Annotated Bibliography on Implications of Fundamentalism

One of the major issues explored in the readings for the final week of the course is the role of Christian fundamentalism in US foreign policy and more specifically how Christian fundamentalism may be seen as an opposing force to Islamism. An unspoken concern has been whether this opposition may have violent repercussions either through terrorism or more conventional warfare.

In this assignment you are to develop an annotated bibliography of at least ten sources (preferably five on each side of the debate) that explore the following question: What is the actual role of Christian millennialism in US foreign policy? What are the implications of your findings, if any, for international peace?

Here are the instructions for completing such a bibliography:

Note: You are not writing a research paper that answers this question, but developing a set of resources that you think should be consulted by someone if they were to write such a paper.

Using the four links provided below, learn how to create an annotated bibliography (a bibliography with brief descriptions of each source and how it will be useful.)

Note: You may use any style for bibliographic entries that you would like (Chicago/Turabian, APA or MLA), as long as you choose one style and use it consistently.
10. Home Grown Terrorism

So far in this module, we have mostly explored international terrorism and, especially the relationships among globalization and two kinds of fundamentalism, Islamism and Christian millennialism. However, domestic terrorism such as the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995 has also become a part of the American scene. It seems appropriate to address domestic terrorism here.
The FBI uses the following definition of domestic terrorism: “Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (Jarboe, James F. Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, February, 2002)
Key words in this definition are:
•   Unlawful, the act must break an existing local, state, or federal law
•   Use or threatened use of violence
•   Group or individual Thus, acts of individuals such as Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing, the uni-bomber, or the Olympic bomber would all fit into this definition
•   Entirely within the United States This would seem to be an attempt to narrow the jurisdiction of the Domestic Terrorism Section. In practice it is probably hard to really define what constitutes entirely domestic terrorism as most groups seem to have at least informal international ties.
•   Without foreign direction Most individuals and groups under surveillance appear to have domestic or special interest group agendas and are not formally connected to foreign organizations
•   Committed Against Persons or Property The inclusion of property within the definition is interesting because many groups would assert that crimes against property are not really “terrorism”
•   To intimidate or coerce
•   A government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof This broadens the definition so that any coercive act (or presumably any act that can reasonably be deemed coercive by some authority) has the potential of being labeled “terrorist” including acts against corporations.
•   In furtherance of political or social objectives Thus, an important part of this definition is that the individual or group has to have political or social objectives, and not simply be acting out of criminal motives, personal aggression, etc.
This appears to be a fairly broad definition of terrorism, but one that is generally in keeping with the definitions used so far in this course.
Differences between Domestic and International Terrorism
Much of the following is taken from a lecture available on the web site of Dr. Tom O’Connor, a professor at North Carolina Wesleyan College. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect19.htm and from other online resources such as the Anti-defamation League http://www.adl.org/ as well as a related website http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students.asp
Individualism as a Core Value in Domestic Terrorism
While international terrorism often claims to emphasize the collective good, US domestic terrorism seems to incorporate some basic American values, especially individualism. In fact, individualism nearly to the point of anarchy seems to be a common thread in most domestic terrorism.
The Relationship of Extremism, Hate Groups and Terrorism in the US
The Anti-defamation League’s Watch-dog Organization uses the following definition of an extremist: An extremist is someone whose political/ideological views are so far from the “mainstream” (i.e., what most people believe) that he or she has no realistic chance of accomplishing his or her goals using all of our normal and acceptable means of accomplishing political and ideological goals. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students.asp
It should be noted that extremism itself is not necessarily evil. The tactics used and the ideology preached lead to reasonable value judgments about various organizations. While not all extremists are terrorists, most, if not all, terrorists are extremists. Hate and desperation are the fuels that foster the kind of extremism that leads to terror.
American terrorism was once associated with left wing groups in the 1960’s and early 1970’s such as the Weathermen and Black Panthers, but in recent years has become associated with the right wing of US politics and with special interest groups. (O’Connor, 2005) Right wing extremism and special interest groups will be separated for purposes of analysis, but it should be remembered that individuals may be a part of one or more groups depending on their own beliefs? thus a person who believes strongly in the right to bear arms and is part of a militia may or may not be a racial separatist, anti-abortionist or part of the anti-environmental movement. The one thing right wing extremists seem to have in common is hate, especially of forces they see as depriving them of individual liberty and their status, real or imagined.
