Bobby Orokos
Reaction Post #3
Factions of Domestic Terrorism
Domestic terrorism is a prime example of factions existing in the modern world, as seen through James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10. Described as, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (Madison, 1787), domestic terrorist groups such as the ELF and IMPACT push forward their own political agendas, while disregarding the lives of those opposed to their ideals. As James Madison writes, the best way to solve the issue of domestic terrorism is to not destroy the causes of these groups, but to control their effects.
Madison is a strong believer that freedom is given to all, including the freedom of thought. Therefore, Madison would not want us to kill the ideas of these groups, but would want them to act in a better way, perhaps through the political system, to achieve their goals rather than achieve their goals through terror. Should these groups be a part of the political system, the effects of their faction would be able to be controlled.
Although different in the sense these terrorists are not elected into office, but freely act against the agendas of others, controlling their effects is a more difficult task than should they have been elected into office. Madison explains how when factions are a part of the government, the people hold power over them. In the case of domestic terrorism, there is no power over these organizations, besides the police and military when they are caught, and therefore allows these groups to act freely. By including these groups in the political system, the people gain power over these groups, as opposed to these groups holding the power of fear over the people.
Once incorporated into the political system, these groups would be forced to adhere to the laws of the land, and could not commit the violence and rule through fear as they once did. The best example of this theory in reality is with the recent peace between the FARC and the Colombian government, in which the FARC rebels are allowed to run for political office, and are in the process of turning over their weapons to the government. Should these organizations be given the option to be more incorporated into the political system, the people would hold power over them, and not be ruled by fear. Getting these organizations to give up their violent ways is the difficult part, however, as many are non-negotiable.
For example, as seen with the Army of God, they are a strong Christian organization that will not negotiate when it comes to the topic of abortion. Even working with people who support abortion is not an option for their group, as their website praises Scott Roeder, a man responsible for the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who performed abortions.
If the opportunity arises where these groups could be incorporated peacefully into the political system, it would be better than letting them rule with fear over the people. At least when in the political system, people could hold control over the effects of what they could achieve, whereas when a rogue organization, they can freely perform whatever actions they please without being held responsible, besides jail time. If in the political system and an act goes bad, people could force them out of the political system and the group would lose all legitimacy.
Bobby your post was interesting to read and I hadn't thought about the possible solution you propose.
ReplyDeleteI like how you used James Madison and how he wrote "he best way to solve the issue of domestic terrorism is to not destroy the causes of these groups, but to control their effects." I did not think of fighting domestic terrorism in this way. I think it could work and be good like we talked about in AFP as like the third image in a way and being creating an overarching empire of government to foster people who may become out of control.
I agree with your last paragraph about how if peaceful incorporation is possible into the political system then it is more beneficial then letting domestic terrorists rule with fear. And people would be held actions for possible wrong actions.
Yet the only thing that could go wrong is if these domestic terrorists we bring into the government to control end up causing more damage by possibly corrupting others and the political system becoming hurt or ruined if too many domestic terrorists are brought into the political system.
Bobby,
ReplyDeleteInteresting link to Madison and Factions...
How should groups like IMPACT be brought into the system, especially when their is an entire political party who holds their goals. Is this a case of a group's interests not being recognized or of a group growing frustrated with the political system that is supposed to control factions?
Professor Shirk,
DeleteI feel as though these organizations are a result of not fast enough change being invoked. As seen with anti-abortion terrorist groups and actors, they reacted as a result of their goal, criminalizing abortion, not being met fast enough, or maybe not even at all. By using terror, they advance and bypass all the political complexities, making their voice stronger than others. By becoming frustrated, they form their own non-political groups. Should they become an established party, their voices in the democracy are voiced more, and therefore are more likely to reach their goals through nonviolent tactics.
Bobby, your post was very interesting and I also liked your link to Madison. I agree with you that terrorist groups, like the ELF, should be peacefully brought into the political system in order to control their violent actions. And, I think that is what these groups want--to have a voice and to be effective in creating legislation that reflects their interests. In terms of the ELF, their interests are to be more protective of the environment, and if they had legitimate political influence, perhaps the government could place regulations on logging businesses, which could in turn prevent the ELF from reacting violently.
ReplyDeleteGood job, Bobby!
Bobby, I really liked this post. You used great examples to back up your argument from multiple sources. I agree with you and Kennedy "that terrorist groups, like the ELF, should be peacefully brought into the political system in order to control their violent actions". I am curious how you would propose doing this? If they have committed terrorism before, we can't just let them in to our society and ignore their crimes, can we? What would be your solution?
ReplyDelete