| Author | Post |
|---|
cjustice
Administrator
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Jan 2nd, 2007 12:42 am | 1st Post |
|
This is the second discussion question thread for students in the following courses:
All Union Institute tutorial.
All Union Institute Moorepark.
Cal State Fullerton students in CJ 315 and CJ330
While you may be in different courses, most of you are criminal justice majors and/or criminal justice professionals. Moreover, in all of the courses there is the common thread of looking at terrorism. For the students in the terrorism course it’s, well, obvious. For the criminology students the first several chapters of your text discuss terrorism as it relates to crime causation. Even those of you in the technology and/or computer crime courses are being exposed to information about the use of technology by terrorists.
It this thread discuss with each other, what you have learned about how your specific course relates to terrorism. You might discuss the definition, causation, types, history or even the technology being used. At a minimum, you should create one original post and respond to one post.
|
rlozanounion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 12:08 am | 2nd Post |
|
Well, so far in my research I have found that there are various definitions for the word "terrorism." Even though most people know what terrorism is (especially when they see it), few have been able to come up with an exact definition. The US Army conducted a study in 1988 and found that there are over 100 definitions of word "terrorism" that have been used. (and I'm sure the number has increased even more since then!)
Terrorism is defined by different statutes depending on the country in which these acts occur. A United Nations panel described terrorism as "any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians on non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act" (Nov. 2004)
The US Federal Statute defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
A common theme I have seen in most of the definitions is the "intent to intimidate or to create fear or terror."
Also, different sources define a variety of "types" of terrorism - some sources list only 3 types of terrorism, while one site I found listed 13. It's a little confusing because organizations label the types whatever they want. So a lot of the types are actually the same, they are just given different titles by different organizations.
- Rich Lozano
|
rlozanounion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Jan 22nd, 2007 12:40 am | 3rd Post |
|
Hey, it's Rich again. I think we were also supposed to tie in how terrorism relates to this particular class - Supervision.
As a first responder, and more importantly as a Supervisor, I want to be as prepared as possible in the event of a terrorism attack. Acts of terrorism create such comotion and chaos that I think strong leadership and supervision are a necessity. Take 9-11 for example. While my heart goes out to all of the first reponders there, I can't help but feel that so many additional lives were lost (lives of first responders) because of all of the chaos and lack of preparedness...and possibly because of lack of supervision and instruction.
I checked out PoliceOne.com and read Foster's article, "Personal Protective Equipment: Terrorism and First Responders." (it was interesting and true) The personal protective equipment (PPE) necessary to protect us from chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents is not at all practical for the typical first responder to use or even carry. We don't have the room in our vehicles and we certainly don't have the room on our person to carry such equipment. And if we tried to use the PPE that the fire dept uses, like Foster said, we couldn't possibly perform our most basic duties as law enforcement because our vision would be impaired, we wouldn't be able to get to our weapons, our ability to use physical force would be restricted, and it would be hard to conceal ourselves if necessary.
So I guess we'll just have to stick with the old school method of carrying latex gloves, face masks, protective goggles and disposable aprons in our equipment bags.
|
JosephMayUnion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24th, 2007 08:19 pm | 4th Post |
|
| I found it interesting, based on classroom discussion and an article I read in this website, the differences between terrorism and criminal street gangs. I have worked in gang units as an officer and as a sergeant and we always referred to the gang members as terrorists. Based on what I learned, while they can cause terror, they are not terrorists by definition because of the reason for the commission of their crimes. They have no intent to shift the beliefs of others based on their political, social or religious motivation. Last edited on Wed Jan 24th, 2007 08:20 pm by JosephMayUnion
|
tchapple
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27th, 2007 02:47 am | 5th Post |
|
Joe May-
Interesting comment on how gangs can be viewed as terrorists. I never thought of them as terrorists. You mentioned that they are not terrorists by definition because they have no intent on shifting beliefs based on social, political or religious beliefs. What is it when a subject is forcibly pushed to join a street gang because he lives in a particular gang area. Is this not a shift of beliefs based on social values? Just throwing the question out there.