White Supremacy Groups
There are literally hundreds of right wing white supremacy extremist groups with potential for terrorist activities. They are nearly impossible to count at least partly because their tendency to hatred and dissension extends to members of their own groups. However, Professor O’Connor of North Carolina Wesleyan College (2005) has divided them into useful categories by religious claims. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect19.htm
•   Atheist: Most neo-Nazis claim to be atheists. (O’Connor, 2005)
•   Pagan: Pagans believe in Odinism, the call of the chief of the Norse Gods from Valhalla to racial purification. Thor, the Norse God of Thunder is said to have reinforced this call to racial purification by slamming his hammer calling all white people to respond. A Christian variant Nordic Christianity adds the element of serving Christ by purifying and protecting the white race. (O’Connor, 2005)
•   Creatorism: Usually associated with the skinheads (a white supremacist group that originated in Europe and are known for their shaved heads). They believe that the idea of a loving God is a lie and that the Creator left humanity on its own to battle for racial supremacy. White people must, therefore, fight a racial holy war because this is what is expected by their god. The White Man’s Bible contains their mythology. (O’Connor, 2005)
•   Christian Identity Theology: Popular among some well-known hate groups such as the Aryan Nation. Christian Identity claims that white people are the true Israelites. Christian Identity holds that Jews originated from an illicit mating between Eve and the Devil (in the form of the serpent in the Garden of Eden) and that nonwhites are descended from animals or mud. (O’Connor, 2005)
•   Klan Theology: A belief in the natural inferiority of black people based on an interpretation of Noah and the Flood. Black people are believed to have descended from Noah’s son Ham who was cursed. Asiatic peoples are believed to be descended from Noah’s son Shem who is believed to be inferior to Japheth, the father of the white race. Klan members seek to prevent the government from falling into the hands of blacks or Jews. They believe that racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and hatred of immigrants is both a religious and patriotic duty. (O’Connor, 2005)
•   Christian Reconstructionism: Seeks to “eliminate democracy (and separation of church and state) and replace it with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing a strict interpretation of Biblical Law. There would be no such thing as labor unions, civil rights laws, public schools, or women allowed to work outside the home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. Capital punishment would also extend to blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality.” (O’Connor, 2005) O’Connor notes that this is the basic theology of many anti-abortionists. It also bears an uncanny resemblance to Islamism as practiced by the Taliban.
•   Freewheeling Fundamentalism: The religion most characteristic of the so-called Patriot movement including the tax rebels and the various militia. According to O’Connor (2005) “It involves taking what one wants or needs from established religion to justify certain social or political beliefs. Beliefs most often center on a fear of centralized government and conspiracies to destroy America’s sovereignty.” Many of these groups oppose racism, and some claim they are not anti-Semitic, but some do support the so-called county movement in which certain counties in Idaho or Montana would be set aside as “all white”. (O’Connor, 2005)
Militia’s
Militia’s or paramilitary groups claim to have their roots in the American tradition emphasizing the right to bear arms. They claim roots in the American Revolution thus asserting their legitimacy as the “unorganized militia” of federal and state law. Militia’s grew rapidly in the 1990’s especially after the Waco, Texas incident peaking in 1996, the year after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Members of the militia movement believe that the US government has been taken over by globalization or “New World Order” conspiracy. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students Although some militia members are white supremacists there is no direct relationship between the militia movement and white supremacy. Militia members generally emphasize the right to bear arms and to live free of government intervention.
The Watch Dog site of the Anti-defamation League states:
“The militia movement has many people who could be called “law abiding citizens.” However, many members conduct criminal activity. The most common is the collection of illegal weapons and explosives. Sometimes these illegal arsenals are stunning in their size. Since militia members tend to believe a) that they have the right to own whatever sort of weapon they want to, and b) they need to arm themselves to oppose a current or future tyrannical government, it is thus very easy for many of them to decide to acquire illegal weapons such as machine guns, fully automatic weapons, silencers, sawed off shotguns, explosives, etc. Some members go further than collecting weapons and actually plan to use them. In the past few years, different militia groups have plotted to bomb various government buildings, to attack U.S. military bases, and to commit other acts of terrorism. As a result, though the militia movement contains some of the more “moderate” members of the “patriot” movement, it also includes many people willing to commit criminal acts.” http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
The Sovereign Citizen Movement
The notion of sovereign citizenship seems to derive from the untenable notion that an individual can decide to be “sovereign” unto himself or herself. Sovereign citizens claim that there are two types of US citizens. There are “Fourteenth Amendment Citizens” who must follow the laws and taxes of federal and state governments and “sovereign citizens” who are subject only to the “common law” and can only be tried for crimes in which there is a “complaining victim”. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students Believers in “sovereign citizenship” believe that there was once a time in the US when there really was no government interference at all: no taxes, no regulations, no laws, no court orders, etc. and that this lack of systematic laws was the intent of the founders of our nation. They believe that this utopian system was gradually replaced (through conspiracy) with the system that we have today, which they believe is not legitimate. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students Members of the movement base their beliefs on bizarre legal interpretations that do not conform to accepted interpretations of legal precedent. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
Since, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, all legitimate government is based on the consent of the people, the idea of citizen sovereignty undermines the social contract that is the basis of social stability. The Anti-defamation League’s watchdog group considers the sovereign citizen movement to be very dangerous:
“because its members generally do not believe that our government is legitimate. Thus many of them will do whatever it takes to get rid of that government (including establishing their own, such as the Republic of Texas). They are also so anti-government in general that they will fight against virtually all regulations, laws, ordinances or licenses. This puts them in constant conflict with local, state and federal governments.
