The Right to Terrorism

Lauren Journet

Professor Shirk

Global Politics of Terrorism

31 March 2018

The Right to Terrorism

The small town of Morris, Illinois was home to one of the country’s mink farms. In the year 2013,  two gentlemen snuck onto the property, opening all 2,000 cages containing the minks. Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang set the animals free in protest to the farm and were soon taken to court. They were charged with breaking the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which made non-violent property crime a federal offense. This act also made the crime have the same punishments as terrorism does. The discussion surrounding Johnson and Lang’s actions poses the question: did Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang have a constitutional right to commit this act?

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment protects peaceful assembly, synonymous with peaceful protest. While activist Kevin Johnson may have disrupted the mink production of the company, he did not physically harm anyone. One could go as far as to argue that letting the animals free was an act of peace, making his actions completely acceptable according to the United States Constitution.

When applied to another case with California teenagers who brutally killed 900 chickens on a farm, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act did not apply. The court argued that the teens did not have a motive, unlike Johnson, and therefore could not be charged. But the motive behind Johnson and Lang’s actions was one of animal rights and protection. After being out of jail for one year, John responded to his situation saying that the legislation was ”written and paid for by the agriculture and pharmaceutical industries. It federalizes non-violent property crime and punishes it as terrorism – but only when the perpetrators are motivated by the belief that animals deserve to live free from violence.” Johnson’s motives came from a place of peace and liberation, and they were protected under the Constitution according to the above amendment.

The situation is reminiscent of the discussion that the Earth Liberation Force spurred during the 1990s and early 2000s. During this time, a group of peaceful protesters turned to acts of arson in order to get their message about a greener planet across. They burned down and destroyed building owned by companies in the lumber industry. They too were labeled terrorist. Their motivations, much like Johnson and Lang’s, were for the betterment of the Earth. The Earth Liberation Force did, however, turn to violent actions with their pre-planned arson attacks. But Johnson and Lang’s actions were non-violent and thus protected under the Constitution.

It is one thing to recognize that Johnson ruined the Morris, Illinois mink farm’s chance at business. But three years in prison and paying the owners $200,000 in restitution surely seems like an appropriate punishment, hefty enough to deter Johnson from ever committing a similar crime. Johnson states that the court has shifted from a point of justice to the use of the word terrorism to “describe nearly any activity of which it disapproves – and emboldened lawmakers around the country who are beginning to do just that.” If this action really is a source of domestic terrorism, the Constitution needs to be reconsidered. For the very first Amendment verifies the rights of the protest and assembly, and thus this act of terrorism.

Works Cited

“Feds: Activists Released 2,000 Mink From Fur Farm In Morris.” CBS Chicago, 10 July 2014,

chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/feds-activists-released-2000-mink-from-fur-farm-in-

orris/.

Johnson, Kevin. “I Released 2,000 Minks from a Fur Farm. Now I'm a Convicted Terrorist |

Kevin Johnson.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 15 Nov. 2017,

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/i-released-2000-minks-fur-farm-con

icted-terrorist.

Meisner, Jason. “Animal Activist Who Released Thousands of Minks Gets 3 Years in Prison.”

Chicagotribune.com, 2 Mar. 2016,

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-animal-activist-mink-sentencing-met-

0160229-story.html.

The Impact of Media on the PIRA

The Impact of Media on the PIRA

Media has increasingly impacted the way terrorist events are portrayed and remembered, and its influence has only increased since the actions of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA).  During “The Troubles” within Northern Ireland, the media played a vital role in forming opinions and garnering support for each side of the conflict.  It is noted that “‘96 was sort of a seminal year for cable news”, which conveniently was the same year the PIRA began some of their most influential campaigns (NPR 2005).  Propaganda and subsequent reactions are key elements in spreading the ideas and goals of terrorist groups, and due to the unprecedented increase in the scope of televised news broadcasting at the time, PIRA movements and reactions by locals were broadcast faster and more accurately than ever before.

Because the PIRA saw itself as somewhat of a successor to the original IRA, they employed similar tactics to further their cause.  Jeremy Meehan notes that “One of the IRA’s strategies, as stated in the manual, was, ‘To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns’ ” (Meehan 2011).  The PIRA mirrored this, as they too attempted to gain recognition and influence by appealing to the general public through political propaganda.  While the PIRA generated multiple types of popular press pieces to increase support, “the most common propaganda themes are Ireland's historic and inalienable right to national self- determination and Irish nationalism” (Wright 1990).  These arguments were created with the intent to provide legitimacy to the work of the PIRA and show that the terror and violence that was occurring on their behalf was necessary to achieve the goal of a free Ireland.  These messages did persuade some, but the violence the PIRA advocated for and carried out prompted local Irishmen to take their own opinions to the media, which gave them the same global reach news channels now had.