chap
|
stimbolunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31st, 2007 10:59 pm | 6th Post |
|
Chap,
Here is something to think about. "MS13". According to some Intel reports, this gang has blossomed into international terrorist or at least affiliated with them. I'll send you some reports (civilian and military) that support these claims of MS13 and terrorism. I'm sure money is a driving factor for them. I remember dealing with this gang in LA when they were getting their pooh butts kicked by 18th St. I guess with hard work and determination, you too can become a terrorist. Bottom line is gang members and terrorist are both dangerous and need to be handled appropriately so they don't infringe with our freedom.
T
"Life is tough, But it's tougher when you're stupid."
John Wayne
|
kmillercj31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Feb 5th, 2007 07:21 am | 7th Post |
|
| Well, to me, terrorism is what the FBI believes it to be, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". In other words, to put fear in everyone for a political reason. With September 11th being so awful, I think everyone has different views as to what terrorism is, but I think all people can agree that it is evil. There are many different kinds of terroristic acts also, like the textbook in my class discusses, there are acts like 9/11, also acts that the ELF and the ALF commit (Earth/Animal Liberation Front), which have nothing to do with bombs or guns. The scale is so large when measuring terrorism, but no matter what act is committed, it is horrible.
|
kmillercj31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Feb 5th, 2007 07:29 am | 8th Post |
|
Strange how gang members can impact so many peoples lives in such a sick way, by murdering so many people everyday, yet cannot be called terrorists! Just because there is no political stance they take - wow, that is sad. The word "GANG MEMBER" is so different than the word/label "TERRORIST", you know... too bad, because I think gang members are just as horrible as terrorists, with even harsher motives sometimes!
Katie
|
kmillercj31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Feb 5th, 2007 07:30 am | 9th Post |
|
JosephMayUnion wrote: I found it interesting, based on classroom discussion and an article I read in this website, the differences between terrorism and criminal street gangs. I have worked in gang units as an officer and as a sergeant and we always referred to the gang members as terrorists. Based on what I learned, while they can cause terror, they are not terrorists by definition because of the reason for the commission of their crimes. They have no intent to shift the beliefs of others based on their political, social or religious motivation.
Strange how gang members can impact so many peoples lives in such a sick way, by murdering so many people everyday, yet cannot be called terrorists! Just because there is no political stance they take - wow, that is sad. The word "GANG MEMBER" is so different than the word/label "TERRORIST", you know... too bad, because I think gang members are just as horrible as terrorists, with even harsher motives sometimes!
Katie
|
JosephMayUnion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Mon Feb 5th, 2007 11:30 pm | 10th Post |
|
Hey Katie,
I know an awesome musician who shares your name. Check it out http://cdbaby.com/cd/millerkate The CD says "Kate", but she is Katie to all of us.But, that's not what we're writing about.....
I agree with your thoughts and comments about the "Terror" that is caused by gangs and their associates. We are pretty lucky in California to have a pretty good law that covers the acts they commit and adds sentencing enhancements for acts committed in furtherance of the gang. (STEP Act 186.22 CA Penal Code) We also have some of the best trained officers, a few aggressive D.A.'s (The ones who prosecute gang members usually are), and a lot of citizen's who won't tolerate being victimized. It takes a balance of all three to be successful. (like those girls in Long Beach....won't tolerate being victimized)
What we certainly don't need are more ACLU Attorneys who take up the cause against innovative efforts such as LAPD's injunction (Now invalid) against the 18th St gang and Oxnard PD's Injunction against Colonia Chiques. The ACLU cries that the rights of the gang members are being infringed by the government. What about the rights of the honest citizens and future victims of these criminal organizations? That is why I am convinced that ACLU stands for "American Criminal Leeway Union"!!!