Sovereign citizens commit crimes that range from very minor offenses such as driving without a license up to major offenses such as assaults on court clerks up to extraordinary crimes such as aggravated kidnappings and armed standoffs. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
Sovereign citizens essentially create their own rules, an ethic that, if applied to everyone, would result in chaos.
The Tax Protest Movement
Tax protesters generally claim that they should not have to pay taxes. There have been two major tax protest movements in the US. The first was a tax protest movement in the 1960’s and early 1970’s largely by those who believed that the undeclared Vietnam War was unjust and illegal. This movement has largely died out, although a few pacifists still withhold taxes as a nonviolent form of protest against military spending. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
The second tax protest movement started in the 1950s and 1960s. It has concentrated on interpreting the Constitution, U.S. law and the tax code in such a way as to claim that most people do not have any obligation to pay income taxes. The movement asserts that the Sixteenth Amendment (which makes federal income tax possible) was never ratified because Ohio was not legally a state when it ratified the amendment. Other tax protest claims have suggested that filing tax returns violates one’s Fifth Amendment rights (against self incrimination), that taxes apply only to corporations and not to individuals, that the income tax is completely voluntary, or that the taxes apply not to “income” but to “profit,” with the latter term extremely narrowly defined.” http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
According to the Anti-defamation League “A defining characteristic of the modern right wing tax protest movement has been the formation of organizations that sell ways to avoid taxes. Typically, these organizations grow very quickly, amassing considerable sums for their founders, and then collapse as the leaders are arrested on various fraud and tax charges. Examples of such groups include the Your Heritage Protection Association, the Pilot Connection Society, and the Save-a-Patriot Fellowship. Today the tax protest movement is closely linked to the “sovereign citizen” movement. This is not surprising, considering that it was the tax protest movement which probably gave birth to the Posse Comitatus, whose ideology is the basis for the sovereign citizen movement.” http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
The main danger of the tax protest movement is that is breaks the unwritten agreement among people that is the basis of all government, and it makes the rest of us who do pay taxes bear the burden for services that can only be supplied jointly. Tax protesters have committed a variety of crimes ranging from fraud to assaulting IRS representatives and blowing up IRS buildings. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
Other Separatist Groups
It would be a mistake to think that the only dangers come from the groups listed above. The watchdog web site states: “Groups like the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party are very disturbing. Many such groups are racist or, especially anti-Semitic. Some, too, are increasingly becoming anti-government. They are also susceptible to paranoia and conspiracy theories. The fact that this website concentrates on right-wing extremists rather than other forms of extremists does not mean that the other flavors of extremism are somehow good or desired. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
One interesting phenomenon present today is growing set of ties between different strands of extremist groups. For instance, in Florida white separatist and black separatists have marched together. Other black extremist groups or cults, such as the Moorish Nation and the Washitaw Nation, have adopted much of the “sovereign citizen” ideology. And interestingly, many catalogs of materials offered for sale by extremist groups contain many of the same videos, whether the catalog is for militia sympathizers or black nationalists.” http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
Millenarianism
The relationship between millenarianism and terrorism has been discussed in earlier lectures in this series. Millenarianism provides a perfect breeding ground for terrorism because much of it emphasizes an apocalyptic vision of a call to “holy war”, a calling of all nations to Armageddon, the last great battle. O’Connor (2005) asserts, “The most dangerous aspect of apocalyptic vision is not just that it makes a perfect terrorist indoctrination device, but that it promotes the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Every domestic terrorist captured by the FBI for dabbling in weapons of mass destruction has said they were attempting to stockpile such weapons for the upcoming apocalypse. In 1994, there was an Ohio militia group captured with sizable quantities of bubonic plague cultures, and in 1995, a Minnesota Patriot group was preparing Ricin (a toxic chemical made from castor beans) for use against law enforcement officials. http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect19.htm
Throughout this discussion of domestic terrorism there are echoes of themes occurring around the world: tensions between globalization and nationalism, the temptation to return to religious “fundamentals” defined very narrowly, and the sense that somehow “the end is near” calling all to religious warfare. It is frightening.
Domestic Terrorism by Special Interests
Special interest groups are a focus of much of American political life and policy making. Most make use of a variety of legitimate social action strategies and tactics. A few use coercion. This section will focus on a few examples of the latter variety.
The Anti-abortion Movement
The watchdog website has this to say about the anti-abortion movement.
“The anti-abortion movement is a very large movement dedicated to stopping the practice of abortion. The majority of members and sympathizers work entirely within the system, using moral persuasion, lobbying, protests and similar means to achieve their goals. A minority practice civil disobedience. A smaller minority still constitute an extreme faction of the movement who are willing to use illegal and violent means, including terrorism, to stop abortion. The most common targets for such individuals are abortion clinics and the doctors and staff who work in them. Crimes ranging from arson to assault to assassination have been committed by zealots who believe that pro-abortion people are murdering millions of babies each year.