In addition to purely PIRA sponsored propaganda, other actors convinced of the merits of the cause began advocating on their behalf.  The Irish rock band U2 lived and worked within the areas subject to PIRA bombings and violence, and after a Remembrance Day parade bombing that killed twelve people the lead singer Bono decided to take a principled stance on the conflict.  After singing the original song “Sunday Bloody Sunday” at a concert in Denver, “Bono’s rage boiled over, and he gave an impromptu speech, slamming not only the bombing, but the Irish-Americans who he felt were implicitly supporting or romanticizing such actions from a safe distance” (Phull 2017).  Previously bands had avoided taking sides in the conflict and voicing their opinions, but media presence was increasing and the voice of U2 was suddenly projected across the world.  Similarly, the popular Irish band The Cranberries were reaching the height of their popularity when a trashcan bombing was carried out in Warrington, England in 1993.  The explosion injured upwards of fifty people, but the only fatalities were two children aged twelve and three.  In response, the band released the song “Zombie”, which “became an anthem for innocents trapped by other people's violence” (Savage 2018).  By this time media was widespread and stories gained more traction than ever before.  This new attention on music personalities, however, led to mixed opinions and criticism, as “People called her [Dolores O’Riordan] naive and accused her of taking sides in a conflict she didn't understand” (Savage 2018).  The conflict was raging on and those with influence, specifically bands with an international following, felt it was necessary to advocate for an end to the violence that had plagued their country for decades.

The increase in media presence and scope certainly has affected how terrorist events are perceived and remembered, but it is most clear in the circumstance of the PIRA how news sources and propaganda can change the narrative being told.  These violent actions carried out may have never gained the amount of attention they had if not for the media and response by global music influences, whose opinions were only heard by the world because of media.  The relationship between the actions of the PIRA and the media has served as a starting platform for media influence in other terrorist acts, and valuable lessons can be learned by examining this link.

Works Cited

Hansen, Liane, and David Folkenflik. “The Power of the 24-Hour News Cycle.” NPR, National Public Radio Inc., 29 May 2005, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4671485.

Meehan, Jeremy. “Terrorism and the IRA: Methodologies and Context.” World Report News, 27 Aug. 2011, www.worldreportnews.com/europe-archived/terrorism-and-the-ira-methodologies-and-context.

Phull, Hardeep. “How Bono Went Head-to-Head with the IRA.” New York Post, New York Post, 28 June 2017, nypost.com/2017/06/28/that-time-bono-went-to-war-against-the-ira/.

Savage, Mark. “The Tragedy That Inspired Zombie - The Cranberries' Biggest Hit.” BBC News, BBC, 16 Jan. 2018, www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42702781.

Wright, Joanne. “PIRA Propaganda: The Construction of Legitimacy.” Conflict Quarterly, University of New Brunswick, 1990, www.webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:t36fw9cn3S8J:https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/JCS/article/download/14903/15972 &cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari.

The Changing Priorities of Hamas

Hamas, started in 1980s as an Islamic Resistance Movement against the Israeli occupation (Hroub, 2006). The famous scenes of children and youth resisting Israeli soldiers with nothing more than stones changed the rules of the game. The relatively “peaceful” resistance was often met with brutal force from the Israeli army, and members of the Knesset questioned IDF practices in breaking the bones of those little children. Hamas was so effective that it probably was one of the reasons why Israel was forced into signing Oslo Accords with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (Zuhur, 2008). Hamas was perhaps more effective as a resistance movement than a ruling power. As a resistance movement, it could always act as an informal army of the Palestinian cause, inflicting damage on Israel without giving an excuse to Israel for retaliation on Palestinian population. However, there was a shift in the priorities and ideology of the Hamas group that was accelerated by the Gaza conflict (Gunning, 2007).

After seizing power in 2007, it became increasingly evident that Hamas’s priorities changed. Survival and sustaining its position in power became Hamas’s first priority. The Palestinian cause had to take a back seat (Byman, 2010). In pursuing its own agenda, new words and titles replaced old ones. Instead of talking about restoring Palestinian rights, the news talked about lifting Gaza’s blockade (Byman, 2010). Instead of demanding returning occupied lands and ensuring the right of return to Palestinian refugees, the new narrative was about the Fatah and Hamas dispute and the opening of Rafah crossing with Egypt. Hamas has reduced the Palestinian cause from one where Palestinians deserve a viable State to live on like any other nation, to a series of petty quarrels and disputes over side issues (Klein, 2007).