JM
|
lhickamcj31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 01:31 am | 11th Post |
|
I really never had any personal experience with dealing with the effects of terrorism until the attacks of September 11th. I have relatives that live in the New York area and was exteremely concerned for them in the days following the attacks.
In my classes, especially a seminar course I took on Incarceration in America, we have discussed definitions of terrorism/terrorists and how Americans as individuals view terrorists. Americans seems to have developed a stereotypical view of what a terrorist looks like, where he is from, his culture, religion, etc. I had this same view while I was in high school 5 years ago, but quickly changed that after taking several Criminal Justice courses.
I truly see terrosits as people who are completely without power and influence in the world, so they resort to violence in order to attract attention to their cause. Terrorists, to me atleast, feel threatened by other forces and are responding violently because they feel it is the best way to get their point across and try to influence the behavior of others.
|
lhickamcj31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 01:36 am | 12th Post |
|
-JoespehMay
I personally see a difference between terrorists and street gang members. I feel that street gang members within our country are a part of a counter culture that opposes the mainstream. These people have joined a gang and adopted its values for means of survival and or in the persuance of wealth. I do not really believe that they seek an ideological purpose in their actions.
Opposed to this I see a terrorist as a person who has ideological motives. These people wish to change the world and have resorted to violence due to their powerlessness in the political and economic realms. I also draw a line between a terrorist and what I would describe to be a psychopath. A psychopath is someone who acts out in rage and for personal reasons while a terrorist acts out for what they feel is a greater purpose.
|
JosephMayUnion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 04:36 am | 13th Post |
|
lhickham,
That is basically what we discussed in our class. However, it does not take away from the "terror" gang members can cause to society. That leaves the impression that they are urban terrorists.
I also see you point about people having their stereotypical view of a terrorist. But we can't discount the first big act on our soil. Oklahoma City, was a bunch of white dudes. and there was that kid from Orange County who was hooked up with Al Queda. That should crush the stereotypes. I see that stereotype mostly used in jokes, comedy and/or sarcasm about the topic. Much like gang members, any ethnic group may be involved.
JM
|
brothalove101
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 08:43 pm | 14th Post |
|
yeah u are right that gang members are sometimes as horrible as terrorists, but I dont recall any gangs killing over thousands of people at one time. but, the sad part is that gangs and terrorists are rapidly growing and we are taking away funded from school and programs and we are forced to invest billions of dollars to fight an up hill battle.
Strange how gang members can impact so many peoples lives in such a sick way, by murdering so many people everyday, yet cannot be called terrorists! Just because there is no political stance they take - wow, that is sad. The word "GANG MEMBER" is so different than the word/label "TERRORIST", you know... too bad, because I think gang members are just as horrible as terrorists, with even harsher motives sometimes!
|
reprac_cj315-07
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 03:31 am | 15th Post |
|
Terrorism is the use of force or violence against persons on property in violation of the criminal laws of the united States for purposes of intimidation, coerion, or racism.
Terrorists will use threats to create fear in the public, try to convince citizens that their government is powerless to prevent terrorism and to get immediate publicity for their causes.
Terrorism would be threats of terrorism, assassinations, kidnappers, hijackings, bomb scares, cyber attacks and the use of chemical, and biological weapons.
High rise targets would be military, international airports, large cities and high profile landmarks.
You can prepare for a terrorist attack much of the same way you would prepare for other crisis events.
|
reprac_cj315-07
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 03:38 am | 16th Post |
|
Katie,
I agree with you that gang members should be at least somewhat labeled as terrorists. Gang members create fear among the public and they do like immediate publicity for their causes. They use their force and/or violence against persons or property. They continue to kill many people everyday. I would put them under the defintion of a terrorist.
|
eckmanunion
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 06:37 am | 17th Post |
|
| Most of the time we are lucky if we get any more protection than gloves!
|
drameycj31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 07:27 am | 18th Post |
|
Everything i have read so far (from all of you above) make a lot of sense. Gangs and Terrorism are two very big and important dangers that we are all being forced to face these days...especially if you live in or near big cities. We were all affected by the 911 attacks in one way or another and i know i have been affected by gangs and their violence as well.