Two factors about the relationship between the anti-abortion movement and the “patriot” movement immediately stand out. The first is that the connections between the two tend to be between the extremist fringe of the anti-abortion movement and the “patriots.” The most extreme of the anti-abortionists look to the militia’s and other groups for support and for recruits. The second factor is that, although to be in the anti-abortion movement does not mean that one is also in the “patriot” movement, the reverse is generally true.
Virtually the entire “patriot” movement (save for a small group of libertarian types) is anti-abortion. This has resulted in some extremists using violent tactics against abortion providers. For instance, the Phineas Priesthood cell, which committed bank robberies in the Spokane, Washington, area in 1996, bombed an abortion clinic in one robbery as a diversion. Such acts are likely to become increasingly common. http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
Radical Environmentalists
The FBI considers the radical environmental movement and the animal rights movement two of the most dangerous domestic terrorist organizations as evidenced by a speech given to Congress on February 12, 2002 by James Jarboe, FBI Chief of Domestic Terrorism. Mr. Jarboe stated:
“Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars.
Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Special interest extremists continue to conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to their causes. These groups occupy the extreme fringes of animal rights, pro-life, environmental, anti-nuclear, and other movements. Some special interest extremists—most notably within the animal rights and environmental movements—have turned increasingly toward vandalism and terrorist activity in attempts to further their causes.
Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of “eco-terrorism” have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, sub-national group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.
In recent years, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has become one of the most active extremist elements in the United States. Despite the destructive aspects of ALF’s operations, its operational philosophy discourages acts that harm “any animal, human and nonhuman.” Animal rights groups in the United States, including the ALF, have generally adhered to this mandate. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely organized movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in “direct action” against companies or individuals who utilize animals for research or economic gain. “Direct action” generally occurs in the form of criminal activity to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims’ company operations. The ALF activists have engaged in a steadily growing campaign of illegal activity against fur companies, mink farms, restaurants, and animal research laboratories.
Estimates of damage and destruction in the United States claimed by the ALF during the past ten years, as compiled by national organizations such as the Fur Commission and the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), put the fur industry and medical research losses at more than 45 million dollars. The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence.
Disaffected environmentalists, in 1980, formed a radical group called “Earth First!” and engaged in a series of protests and civil disobedience events. In 1984, however, members introduced “tree spiking” (insertion of metal or ceramic spikes in trees in an effort to damage saws) as a tactic to thwart logging. In 1992, the ELF was founded in Brighton, England, by Earth First! members who refused to abandon criminal acts as a tactic when others wished to mainstream Earth First!. In 1993, the ELF was listed for the first time along with the ALF in a communiquÃ© declaring solidarity in actions between the two groups. This unity continues today with a crossover of leadership and membership. It is not uncommon for the ALF and the ELF to post joint declarations of responsibility for criminal actions on their web sites. In 1994, founders of the San Francisco branch of Earth First! published in The Earth First! Journal a recommendation that Earth First! mainstream itself in the United States, leaving criminal acts other than unlawful protests to the ELF.
The ELF advocates “monkey wrenching,” a euphemism for acts of sabotage and property destruction against industries and other entities perceived to be damaging to the natural environment. “Monkey wrenching” includes tree spiking, arson, sabotage of logging or construction equipment, and other types of property destruction. Speeches given by Jonathan Paul and Craig Rosebraugh at the 1998 National Animal Rights Conference held at the University of Oregon, promoted the unity of both the ELF and the ALF movements. The ELF posted information on the ALF website until it began its own website in January 2001, and is listed in the same underground activist publications as the ALF.
The most destructive practice of the ALF/ELF is arson. The ALF/ELF members consistently use improvised incendiary devices equipped with crude but effective timing mechanisms. These incendiary devices are often constructed based upon instructions found on the ALF/ELF websites. The ALF/ELF criminal incidents often involve pre-activity surveillance and well-planned operations. Members are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, and posting details about potential targets on the Internet.
The ALF and the ELF have jointly claimed credit for several raids including a November 1997 attack of the Bureau of Land Management wild horse corrals near Burns, Oregon, where arson destroyed the entire complex resulting in damages in excess of four hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the June 1998 arson attack of a U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal Damage Control Building near Olympia, Washington, in which damages exceeded two million dollars. The ELF claimed sole credit for the October 1998, arson of a Vail, Colorado, ski facility in which four ski lifts, a restaurant, a picnic facility and a utility building were destroyed. Damage exceeded $12 million. On 12/27/1998, the ELF claimed responsibility for the arson at the U.S. Forest Industries Office in Medford, Oregon, where damages exceeded five hundred thousand dollars. Other arsons in Oregon, New York, Washington, Michigan, and Indiana have been claimed by the ELF. Recently, the ELF has also claimed attacks on genetically engineered crops and trees. The ELF claims these attacks have totaled close to $40 million in damages.”
