“No state responds to a terrorist campaign without changing its institutions and hence society itself, even if only slightly,” Stephen Sobieck states in his chapter on Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany. Politically motivated terrorism struck the heart of both Germany and Italy in the 1970’s and 1980’s causing each state to do exactly what Sobieck stated. Both countries, unfortunately, suffered severe casualties, infrastructure damage, and threats from right and left wing terrorist organizations triggering these countries to adopt policy changes. This included a restructured legislation, the addition of new laws, and the modification current laws. Both countries political agendas and perceptions caused significant complications affecting each state’s ability to handle the rising threat. Germany’s political setting suffered intense rivalry between the two levels of government: the Bund (national government) and the Lander (states). Italy had similar political struggles on the perception and ideology of terrorism impacting the country. The dominated Christian Democratic Party (DC), whose primary goal was to pleas the public opinion, viewed terrorism based off political interests. The two rival parties, whose strength grew towards the end of the 1970s, included the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and the Movimento Sociale Italaino party (MSI). It took the Italian political classes five years to alert themselves seriously to the problem of terrorism.
With the issues facing the political parties, both countries inappropriately utilized their security forces. Each state had qualified and effective security units that were essentially ineffective to the political agendas faced within the country. The GSG...
... middle of paper ...
...changing their societies.
Works Cited
Stephen M. Sobieck, “Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany,” in David A. Charters (ed.), The Deadly Sin of Terrorism: Its Effect on Democracy and Civil Liberties in Six Countries, 66.
Luciana Stortoni-Wortmann, “The Police Response to Terrorism in Italy from 1969 to 1983,” in Reinares (ed.), European Democracies Against Terrorism, 148.
Donatella della Porta, “Institutional Responses to Terrorism: The Italian Case,” Terrorism and Political Violence, 4: 4, 1992, 156-158.
John E. Finn, Constitutions in Crisis. Political Violence and the Rule of Law, 211.
Sobieck, “Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany,” 53.
Stortoni-Wortmann, “The Police Response to Terrorism,” 151.
Ibid., 156-157.
Sobieck, “Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany,” 60-61.
...e argued the importance of public denunciations towards the success of the terror system and the Gestapo. Gellately makes it clear that without the help of private citizens the Gestapo would not have had as strong and organized of a reputation as they had. Yet, it should not be ignored that the Gestapo was brutal in its negotiation techniques, and that reputation could induce fear into public cooperation. It may be true that the general public instilled more fear into themselves about the capabilities of the Gestapo through volunteering information, than the Gestapo itself, but that should not imply that the Gestapo was not a creator of fear in that era.
Schweitzer, Hans. "Organized Will of the Nation." Terrorism: Essential Primary Sources. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 231-234. Student Resources in Context. Web. 27 Mar. 2014.
Barnet, Richard J. “The Ideology of the National Security State”. The Massachusetts Review, Vol. 26, No. 4. 1985, pp. 483-500
Marx, Gary T. “Police & Democracy.” The Encyclopedia of Democracy. N.p., 1995. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.
3 Council of the European Union, EU-US Declaration on Combating Terrorism, 26 June 2003, p. 6-7.
Getty, J. Arch, and Oleg V. Naumov. The Road to Terror. London, England: Yale University Press, 1999.
Zedner, L. 2005, "Securing Liberty in the Face of Terror: Reflections from Criminal Justice", Journal of Law and Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. pp. 507-533.
The September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States were felt worldwide. All countries feared seeing the tall Twin Towers and strong Pentagon being attacked by Islamist extremist members of Al-Qaeda. Although multiple countries prepared themselves to prevent an attack of such magnitude, Spain was not spared. In the morning of March 11, 2004 during rush hour, a series of 10 explosions in four locations occurred almost simultaneously in the mass transit rail system. This attack was performed by the Europe Al-Qaeda entity due to Spain’s involvement in the Iraq war, per a video release of an Al-Qaeda spokesman. This attack was the worst terrorist attack in Spain’s history, referred as Spain’s nine-eleven. This paper researches the gruesome attacks, the tactics employed by the terrorist, and the reaction by the Spanish and world governments.
Kash, Douglas A. “An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.” The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium. Ed. Harvey W. Kushner. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
The topic of my paper is types of terrorism. There are several types of terrorism for which to choose for my paper, state, dissident, religious, left-wing v. right-wing, and international. In this paper I have chosen state terrorism, religious terrorism, and international terrorism as the types of terrorism that I am going to discuss. I will discuss what they are in my own words and give examples of two different groups for each type that represent that type of terrorism. Then I will compare and contrast the three types of terrorism that I chose.
Traister, Bryce. "Terrorism Before The Letter: Benito Cereno And The 9/11 Commission Report." Canadian Review Of American Studies 43.1 (2013): 23-47.MasterFILE Elite. Web. 18 Apr. 2014.
Herman, E. & Sullivan, G. O.1989. The Terrorism Industry: The Experts and Institutions That Shape Our View of Terror. New York: Pantheon.
Mary Habeck, Knowing the Enemy, Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror (Yale University, 2001), 171.
Rothe, Dawn, and Stephen L. Muzzatti. "Enemies Everywhere: Terrorism, Moral Panic, and US Civil Society." Critical Criminology 12 (2004): 327-50.
Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks, but instead the result of partisan advancement. Acts of terrorism have been around throughout the evolution of mankind. Terror attacks have even been traced back as far as the religious roots of an ancient middle east (Ross, Will Terrorism End?, 2006). However as man evolved, so did terrorism. Today’s extremism involves some of the main characteristics of ancient terrorism, but much more developed. Political advancement is no longer the root cause of terrorism acts. Instead influxes of “holy” wars have been appended the prior definition of terrorism. Mistakably modern terrorism has been confused for Political violence with political objectives, but research will establish that the nature of terrorism is fundamentally different from other forms of political violence.