The uncertainty of theoretical and legislative definitions of terrorism allow the government to mistreat this term and implement improper measures for punishing individuals who have committed ordinary crimes. This paper will support Hamm’s view that the criminal justice approach in the form of ordinary police work and justice prosecutions can be more effective for suppressing terrorism than the military operations which cannot be justified with the proclaimed state of emergency, the global war on terrorism and enormous social control.
When the term of social control was coined by Edward Ross in 1901, it was used in its broad and narrow meanings (Skoll, “Social Theory of Fear” 41). According to Ross, its broad meaning, the term denoted the societal institutions and criminal justice framework, while in its narrow meaning the concept of social control corresponded to cultural traditions and community actions that can be taken for the purpose of controlling the deviant behavior.
The choice of the narrow or broad sense depends upon the microsociological or marcrosociological approach taken by the scholars. However, regardless of the chosen perspective, the two of them can be integrated into one theoretical framework because individuals can interact with each other in accordance with the law (the criminal justice institution) and according to their beliefs and values (culture) at the same time. In his book Social Theory of Fear Skoll noted that “for present purposes, social control refers to those strategies used by ruling classes to get everyone else to follow orders” (p. 42).
In other words, the mechanisms of social control are used by the ruling class mostly for making the masses work. The state is used by the elite as a set of formal organizations and institutions and an instrument for implementing their orders. Taking into account its claims for the monopoly of power, the state should be separated from the rest of the society. In capitalist societies, the state fulfills its main function of maintaining stability relying on the market forces and extended state apparatus in the periods of low conflicts, but can use the tools of force and violence when t conflict is intensified.
John Lock’s liberal theory which represents the state as arbiter and Thomas Hobbes’ absolutist theory which describes the state as leviathan, a beast ruling through the civic violence, are recognized as the most influential classical theories of the state role and mechanisms implemented in social control. The Locke’s views became an underpinning for the representative government patterns which were successfully applied in Britain, for example. However, these schemes caused the problems with the occurrence of the class-interested politics. Regarding the application of Hobbesian model, the fascism and Stalinism can be regarded as examples of this approach.
On the one hand, the concept of the state of emergency is rooted in idealistic theories which view the ideal state as the country ruled by a philosopher. On the other hand, it was the principles of the state of emergency reflected in the article 48 of the German Constitution that allowed Hitler declaring a state of emergency, suppressing the communist parties and actually creating the Third Reich which became the precursor of one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the humanity (Skoll, “Social Theory of Fear” 41).
The concept of the state of emergency has become the justification for not only shift to fascism in Germany, but also the popular justification for strengthening of the state control over the whole society because of real or even imaginary threats to its security. The declaration of the state of emergency has become the justification for the extended control of the US institutions over the American society in the frames of the struggle against terrorism after the 9/11 events.
The threat of terrorism substituted communism as the rationale which was used for justifying the state of emergency in America prior to 1990s. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 the United States declared a global war on terror and stepped on the path of militarism. Currently, after the reorganization of the federal agencies, the American counter terror apparatus is one of the largest in the world. “The FBI alone conducts over 10, 000 terror investigations a year” (Skoll “Toward a Theory of Terrorism” 20).
The promotion of the state apparatus and proclamation of terrorism as the crime against the state can be explained with the lack of comprehensive theories on terrorism. The problem is that current US antiterrorism laws contain such undefined terms as violence, coercion and influence which can be easily misinterpreted and mistreated by the federal agents at their personal discretion.
In Title 18 US Code Part I Chapter 113B, the main antiterrorist legislation of the country, terrorism is defined as follows: “the term terrorism means activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” (Skoll “Toward a Theory of Terrorism” 25). The uncertainty of legislative formulation which can be seen from the above mentioned citation from the Article of the criminal law allows the government to mistreat the definition of terrorism at their discretion for achieving certain purposes through overusing the measures of social control.
The use of the words terrorism and terrorists for defining the enemies of the West within the recent decade clearly represents the case of misinterpreting the words at the state discretion for complying with the needs of the state policy. “Terrorism was seen as supremely evil, the work of dark forces which must be defeated and eradicated at all costs” (Kassimeris 7). In his book 1984, George Orwell discussed the impact of the institutionalization of the preferred word usage on the structuring of the public bias and the role of private institutions and the mass media in the process of gradual distortion of the public views (Herman and O’Sullivan 213).
As a powerful means for manipulating the public opinion, the American mass media comply with the state perspectives upon certain events and individuals, representing them as evil and terroristic or justifying the measures of social control which were takes with the terroristic hazards. However, the materials from the episodes “Torture in American Prisons” and Jeff Luers’ interview demonstrate that the federal agents in general and the prison guards in particular overuse their power for discriminating the prisoners. Though the institutionalized use of the term terrorism justifies their actions, within a criminal justice framework, their actions can be defined as crimes.
Taking into account the fact that the depicted prisoners were not even caught in the war zone and are Americans, it can be stated that the barbaric abuse of prisoners inside of the American jails has nothing in common with the global war on terrorism, but is the result of the proclaimed state of emergency and the extension of the social control and the federal agents’ functions. The episode “Why We Fight” sheds light upon the main influential factors shaping the military supremacy of American foreign policy. Exploring the growing importance of the military in the American society and foreign strategies, this episode demonstrates the negative implications and ineffectiveness of the military operations for suppressing terrorism.
The case of Bradley Manning who is suspected in handing the confidential documents to the website WikiLeaks and undergoes punitive conditions in jail before the hearing is another example of the power abuse justified with the threat of terrorism. Bradley Manning himself states that “The determination to strip me of all my clothing every night since 2 March 2011 is without justification and therefore constitutes unlawful pretrial punishment” (Pikington, “Bradley Manning Being Mistreated”). Regardless of the fact that the Pentagon insists that all the procedures of imprisoning Bradley met the state standards, his case is a vivid example of implementation of military measures instead of standard police operations which would be more appropriate in this case.
The proclamation of the state of emergency in the United States in the frames of the global war on terrorism is an example of the institutionalization of the preferred use of the word terrorism for complying with the state needs. However, the above mentioned examples demonstrate the negative implications of the extension of the apparatus of social control and ineffectiveness of military strategies for suppressing terrorism in cases where standard police procedures would be more appropriate.
Works Cited
Davies, Deborah. Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons. 2005.
Herman, Edward and Gerry, O’Sullivan. The Terrorism Industry: The Experts and Institutions that Shape Our View of Terror. New York: Pantheon Books, 1989. Print.
“Is American Foreign Policy Dominated by the Idea of Military Supremacy? Has the Military Become Too Important in American Life?” 2005.
Kassimeris, George (ed.). Playing Politics with Terrorism: A User’s Guide. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008. Print.
Luers, Jeff. Environmental Activist Jeff “Free” Luers Speaks Out in First Interview After 9.5 Years Behind Bars. 2009.
Pikington, Ed. “Bradley Manning Being Mistreated, Says Hillary Clinton Spokesman”. Guardian. 2011.
Skoll, Geoffrey. “Toward a Theory of Terrorism: A Multidimensional Analysis”. Global Terrorism Issues and Developments. Ed. Rene Larche. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008. 19-61. Print.
– – -. Social Theory of Fear: Terror, Torture and Death in a Post-Capitalist world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.