Domestic Terrorism as a Strategy
Terrorism, whether domestic or international, is always primarily a tactic based in a strategy of social action. It is a means to an end that the perpetrators see as socially desirable and even noble.
Terrorism is a process, not a goal. To understand this, we must understand the concept of social action as an approach to social change and terrorism as an extreme tactic in the arsenal of social change activities.
Social action is based in a conflict approach to social change and presumes power differentials between the powerful (sometimes referred to as “the haves”) and the powerless (sometimes referred to as the “have nots”) (Hyman, McKnight, and Higdon, 2005) Social action may be compared to a game or perhaps more accurately to a competition like figure skating or Olympic diving, in which judges determine the score rather subjectively. (Hyman, McKnight, and Higdon, 2005) One team consists of the powerful who control resources and decision-making capabilities and are often an informal coalition of corporations, powerful individuals, and government. (Roth, 2002) The other team (the underdogs) consists of the relatively powerless who want to bring about change. The referees are law enforcement officials who are supposed to make sure that both teams play by the rules?although some would claim that the rules are largely set by the powerful. (Roth, 2002) The media is largely responsible for calling the plays of the game and determining what is important and what will be ignored (Roth, 2002). The judges consist of several groups including designated decision makers, for example, government officials, the judiciary, etc. and the general public. Points are scored in the arena of public opinion which, in turn, translate in the political arena in terms of laws, policies, and regulatory actions. (Hyman, McKnight, and Higdon, 2005)
The ultimate goal of social action is to bring about desired change for the “underdogs”. This can be accomplished either by directly persuading the powerful that it is in their best interests to change voluntarily or to influence public sentiment so that the public pushes the powerful to make changes. In reality, most social action strategies try to do both. (Hyman, McKnight, and Higdon, 2005). Various kinds of social action are discussed in the final essay in this series. Here the focus is on coercive tactics, or those that spill over into the official definition of “domestic terrorism”.
If one looks at the history of many social movements, there seems at times to be a kind of escalation of coercive tactics from sit-ins and demonstrations through nonviolent protests to coercion in the form of action against property, to non-lethal action against persons such as hostage taking, to lethal actions. There are probably many reasons for this escalation, but Roth (2002) and others have suggested that the media plays a role. The US news media has become primarily an arm of an entertainment business that sells goods and services through the fascination people have for the new and different as well as for sex and violence (Roth, 2002).
The evolution of a social movement into the use of more and more coercive tactics was explained by one of the founders of Greenpeace in a discussion on C-Span Book TV on April 10, 2005. When a new social movement comes on the scene, it can often sell itself to the news media through its unique message alone. Thus, when the environmental movement came on the scene in the early 1970’s with the first Earth Day, it received extensive coverage. As the years passed, however, concern with the environment became literally “old news”. Peaceful protests were ignored by the media as simply “more of the same.” Greenpeace leaders decided that in order to keep environmental issues before the public, they had to “up the ante”. They did this primarily by crimes against property such as cutting fishing nets (which, by the way, meets the FBI criteria for terrorism). This increasingly violent activity met their immediate objective of gaining more media attention to their cause. While the Greenpeace founder stopped short of actually advocating greater and greater violence in his talk on national television, the implications seemed clear. There is a consensus across social movements that if those involved in a social movement want to gain sustained media attention, and thus access to the public and thence to decision makers, they have to use ever more creative (and probably violent) tactics.
International, domestic, and special interest extremism are similar in the range of tactics they may use to call attention to themselves. Some common tactics that are clearly in the “terrorism” definition vary from disrupting economic processes such as cyber-crime, property crimes such as the cutting of fishing nets by Greenpeace or the burning of condominiums by ELF (Earth Liberation Front, a radical environmentalist organization), to relatively nonviolent crimes against persons such as hostage taking, to violence against targeted individuals such as the assassination of government leaders, to very violent crimes, especially against civilians, in relatively small geographic areas such as car bombings, suicide bombings, to violence against larger civilian groups through biological, chemical, or nuclear attack. Of course, individuals involved in social movements vary in what one might think of as an “ethical braking system”. Some may accept or even condone violence against property, but claim to be absolutely opposed to violence against persons. ELF and ALF would be an example of such organizations.
However, at least one fundamental commonality in all terrorist movements is the use of violence to obtain political or social ends and an ethical stance that says that violent means can be justified by noble ends.
Tactics of Domestic Terrorists
Domestic terrorist groups have used all the tactics employed by terrorists everywhere under the banner of righteous ends justifying any means. One rather new tactic, leaderless resistance stands out.
Leaderless Resistance
One of the latest tactics of domestic terrorists and extremist groups is something called “leaderless resistance” and is becoming characteristic of most US groups.