Hamas has managed to distort the Palestinian issue from one where Palestinians are rightfully demanding their land and the right to live a decent life in peace on ancestral Palestine, to a Palestinian-Palestinian quarrel between Hamas and Fatah, or a Gaza-Egypt conflict over the Rafah crossing. Hamas’s biggest concern became resuming daily collection of the millions of dollars in revenues from operating over 1,600 illegal tunnels between Gaza and Egypt (Klein, 2007). The tunnels became the main source of wealth to Hamas leaders who collected fees from smuggling of goods through the tunnels. These tunnels were tolerated by Mubarak regime to provide Gaza a break. The tunnels were allegedly used by Hamas during the January revolution of 2011 to infiltrate Egyptian borders with fighters who helped storm prisons where Brotherhood leaders were detained and released them (Klein, 2007). Egyptian security believes that upon Morsi’s removal, the tunnels were used to smuggle arms to terrorists in Sinai responsible for countless attacks on Egyptian targets with hundreds of death amongst police and military personnel as well as tribal leaders and civilian victims.

In 2017, The rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah have signed a preliminary reconciliation deal in the latest in a series of attempts to end a decade-long Palestinian territorial, political and ideological split that has crippled statehood aspirations (Walsh, 2017). The deal, signed in Cairo in the presence of Egyptian intelligence officials, focuses on who should control the contested Gaza Strip and on what terms. The two sides’ mutual hostility has defined the stark geographical and ideological division in Palestinian society between the West Bank and Gaza, which they have ruled separately since clashes that broke out in 2007 (Walsh, 2017).

Under the agreement, the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority is to resume full control of the Hamas-controlled Gaza, according to a statement from Egypt’s intelligence agency (Walsh, 2017. According to reports the agreement would also see Palestinian Authority forces take control of the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. With the new shift in power and restoring order back to Gaza, there is a new era coming for Hamas. Now with a territorial dispute hopefully coming to an end, Hamas can get back to its original roots of fighting for rights for Palestinians.

Bibliography

Byman, Daniel. “How to Handle Hamas: The Perils of Ignoring Gaza's Leadership.” Foreign
Affairs, vol. 89, no. 5, 2010, pp. 45–62.

Gunning, Jeroen. Hamas in Politics, Democracy, Religion, Violence. 2007, p. 111.

Herzog, Michael. “Can Hamas Be Tamed?” Foreign Affairs, vol. 85, no. 2, 2006, pp. 83–94.

Hroub,  Khaled “A ‘New Hamas’ through Its New Documents,” Journal of Palestine Studies,
Vol. 35, No. 4, Summer 2006, p. 6.

Klein, Menachem. “Hamas in Power.” Middle East Journal, vol. 61, no. 3, 2007, pp. 442-459.

Walsh, Declan, and David. “Unity Deal Offers Hope for Palestinians and a Respite for Gaza.”
The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Oct. 2017.

Zuhur, Sherifa “Hamas and Israel: Conflicting Strategies of Group-Based Politics,” Strategic
Studies Institute, December 2008, p. 31.

NORAID

Do you think that groups like NORAID should exist in the United States?  Why or why not?

  Irish Northern Aid, or NORAID, was developed in 1970 in New York City by members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and other involved activists living in the United States.  Key members that spearheaded the creation of the group included Michael Flannery, Jack McCarthy, and John McGowan, but multiple other essential activists worked without the large-scale public recognition these leaders received.  NORAID generally aimed to assist defense committees within Northern Ireland, both financially as well as with propaganda to raise support for the Provisional Republican movements within the region.  It was seen as “the sole representative of the Provisional IRA in the United States” (Hanley 2).  The organization expanded in later years to include multiple regions across the country, such as Boston, Chicago, New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and expanded influence in New York.  However, with growing influence yielded growing concern from the United States government.  NORAID was subject to extreme hostilities and accusations, principally because of their vocal support and questionable financial history with the controversial IRA.  

   Although NORAID carried out some questionable activities, it was operating within the natural rights protected by the American government.  A primary goal of NORAID was to raise funds which were used by the IRA to purchase weapons and carry out violent acts within Northern Ireland, but the Bill of Rights distinctly protects the right to freedom of speech and assembly while on American soil.  The Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo “is significant for having introduced the notion that spending money ... is a form of protected speech” (Jones).  So, therefore, raising funds on behalf of the IRA, even if they are used for violent actions, is protected under the First Amendment.  Additionally, NORAID was repeatedly subjected to “wiretapping, infiltration and raids on its offices” (Hanley 5).  These actions clearly violate the First Amendment right to assembly, as gatherings were peaceful and mainly consisted of public protests and pickets.  It can be argued that since NORAID was an organization created and supported by immigrants, they may not be subject to the same rights as full United States citizens.  However, because these actions occur within the United States, those carrying them out should be guaranteed equal rights and liberties as natural born citizens.

