Governments Should Not Negotiate With Terrorists

The coercion and torturing captured terrorist is needed to protect national security in the war against terrorism. There are numerous justifications why the coercion or torture of terrorist is normally a lesser evil than the preventable mass murder of innocent victims (Slater, Summer 2006).

So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the

Criminal activity and terrorist activity have a relationship that is closely related, with only minor differences separating the two. Terrorist activity are criminal acts that are motivated by a higher cause beyond the basic causes of crime. Terrorist attack are highly planned out, and the same can be said about criminal activity. Serial killers often plan out their acts just as much as terrorist organizations, however the same cannot be said for certain crimes like random assaults. (Newman & Clarke, 2008) The relationship between crime and terrorism is brought closer when terrorist organizations use common crime to fund their attacks. For example, a terrorist organization may resort to stealing chemical agents to make their dirty bombs. The

b) Terrorism and kidnapping – Unlawful acts of violence for a variety of reasons - Ransom, Overthrow government, Release of imprisoned colleagues, Revenge, Punish religious nonbelievers. Situations – Kidnapping for ransom, Paying ransom becomes counterproductive, Countermeasures by industry, Chemical and biological terrorism, Kidnapping as a means of funding terrorist groups, Business executives (local and international) as targets, Insurance, Prevention

The event of September 11, 2001 has left Americans afraid and the government on edge when it comes to our national security. Many individuals are wondering how individuals could use themselves as human bombs or would want to sacrifice themselves to kill thousands that they have never met or talked with (Post, Ali, Henderson, Shanfield, Victoroff & Weine, 2009). Since 9/11 happened, there has been an emotional change in the American public, which results in long term effects of mental illness. While dealing with the reaction of the American public, the government had to also think about the security of our citizens that has led to individuals being labeled as terrorist or being watched for terrorist activities. Therefore, this essay will show reasons why the United Sates should not negotiate with terrorist. By discussing how freezing the funds of terrorist, understanding the use of laws and security, and by noticing the emotional effects that terrorist and terrorist activities has caused the American public.

In order to understand the reasoning behind this mass kidnapping and hostage taking, one must first look into the political climates of both

The United States first tool to achieve these goals is diplomatic. First, the United States needs to retract the policy that the United States does not negotiate with Terrorists. Negotiation creates a negative connotation of concession or handing power over to the enemy. Negotiation, however, can be mere discussion with the enemy to find a way to end violence. Diplomatic tools consist of treaties, conventions, alliances, and accords. Holding conventions and creating accords will be the most successful approaches. Treaties require Senate and Presidential approval which can be a lengthy process and is tied up in domestic politics. The United States already has certain alliances and it is necessary to cultivate them, but in the context of ISIS and Syria, alliances are already set with the Free Syrian Army. Conventions to bring together many nations in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States, to formulate agreements and accords with the states that are involved in Syria and fighting ISIS. ISIS, should not be a signatory since they are not a recognized state, but should be able to attend to make decisions with an understanding of ISIS’ wants because by understanding their objectives and interests we are better able to make policy to decrease violence of ISIS.

In particular, terrorism is a form of extremism in which a rebel force will find it practically impossible to negotiate a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. For example, a terrorist group today will be considered a terrorist group if they launch “an attack against the reigning government,” such as the 9/11 attack on the New York twin towers (class). Granted that terrorist actions often prove too extremist to negotiate, terrorism is prone to the same conditions that Frieden states are harmful to civil wars: commitment problems, with a particular emphasis on lack of information and indivisibility. In this case, a major factor that proves terrorism to be a bargaining failure would be a terrorist group’s inability to demonstrate their capabilities before they choose to attack an anticipated target. In other words, crepitation and terrorism don’t go hand in hand. As was the case when the attack on the Twin Towers was launched. The rebel group of Bin Laden wasn’t able to release information on what exactly was going to be happen and the anticipated effect it would have on the population. Yet they were able to hint at numerous possibilities of their anticipated attacks, but the US government unaware of the group’s capabilities or willingness to sacrifice their members for their actions proved to be

In the past year, a malicious terrorist group has emerged known throughout the world as the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”, or ISIS for short. ISIS is a terrorist group that has stemmed from Al-Qaeda in the 1990’s. Al-Qaeda is a major terror group responsible for many high profile attacks, specifically the attacks on the World Trade Center’s in 2001. However, ISIS makes their attacks much more personal and gruesome. ISIS is prevalent in media outlets daily because of the way they handle their hostage situations. ISIS captures foreigners from across the world with the intent of using them for ransom. Many nations have had their citizens taken hostage by ISIS. However, many of those nations have vowed not to negotiate with terrorists. This

Historically, kidnapping has shown to provide significant financial resources for perpetrators. Furthermore, unlike hostage taking, does not limit the perpetrators options, is generally not public, and compels the third party to act in their favor. This is a strategy often utilized, successfully, by Boko Haram. The U.S. has estimated that they have received nearly 1 million a year from ransoms (threat report). Kidnapping is not only used as a financial mechanism for Boko Haram, but rather a strategy to advance their goals in all areas. It has been over two years and most of the Chibok schoolgirls, kidnapped by Boko Haram, are still missing. Boko

Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

On September 11, 2001, the world realized the tragedy and destruction caused by terrorism. Marwan Abu Ubcida, a terrorist in training, said, “Yes, I am a terrorist. Write that down: I admit I am a terrorist. [The Koran] says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim.” That enemy happens to be anyone against what they believe. One such enemy meaning the US because we are against terrorism. There is no justification for terrorism and no reason for the government to try to justify it. According to Seifeldin Ashmawy in a meeting for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Near East and South Asian Affairs, “The mask of religion must be torn from their [extremist] face and they should be recognized for what the stand for, greed and power.” and Ashmawy was right. The government’s reaction is usually that of after the fact; to arrest a suspected terrorist after they prove they are a terrorist by an act of death or destruction. Why should the government have to wait to arrest those who have a great and reasonable suspicion of terrorism against them, while the country unknowingly waits for the worst? The government should be able to detain suspected terrorists without trial for the following reasons: the Protection of our nation and prevention of terrorism; the prevention of nuclear proliferation; the learning of new methods of terrorism; and the prevention of future attacks on US citizens.

Terrorist groups also have to pay for training new recruits. This involves paying and providing training camps to trainees. Depending on what type of skilled is required, such as piloting a

                Many countries have policies which pledge to not negotiate terrorists yet negotiating are still occurs behind the scene. Negotiating is to reach to an agreement through discussing formally with others but terrorists by definition is someone you disagree with. So negotiating with them to make an agreement is nonviable. In 2003, President George W. Bush proclaimed that “You have got to be strong, not weak. The only way to deal with these people [terrorists] is to bring them to justice. You cannot talk to them. You cannot negotiate with them.” There are some cases that would be worth negotiating with the terrorists but every circumstance has its own consequences.  As the

Over the years there have been significant changes in how terrorism is carried out. With the changes in how terrorism is carried out there have also been dramatic changes in how countries counter terrorist attacks. The modifications in the way a country counters these terrorist attacks affects international relations of these countries. These issues bring about the question of how have counter terrorism methods affected international relations. To answer this question several things must be addressed which are, methodology, history of terrorism, and a literature review of multiple authors that have discussed this subject.