrorist training camp, and if so, where,

when, and what did he study?

Does the subject train others in the group?

Does the subject author philosophical papers for the group?

Outside Support for the Terrorist

Does the subject have legal support through his political movement,

and if so, are the subject’s legal advisors members of the

terrorist group?

Is there an “underground” to support the subject should he become

a fugitive or just decide to conceal himself from government

scrutiny?

Is there a surface political network to support the subject and his

cause?

Will the group’s members and supporters raise funds for the subject,

procure legal support, protest his situation, write letters, gather

names on petitions, and otherwise provide him with assistance?

If the subject was forced to flee, where would he logically go?

Does the subject have a foreign haven where he could go when in

trouble, and if so, is the subject able to speak the language of that

country, and has he ever been there before?

The Terrorist’s Relationship with His or Her Family

What happens to the subject’s family if he is arrested, injured, or

killed doing a political action or is forced to go underground?

What family members, if any, are aware of his involvement in the

terrorist group, and which members support the group’s cause?

Is anyone in the family an actual member of the group?

Which family members are likely to cooperate with law enforcement

agencies?

Will his political cause provide direct support to the subject’s

family?

Will the subject’s family be pressured by the group to provide

assistance to the subject?

Will the subject divorce himself from his family, if the group so

demands it?

Was the subject raised in a radical political setting?

An Overview of Investigative

Techniques as They Apply

to Terrorism

There are no investigative techniques that can only be employed in

terrorism investigations. Conversely, there are no investigative techniques

employed in ordinary criminal cases that cannot also be applied in at least

some terrorism investigations. Nonetheless, terrorism investigations are

different in many respects from the average criminal matters that investigators

normally address. While the investigative techniques employed may be

essentially the same, their application is often different. If nothing else, the

use of certain techniques is more constrained in terrorism cases. The terrorist

is motivated by his political objectives, which are all-consuming. His whole

life is controlled by his political goals. His values and mores are governed

in many respects by his political agenda. If his activities result in a profit, it

is for the benefit of his political organization and not for himself.

Most terrorists live in a state of fear. Because they seek to overthrow or

at least force a change in the operation and philosophy of the government,

they come to regard the government and its law enforcement agencies as the

enemy. They both hate and fear them. They fear opposing organizations. They

fear entities that they themselves have targeted, such as certain minorities

and businesses. They often fear the media, although they seek its publicity

to promote their cause. They also fear their fellow group members, knowing

that any one of them could turn on them or be a police operative.

Clearly, people who live in a state of fear avidly promote security measures.

For many terrorists, security is a prominent aspect of their lives. They

are on constant alert for people who might be monitoring their activities.

They are always apprehensive about strangers. They are even suspicious of

people they have known for a while. They fear that the government will turn

their friends and associates against them. They fear that their telephones are

being monitored, and that their homes and vehicles are “bugged.” There is

little question that their extreme emphasis on security restricts their ability to function. Just trying to communicate with one another can present a major

difficulty for terrorists. When they meet with one another, security issues

consume much of their time.

Their extraordinary emphasis on security is what makes the terrorist

difficult to investigate. Few criminals practice security to the extent that the

average terrorist does. Neither the terrorist nor the common criminal wants to

be arrested. Perhaps the main difference between the two is that the criminal

assumes that somewhere along the way he or she will probably be caught. For

him or her, it is an unpleasant cost of doing business. By contrast, the terrorist

does not assume that apprehension is inevitable. He will abort a mission if he

believes that law enforcement is aware of his activities. While the ordinary

criminal is not likely to actually commit an illegal act in the presence of

authorities, he is probably not going to completely abandon his project either.

He may delay his activities for a short period or alter his target somewhat.

Some terrorists would literally drop out of their movement rather than risk

compromising their fellow conspirators. If a terrorist group comes to suspect

that law enforcement has identified its safe house, it will not only abandon

that location, but will probably also discontinue the operation that involved

the safe house. The group might actually relocate to another city. Few criminal

conspirators would go to such extremes to avoid apprehension.