Simson L. Garfinkel, a researcher in the field of computer security and commentator on information technology, has written an article on “leaderless resistance” for the peer reviewed journal FirstMonday entitled “Leaderless Resistance Today” http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/garfinkel/ He states:
“Leaderless Resistance is a strategy in which small groups (cells) and individuals fight an entrenched power through independent acts of violence and mayhem. The cells do not have any central coordination ? they are leaderless ? and they do not have explicit communications with one another. As a result, causes that employ Leaderless Resistance are themselves resistant to informers and traitors.
Leaderless Resistance was popularized by the anti-government activist Louis Beam as a technique for white nationalists to continue their struggle against the government of the United States in the face of overwhelming odds. Since then, Leaderless Resistance has become the de facto strategy of the violent fringe of the animal rights and environmental activist movements.”
Garfinkel (2005) goes on to say that leaderless resistance is a strategy used primarily by groups that have no assets and no real chance of success. It is a strategy of desperation and is thus especially dangerous because practitioners have literally nothing to lose.
In leaderless resistance small groups (or cells) operate separately from one another. There is no hierarchical structure. Thus, leaderless resistance is impervious to network analysis (a method that can be effectively used in tracing most terrorist organizations through financial and other connections). If one cell collapses, others take its place. (Garfinkel, 2005)
The Council on Foreign Affairs has prepared a comprehensive list of questions and answers on terrorism of all kinds demonstrates that leaderless resistance as a topic is not limited to special interest groups and, indeed, is used by a variety of right wing extremists as well. http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/american3.html
The Council explains leaderless resistance as follows:
“a strategy first articulated at a 1992 convention of right-wing groups–entails a general endorsement of terrorist violence by movement leaders but leaves planning and executing operations to individuals or small groups. Eco-terrorists follow a similar model, encouraging new adherents to form their own violent cells rather than joining existing ones. Experts say leaderless resistance has parallels to the way Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network operates. Under leaderless resistance, autonomous attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the AFL’s circus-trailer attack form part of an uncoordinated, but essentially united campaign.”
Leaderless resistance is particularly appealing in the United States with its long history of individualism and, especially, the importance individual liberty plays in most of the US extremist movements.
Leaderless resistance is also particularly challenging to combat, because it relies on ideology, not hierarchy to keep going.
Combating the Domestic Terror and Leaderless Resistance
The prognosis for combating domestic terror seems grim, especially with the advent of leaderless resistance which makes usual methods of tracking and intervention difficult if not impossible. Garfinkel does, however, offer some suggestions.
He states, “Terrorist actions serve two primary purposes: direct action, and recruitment. News organizations covering the events (e.g., a story in the New York Times) expose fertile new minds to the doctrine. The new communications technologies make it possible for a movement to exist solely as an ideology, with no membership lists, no financial records, no direct communication between the operatives ? and no “off” switch. There is no way to negotiate with such an ideology, no way to compromise.
Unlike conventional terrorist groups, there is no incentive for an ideology employing Leaderless Resistance to moderate or evolve beyond terrorism. Because there is no formal “group” with assets, interpersonal relationships, or other stabilizing factors, individuals who moderate simply leave the milieu; their writings and actions remain behind, recruiting new members. Indeed, there could be significant lapses of time in which a group like ELF or ALF has no members: in the future, one or two people could discover the writings, be inspired, and carry out their own act of terror “in the name of the ELF.”
“Today the U.S. appears to be fighting Leaderless Resistance networks ? with an eradication strategy based on crime-fighting: the goal is to create very high penalties for individuals who participate in direct action. The danger of this approach is that the eradication effort itself may inadvertently serve to attract new recruits to a violent ideology, by making the cause appear a just response to an unjust enemy. Consider this excerpt from a leftist magazine, regarding the sentencing of one ELF activist:
“In Eugene, Oregon … the local newspaper … reported that a man who killed a woman while driving drunk received a 10 year jail sentence. Six days later, the same newspaper reported that Jeffrey Leurs had been sentenced to 22 yeas and 8 months for causing arson damage to three SUVs. Even though the judge admitted that Leurs had taken precautions against harming people, Jeffrey, who is now 22, will spend as much time in Jail as he has already spent on earth”
Clearly such counter terrorist tactics may actually enhance the appeal of the ideology as well as confirming the paranoia of movement members.
Garfinkel (2005) has proposed several policy making strategies based primarily on bringing the debate to a more rational level, minimizing the martyrdom of activists, and increasing the inclusiveness of public discourse to include those activists who may have moderate views. His points have been labeled for easier understanding.
•   Use a public health strategy “It is unlikely that prosecutions and sentences that appear disproportionate will have a deterrent effect; they may have the reverse effect. Perpetrators of these non-organizations appear to be motivated out of anger, frustration, and (in the case of some Islamic terrorism) humiliation. Instead of using traditional anti-terrorism or anti-crime strategies, a strategy of treating the violence as a public health problem may be more successful.”
•   Do not publicly “bully” movement leaders In the past, the U.S. Congress has subpoenaed ELF spokesperson Craig Rosebraugh to testify before the Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health. This action generated significant backlash throughout the environmental and civil libertarian communities, and resulted in no information being revealed that was not already known. No further subpoenas should be issued: they only serve to radicalize fence-sitters.”
