Model of Counter Terrosism Method
By David Raja Marpaung S.IP M.Def
Paper Presentation at Internatinal Symposium about Counter Terrorism
(Part Of Full Paper)
Ten years after 9/11, the struggle against international terrorism is at a crossroads. Policy debates on whether to adopt a counterterrorism or counterinsurgency strategy. However, these debates provide little strategic clarity on how to counter international terrorism
Counterterrorism it self is a difficult concept to define, especially for western democracies. Paul Wilkinson writes that: “There is no universally applicable counter-terrorism policy for democracies. Every conflict involving terrorism has its own unique characteristics (Paul Wilkinson, Routledge, 2006, p. 203.). Counterterrorism is defined in the U.S. Army Field Manual as “Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism.(US Army Field Manual, 2006, p.4).
The development of modern theory and study of anti-terror, give a big opportunitty and make several options in handling terrorism methods that can be adopted by each country in the world.
A. The Military/War Model
Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries like Pakistan and Iran where terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Since 2001, the United States Government has felt impelled to supplement the criminal justice model of counter-terrorist action with military action. There is no war on terrorism as such, but there does exist an armed conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda.
Neither of the received categories of modern international humanitarian law, international armed conflict between states or internal armed conflict within a state, fits this conflict. But Al Qaeda has shown itself capable of carrying on military operations on a scale that justifies characterization as armed conflict. Moreover, given the informal structure of Al Qaeda, these hostilities may shade into conflict with a less distinct class of terrorist organizations pur uing Islamist political goals.
When the military model frames counter-terrorist operations, rule of law aspirati ns have lesser relevance than in the criminal justice model. They continue to playan important role, but in a more limited manner.
The military model is likely to govern some aspects of counter-terrorism, in some regions of the world, for years to come. The resulting dilemmas for human rights law require careful analysis, and vigilant attention. Both terrorism and counter-terrorist operations can pose threats to fundamental human rights to life and physical integrity
B. Criminal Justice System
II Incapacitating Terrorists
Hundreds of terrorism suspects have been successfully prosecuted in federal court since 9/11. Today, there are more than 300 international or domestic terrorists incarcerated in U.S. federal prison facilities. Events over the past year demonstrate the continuing value of federal courts in combating terrorism. In 2009, there were more defendants charged with terrorism violations in federal court than in any year since 9/11.
C. Intelligence Cycle Model
Intelligence is a process, not simply a product. Nearly all doctrinal explanations of this processcontain five separate steps, which form an iterative cycle (FBI Official Website, 2011). In simple terms, the first step, planning and direction, consists of obtaining intelligence requirements from users, then matching collection resources (e.g. spy satellites, covert human operatives, etc) to these
requirements - a sub-process known as ‘tasking.’ Once tasked, collectors then gather raw information in the collection step. Often, this information is not readily usable by analysts without some level of manipulation, so the data is converted into a usable format in the processing and exploitation step.
Analysts then examine this processed information and produce finished intelligence reports for users in the analysis and production step. The last step, dissemination, consists of sharing these reports with end users.
Though the intelligence cycle illustrates a smooth continuum, in reality the divisions between steps often coincide with divisions between agencies. A divide exists between those agencies with the ability and responsibility of collection
Figure 1: Source: US Intelligence Community website,http://www.intelligence.gov/2-business.shtml.
Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries like Pakistan and Iran where terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Since 2001, the United States Government has felt impelled to supplement the criminal justice model of counter-terrorist action with military action. There is no war on terrorism as such, but there does exist an armed conflict between the United States and Al Qaeda.
Neither of the received categories of modern international humanitarian law, international armed conflict between states or internal armed conflict within a state, fits this conflict. But Al Qaeda has shown itself capable of carrying on military operations on a scale that justifies characterization as armed conflict. Moreover, given the informal structure of Al Qaeda, these hostilities may shade into conflict with a less distinct class of terrorist organizations pur uing Islamist political goals.
When the military model frames counter-terrorist operations, rule of law aspirati ns have lesser relevance than in the criminal justice model. They continue to playan important role, but in a more limited manner.
The military model is likely to govern some aspects of counter-terrorism, in some regions of the world, for years to come. The resulting dilemmas for human rights law require careful analysis, and vigilant attention. Both terrorism and counter-terrorist operations can pose threats to fundamental human rights to life and physical integrity
B. Criminal Justice System
As a counter-terrorism tool, the criminal justice system has proven incredibly effective in both incapacitating terrorists and gathering valuable intelligence from and about terrorists. In every instance, the administration will use the tool that is most effective for fighting terrorism, and will make those decisions based on pragmatism, not ideology.
I. Intelligence Collection
The criminal justice system has been the source of extremely valuable intelligence on al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The criminal justice system provides powerful incentives for suspects to provide accurate, reliable information, and the Department of Justice and FBI work closely with the rest of the intelligence community to maximize information and intelligence obtained from each cooperator. Below are just a few public examples.II Incapacitating Terrorists
Hundreds of terrorism suspects have been successfully prosecuted in federal court since 9/11. Today, there are more than 300 international or domestic terrorists incarcerated in U.S. federal prison facilities. Events over the past year demonstrate the continuing value of federal courts in combating terrorism. In 2009, there were more defendants charged with terrorism violations in federal court than in any year since 9/11.
C. Intelligence Cycle Model
Intelligence is a process, not simply a product. Nearly all doctrinal explanations of this processcontain five separate steps, which form an iterative cycle (FBI Official Website, 2011). In simple terms, the first step, planning and direction, consists of obtaining intelligence requirements from users, then matching collection resources (e.g. spy satellites, covert human operatives, etc) to these
requirements - a sub-process known as ‘tasking.’ Once tasked, collectors then gather raw information in the collection step. Often, this information is not readily usable by analysts without some level of manipulation, so the data is converted into a usable format in the processing and exploitation step.
Analysts then examine this processed information and produce finished intelligence reports for users in the analysis and production step. The last step, dissemination, consists of sharing these reports with end users.
Though the intelligence cycle illustrates a smooth continuum, in reality the divisions between steps often coincide with divisions between agencies. A divide exists between those agencies with the ability and responsibility of collection
Figure 1: Source: US Intelligence Community website,http://www.intelligence.gov/2-business.shtml.
No comments:
Post a Comment