Sunday, April 23, 2017

Blog #3 War on Terror Tactics

The War on Terror was declared by George W. Bush in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks took place. There are many parts and components to the War on Terror, including extradition, rendition, torture, drone strikes, and targeted killing or signature strikes. While the War on Terror is not terrorism, in itself, certain components of the War on Terror may be considered acts of terrorism. The major conflict in this debate is the varying opinions on whether a state can commit terrorism, but if one answers yes to that question, or if one disregards the question, it is clear that some of the tactics that the United States of America uses, in its War on Terror, especially black sites, torture, and targeted killing and signature strikes, can be considered acts of terrorism.

Black sites are areas of the world where the United States holds terror suspects far away from the US. These sites are often unregulated and usually consist of systems where fewer protection rights are included and considered. In these secret sites, what goes on is hidden and ignored, and although that may not be terrorism, terror undoubtedly takes place at these black sites, and it is very possible that there are inhumane conditions.

Torture is a tactic that is used either as a punishment, or as a strategy to extract information from a potential suspect, or someone who has valuable knowledge on a particular situation. When using torture as a tactic, officials will inflict severe pain on the person being interrogated to force the person to do something, or to say something of value. There are arguments for using torture as a tactic, and there are arguments that are against using torture as a tactic. When using torture as a tactic to gain information from a valuable and knowledgeable person, it does not always prove to be successful. A lot of times, the person being interrogated will answer the questions with false or misleading information. When a person is under extreme and stressful conditions, such as torture, the priority and more prominent goal is obviously to break free from the immense stress or pain. The person will say or do anything to get away quickly, including giving false information to the officials. If torture is not as useful and successful as it was once thought to be, then putting a person in a situation where he or she is facing extremely stressful and painful circumstances is unarguably a form of terror, and depending on the details, this can be seen as terrorism.
In other situations, torture and terror are used as a way to punish a person for an act that he or she has committed. This is unnecessary because if the person committed this crime, he or she should be tried fairly, and should be given a fair and just sentence.


Targeted killing, and signature strikes are very similar tactics, but are a bit different. Targeted killings are extrajudicial executions based on knowledge that the person committed a crime or attack. A signature strike, on the other hand, is when a suspect is killed based on a pattern of behavior that is consistent with terrorist activity. Civilians do become victims to these attacks sometimes. In addition, the information may not be 100% accurate. Targeted killing and signature strikes are two tactics that inflict immense terror onto people.

4 comments:

  1. Wendy I agree with you in that parts of the War on Terror can be considered terrorism.

    I think those that believe states cannot commit terrorism need to ask themselves about Stampnitzkyi's reading about how terrorism is actually just a word used by a state/government to chastise an enemy and label a certain group evil.

    I also agree with you that "it is clear that some of the tactics that the United States of America uses, in its War on Terror, especially black sites, torture, and targeted killing and signature strikes, can be considered acts of terrorism."

    I think with drones the aspect of double tapping is us using terrorism because I believe that the civilian that rush after an attack and rescue/aid teams that aid should not be killed and I think that the act of double tapping makes us the evil that we call terrorists. I do think that people try to excuse this by saying its because we are in a war on terror yet I think we counter terrorism with terrorism at times.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wendy, I agree with many of the points you make in this blog. I like how you distinguish where the line is for terrorism, as not the acts alone are terrorism, but the intent behind committing the acts. Similarly to AnFei, I think drone strikes, when using double tapping, are absolutely terrorism, and similar to your words, torture is terrorism if used as punishment, but to gather information it could be justified. I came to the realization that states engage in acts of war, whereas non-state actors engage in acts of terrorism. Under this, do you think when the United States commits acts, such as double tapping or torture as punishment, it is an act of war or act of terrorism?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wendy, while I think the US does not commit terrorist acts in the War on Terror, I think you make good points on how the US's acts could be considered terrorist. As you said, I think the line is drawn between intent and the acts themselves. However, while the US sometimes kills civilian casualties and captures the wrong person for torture, I do not think the US intends on doing this. That is why the accuracy of these counter-terrorism strategies is so important. If the US was more accurate in drone strikes, as to not cause any civilian casualties, do you think drone strikes would still be terrorist acts?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess I have to say I disagree with you. I think the US does not commit acts of terrorism, however, like Kennedy said, I think you make some interesting points. I think the key component in the war on terror, is we do not do anything at random, or torture/kill civilians on purpose, with is why I do not think it is terrorism.

    Overall, great post!

    ReplyDelete