•   Monitor movement spokespersons for illegal activity “However, it is unclear whether or not ELF “press officers” are actually nonparticipants, as they claim, or are also organizers. Spokespersons for these groups should be closely monitored and arrested in the event that they are engaging in illegal activities.”
•   Closely monitor websites “Likewise, it is clear that Web sites and mailing lists used by these groups serve a key role in organizing, motivating, and radicalizing. Although shutting down these communications channels poses constitutional problems within the United States, they should be closely monitored to see if they cross the line and become agents of a conspiracy to commit violence. Although there are clearly no First Amendment problems in shutting down these servers if they are located outside the United States, the world is so vast and there are so many opportunities for low-cost or free Web hosting, that it is inconceivable that the movements would be unable to find a place to house their Web site. Once it had a home, the location could be registered with Internet search engines so that it could be easily found by others.”
•   Resist the tendency to use the “terrorist” label “One of the goals of terrorist organizations is to encourage the opponent to engage in disproportionate retaliation against the populace at large, with the goal of radicalizing more people in the general public. Policymakers should resist the urge to label animal rights and environmental organizations as “terrorists”.
•   Engage change agents in dialogue “Instead (of labeling), groups that advocate change but do not advocate violence should be made part of the policy debate on animal testing and environmental degradation (or other issues of interest to them). Providing nonviolent opportunities to effect substantive policy changes reduces the appeal of illegal violent activities.”
•   Discern developing networks and hierarchies “Leaderless Resistance is unstable. If actors are successful in their activities, their activities will inevitably generate fan clubs, support groups, and other kinds of social structures. A network will emerge, which will then create the opportunity for network analysis.”
•   Emphasize collateral damage Finally, activists appear to pride themselves in executing targeted violence. A public relations campaign emphasizing collateral damage of these events might have a strong deterrent effect. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/garfinkel/
The Anti-defamation League offers the following suggestions for dealing with extremists and hate groups:
•   Respect the First Amendment rights of all people. Speech is protected in the United States, even unpopular speech. We should not attempt to use the courts to shut down lawful Klan rallies. As nasty as they are, that is activity protected by the Constitution. We should not expect or allow our law enforcement agencies to investigate people simply because they hold unpopular views. If extremist individuals are suspected of having committed or of planning to commit a crime, that is something entirely different. We should not ask our government to regulate the Internet to ban unpopular speech. What if the speech we prefer becomes unpopular some day?
•   Encourage communities to let people know that hate will not be supported or tolerated. What governments cannot do, citizens can. Recently, the Aryan Nations decided to hold a march in Northern Idaho. Other citizens go together and created a wonderful plan. They collected pledge money?a certain amount for each minute the march would last?and used the money collected to fight hate and racism. They helped turn a racist event into a way to raise consciousness and activity against racism.
•   Demand that while First Amendment activity be protected, criminal activity be prosecuted. Right-wing extremists should be allowed to say whatever they want to say, meet in whatever meetings they want to hold, but when they step over the line to commit criminal activity, whether violent or nonviolent, we should urge our law enforcement authorities to nip such activity in the bud and to deter future, more extreme crimes by vigilant, intelligent and effective law enforcement.
•   Call for laws that will more effectively deal with the problems caused by extremists. Contrary to what some people would have you believe, these laws need NOT be intrusive nor limit our liberties. Passing effective hate crime legislation, for instance, will help protect vulnerable groups such as minorities, religious groups and gays. Passing laws against simulating the legal process will help authorities deal with fake courts, phony law enforcement officers and bogus legal documents. These are all solutions that do not cost a lot of money, do not involve intrusive methods like wiretapping or encryption, do not impair anybody’s rights and may help to create safer, healthier communities.
http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students
Summary
This essay has concentrated on the nature of domestic terrorism. It is clear that domestic terrorism shares many of the characteristics of terrorism anywhere in the world. It is primarily an ideological tool intended to bring about social change. It exists on a continuum from crimes against property to ghastly crimes against persons. It thrives on publicity and martyrdom. It tends to grow in intensity as more and more violent actions are needed to draw attention to its “cause.” It tends to be used by relatively small groups who cannot gain success through legitimate means.
Domestic terrorism is mainly divided into two types.
Extremist groups often have their basis in hatred and conspiracy theories. White supremacist as well as black separatist groups make race the center of conflict. “Patriots” such as the militias, tax protestors, and sovereign citizens believe that there is a conspiracy that has already replaced the individual liberties intended for this nation with an international global conspiracy, a New World Order. Members of most of these groups believe that they are called by God or gods to fight to the death for freedom. Many are millenarians who believe that the end of the world is at hand and the final battle between good and evil (as they define them) is about to be fought. These groups are often frightening because they gather and hoard weapons of various kinds up to and including weapons of mass destruction.