The big problem is that these are both ways that humans have found to deal with our powerlessness or our need to have importance in life. Gangs form groups because there is power in numbers and therefor some sort of comradery as well. I agree with the identification, status and all of those other reasons given for joining a gang but really all of those reasons are not important when we look at what the gangs actually do. Who they hurt, for what purpose, etc... They have many problems...
Then there are terroists. I do not know much about terrorists and terrorism other than what has been going around since 911. i absolutely hate the fact that so many people of certian races and similar ethnicities where accused and targeted after the attacks but that was human nature again...striking out at that which is different and scary to them. it is understandable (to a point) but that absolutely does not make it right. We could all be terrorists if we were influenced and brain washed for years or even since birth. All we need is to be powerless and scared of something we either don't know or that is made to seem bad.
Unfortunately i believe that these two things will always exist because it is human nature (to a point) and there will always be fear, hatred and power struggles between someone. It is all very sad... (wow, what a downer)
Last edited on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 07:29 am by drameycj31507
|
mguerreroCJ31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 04:51 pm | 19th Post |
|
When I think of terrorism I think of the word “intimidation,” I think of intimidation because a terrorist attempts to strike fear in those classified as “innocent.” For example, terrorism involves acts of violence towards innocent civilians in attempts to achieve particular goals. A terrorist attempts to intimidate its intended target with targeting its intended target’s vulnerable. For example, the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001 involved the loss of live for a number of innocent people. Personally, the word terrorist carries a negative connotation in that it represents the harming of innocent people in attempts to further ones particular ideology in a cowardly form.
In addition, I acknowledge “terrorism” as a word that changes from individual to individual and depends on one’s perspective. For example, all wars have seen the loss of innocent life; so is well-intentioned military action that results in the deaths of innocent civilians a form of terrorism? The answer is “no” in the sense that the deaths are not intended. But, an element of disregard for human life exists for both terrorism and the well-intentioned military strike.
Finally, there are a number of different types of terrorism ranging from the deliberate targeting of non-combatants to those who can be thought as “liberators.” Differentiating liberator from terrorist is complex and is heavily depended on cultural perspective.
|
mguerreroCJ31507
Member
back to top
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 05:18 pm | 20th Post |
|
I found it interesting that you like others have found the various definitions of the word terrorism to be a starting point for your response on it (terrorism). I think the various definitions are somewhat problematic and distance our progress from limiting it. All terrorism includes the element of violence. The use of violence is not always justified but, the use of violence is not always unjustified. The justification of violence for purposes of achieving particular goals contributes to the various definitions of it. For example, the difference between liberator and a mass-murder. Terrorism will never be eliminated because violence will continue to be used as a means of achieving ideological goals and the true effects of violence will continue to hide behind differing definitions.
rlozanounion wrote:
Well, so far in my research I have found that there are various definitions for the word "terrorism." Even though most people know what terrorism is (especially when they see it), few have been able to come up with an exact definition. The US Army conducted a study in 1988 and found that there are over 100 definitions of word "terrorism" that have been used. (and I'm sure the number has increased even more since then!)
Terrorism is defined by different statutes depending on the country in which these acts occur. A United Nations panel described terrorism as "any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians on non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act" (Nov. 2004)
The US Federal Statute defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
A common theme I have seen in most of the definitions is the "intent to intimidate or to create fear or terror."
Also, different sources define a variety of "types" of terrorism - some sources list only 3 types of terrorism, while one site I found listed 13. It's a little confusing because organizations label the types whatever they want. So a lot of the types are actually the same, they are just given different titles by different organizations.
- Rich Lozano
|
Current time is 04:13 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