Another factor that differentiates the terrorist from the ordinary criminal

involves the extent of knowledge that many terrorists have about law enforcement

operations. A number of the leftists of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and

the rightists and special interest groups of the last 25 years have trained their

members with respect to police investigative techniques. Not only has verbal

training been given to members, but pamphlets and books that outline how

law enforcement agencies operate have also been published. Security information

has also been made readily available online. Many of these security

materials are extremely accurate. Obviously, people who know how police

operate can take actions intended to interdict and foil the investigators.

Many common criminals have a “macho” attitude with respect to police

operations. They believe that they will be able to detect someone who is

following them, or that they will be able to identify an informer or undercover

officer. Some also believe that they can successfully undergo a police

interview without revealing valuable information. The fact is, most average

criminals overestimate their ability to outsmart law enforcement. Police

often are able to observe such people without them ever being aware of the

surveillance. By using skillful interview practices, investigators usually glean

information of value and even confessions when they converse with criminals.

The average criminal often fails to identify informants in their midst.

Many criminals are not even aware of some investigative techniques such as

trash covers, pen registers, and mail covers.

In the case of terrorists, however, the situation is different. Investigators

soon find that it is much more difficult to follow someone who knows exactly

how police surveillance is done. It is a challenge to interview a person who is familiar with interviewing techniques or who absolutely refuses to say a

word to them. Penetrating a conspiracy with an informant or an undercover

officer becomes a problem when the conspirators assume that they will be

targeted, and have a good idea of how the law enforcement agency will

attempt to accomplish their mission.

In addition to the documents that various groups create and distribute

themselves, terrorists also seek out materials designed specifically for law

enforcement training. Right-wing extremists often review military manuals

and police training guides. Some terrorists actually read the same police

textbooks that law enforcement agencies use in their academies. Such publications

are available at gun shows, in some gun shops, at extremist book

stores, army surplus retailers, and through Internet sites.

The fact that many terrorists are aware of law enforcement investigative

techniques does not mean that these methods of developing information

cannot be employed. It simply means that greater care must be used during

the investigation.

When the terrorist is apprehended, it is unlikely that he will cooperate

with authorities. He has probably been schooled about what to expect while

in custody, and he has been taught how to respond. He usually knows how

to avoid being successfully interviewed. In many instances, the terrorist

knows that he can expect adequate legal assistance; consequently, he can stall

interrogations of any sort by demanding that his attorney be present. He also

knows that he will receive political support, which might include everything

from public demonstrations, courtrooms packed with supporters, letter-writing

campaigns, and help in escaping from custody. If nothing else, he knows

that he will become something of a hero or martyr to his cause. Because he

was arrested for political activities, the terrorist often does not experience

guilt for what he has done. The terrorist is not likely to confess to his crime

even if he was literally caught in the act of committing it. In fact, many

political extremists do not believe that their actions violate any valid law.

Furthermore, the terrorist is often not going to agree to a plea bargain unless

it is very much in his favor or can benefit his political agenda. In virtually

all of these respects, the terrorist is quite different from the average criminal

with whom law enforcement officers are accustomed to dealing.

When the terrorist case goes into court, the investigator will find a unique

situation. The terrorist’s political cause will permeate the proceedings. Accusations

of prejudice, bias, and illegal activities will be lodged against the investigators,

the prosecutor, and the judge. Everything will be challenged. In many

respects, the investigator, his department, the prosecutor, the court, and the government

will find themselves “on trial” during the course of the proceedings.

What this means for the law enforcement investigator is that terrorism

cases are usually complex and difficult to resolve. A variety of investigative

techniques must be employed. Throughout the investigation, great attention

to detail must be given. Carelessness and mistakes must be avoided. Proper

and prompt documentation of the results of every investigative technique is imperative. Rules and procedures with respect to the use of these techniques

must be followed. Investigative techniques must be used with care. Investigators

must constantly ask themselves whether the application of a particular

technique will alert the subject to the law enforcement agency’s interest in

him. If the response is yes, or even maybe, the technique probably should

not be used as it normally would. The terrorist will practice extreme security

when carrying out his clandestine activities. Similarly, the investigator must

use extreme care when investigating the terrorist.