Special interest groups focus on only one issue for which they are willing to sacrifice everything. Some of the most radical groups of this type include the anti-abortionists and radical environmentalists such as ELF (Earth Liberation Front) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front). ELF and ALF have so far only committed crimes against property, but it may only be a matter of time until an innocent victim is caught in their illegal activities which have included arson.
All of these groups are using a new terrorist tactic called “leaderless resistance” which relies on ideological resonance rather than on social structures or networks for survival. In leaderless resistance recruits to a cause are encouraged to commit unlawful or violent acts either as individuals or as small cell groups. Since they are not clearly connected to existing structures, members of such movements cannot be easily traced nor can they be fully eradicated. Leaderless resistance movements are strengthened by Internet connections that are hard to trace and largely amorphous. Typical “law enforcement” tactics that emphasize punishment for direct action and label actions against property as well as against persons “terrorism” may simply radicalize fence sitters and/or those who crave the honor excitement of martyrdom.
Garfinkel (2005) who has studied leaderless resistance suggests that such movements can best be countered by a strategy involving what he calls a public health model. His model involves soliciting input from moderates, including them in policy debates; monitoring websites and known representatives for illegal activity; discerning networks and organizations as they develop; and de-fusing the romanticism of illegal direct action in the eyes of the public and potential recruits through an emphasis on collateral damage to innocent victims.
The Anti-defamation League offers additional suggestions on dealing with hate groups. Both really suggest that the best way to solve the problem of hate is with inclusiveness.
Works Cited
Hyman, McKnight and Higdon (2005) Doing Democracy: Conflict and Consensus Strategies for Citizens, Organizations, and Communities 5th ed. Xanedu
Roth, William (2002) The Assault on Social Policy. New York: Columbia University Press
Web-sites
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect19.htm This is the web site of Dr. Tom O’Connor a professor at North Carolina Wesleyan College. It contains a very complete lecture on the nature of extremist groups and an analysis of their religious groups.
http://www.adl.org/ This is the main website of the Anti-defamation League which has a great deal of information on both international and domestic terrorism as well as links to many other resources.
http://www.militia-watchdog.org/students This is a web site on militia groups archived by the Anti-defamation league. This particular site contains very complete material on extremist groups written primarily for high school students assigned to do term papers on the subject. It is written in easy to understand language, yet is accurate and provides a good overview of the subject.
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/garfinkel/ First Monday is a refereed online journal. The Garfinkel article provides valuable insight into the nature of “leaderless resistance” and strategies for combating it.
http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/american3.html The Council on Foreign Affairs Terrorism website provides an extensive question and answer section on terrorism of all types. It also provides extensive linkages to other sites of interest.
http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm
The FBI website contains a great deal of information on domestic terrorism. This particular site contains the speech given to Congress by James Jarboe which is quoted here in full.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/tergps/tgdom.htm This is the official US Air Force website on terrorism. It has links to information on terrorism and to terrorist web sites themselves. Needless to say, it does not endorse any of the websites to which links are provided.
The following are printed resources used by Dr. O’Connor in preparing his lecture.
Abanes, R. (1996). American Militias: Rebellion, Racism, & Religion. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity.
Cole, D. & Dempsey, J. (1999) Terrorism & the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of National Security. Tallahassee: First Amendment Foundation.
Dees, M. (1996). Gathering Storm: America’s Militia Threat. New York, HarperCollins.
Dershowitz, A. (2002). Why Terrorism Works. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Emerson, S. (1998). Terrorism in America: The Middle Eastern Connection Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International 5:13-15.
Freilich, J. (2003). American Militias: State-Level Variations in Militia Activities. NY: LFB Press.
George, J. & Wilcox, L. (1996). American Extremists: Militias, Supremacists, Klansmen, Communists, & Others. Amherst, NY, Prometheus.
Glick, B. (1989). War at Home: Covert Action Against U.S. Activists. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Heymann, P. (1998). Terrorism and America. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ignatieff, M. (2004). The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror. Toronto: Penguin Canada.
Knight, P. (2001). Conspiracy Culture: From Kennedy to the X-Files. NY: Routledge.
Kushner, H. (1998). Terrorism in America: A Structured Approach Springfield: Charles Thomas.
Laqueur, W. (1999). The New Terrorism. NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Levitas, D. (2002). The Terrorist Next Door. NY: Thomas Dunne Books.
McGuckin, F. (1997). Terrorism in the United States. New York: H. W. Wilson.
Mullins, W. (1997). A Sourcebook on Domestic and International Terrorism. Springfield: Charles Thomas.
Perlmutter, D. (2004). Investigating Religious Terrorism and Ritualistic Crimes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Robins, R. & Post, J. (1997). Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Smith, B. & Morgan, K. (1994). Terrorists Right and Left: Empirical Issues in Profiling American Terrorists Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 17:39-57.
Snow, R. (1999). The Militia Threat: Terrorists Among Us. New York: Plenum.
White, J. (2002). Terrorism: An Introduction (3e). Stamford: Thomson Learning.
Wills, G. (1999). A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government.