   In this regard, I believe that groups such as NORAID can and should exist because they are operating within their liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.  Unless a group is plotting illegal activities within U.S. borders, they are permitted to congregate and speak out for their cause.  Our Bill of Rights was designed to protect these fundamental individual rights, and silencing a group, however controversial, would directly contradict the principles in the First Amendment that have been guaranteed to us.

Sources Used

Hanley, Brian. “The Politics of NORAID.” Irish Political Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–17.

Jones, Clifford A. “Buckley v. Valeo.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 22 May 2015, www.britannica.com/event/Buckley-v-Valeo.

NORAID

Lauren Journet

Professor Shirk

Global Politics of Terrorism

14 March 2018

NORAID in the United States

The Irish Northern Aid Committee group was founded in the United States in the late 1960s. Michael Flannery was the initial director of NORAID, with the goal of the group to provide funds for the Irish. The group was later known for providing money for the Provisional Irish Republican Army, an army that promoted violence and civilian casualties. But in its original intent, NORAID was a group working towards protecting the people of Ireland. Insofar as the United States is helping others with the purest of intentions, governmental organizations can and should exist in the United States.

In its time, the United States have used many groups, both international governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, to foster the ideas of human rights. The U.N Human Rights Council, the International Labour Union, Amnesty International, and the International Committee of the Red Cross are all examples of international governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations. Both groups groups play an important role in developing norms and protecting human rights in and out of the country. In its origin, NORAID was such a group.

Because the group NORAID was initially used to help those abroad, the ideals of NORAID are reminiscent of the Near East Relief in the early 1900s. This group helped save hundreds of refugees that otherwise would have died as a result of the ongoing genocides by the Turkish government. This group brought the news of the genocides to Hollywood, and they immediately received profits to help those in need. At the time, it was a great way to raise awareness about matters happening abroad and to get more money to help the refugees.

Governmental organizations that concentrate on peacekeeping and human rights such as the Near East Relief start their organizations with the intent of peace and never give up on their intentions. This is something that NORAID cannot say for itself, as this group later funded a violent army, which plagued the country with bloodshed. If a governmental organization is not involved in promoting violence, is should be allowed in the United States. But once the organization turns into a group like NORAID, which not only allowed but funded violence abroad, it should be removed from the country’s funding.

NORAID

Dan Lavigne

March 13th, 2018

Global Politics of Terrorism

Political Science

 NORAID should exist in the United States?  Why or why not?

            NORAID, or Irish Northern Aid, was a group that was founded in New York City in the early 1970’s as a response to the wider political and religious issues occurring in Northern Ireland at the time. Key members included representatives of the Provisional IRA, Michael Flannery, Jack McCarthy, and John McGowan. Its primary function was to conduct fundraising campaigns to instrument propaganda here in the United States favoring the Provisional Republican movement in Northern Ireland. The main mode of communication was through the print publication of Irish People. With an increase in the number of people entering the organization, it expanded to include chapters in other American cities such as Boston Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, and other cities in New Jersey.

            Many found this organization quite objectionable for their promotion of the cause in Northern Ireland. Fundraising through expensive dinners, was their main source of income, a practice that continued into the 1990’s. These dinners were met with protest stemming from the British consulate in the city. Members of the United States Government also found this group objectionable. In 1972 NORAID had to register with the US State Department as an agent of a foreign organization, considering that many of its members were from Ireland. This group was under constant scrutiny and were subject to wiretapping, infiltration, and sometimes had their offices raided by officials.

            Politically, this group was not supported by Republican Administrations. This was due to their hardline stance and favor toward British security policy and tactics. Things thawed under Clinton when he spoke about reducing tensions through intervention, and negotiation. Additionally, this group backed candidates who were the best for the Irish cause.

Groups like this should not exist in the United States as they give legitimacy to outside groups which are engaged in violence abroad. This also lead to a weakening of relationships between states. Foreseeably, having domestic groups support the Irish cause, undermined the British security apparatus, and long-term goals. This creates an awkward diplomatic relationship between the two parties, such as the U.S. and Britain.

Although these groups should not exist, they are within their rights to do so, despite that they undermine diplomatic measures.  The First Amendment in the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. We may find that what is being said or done objectionable, groups like NORAID have the right to state, and promote their ideas.

NORAID

Irish Northern Aid (Noraid was the best known and most important Irish-American republican support group during the course of the Northern Ireland conflict (Hanley, 2004). As American citizens, Noraid members have a constitutional right to be able to speak out and raise funds to affect issues and causes that concern them. Despite the United States trying to find evidence to shut down Noraid pertaining to arms smuggling, and where its fund raising is being displaced to, there is no reason Noraid cannot choose who they support just like a political party (Hanley, 2004).


Noraid officials have been outspoken supporters of the Provisional IRA's use of assassinations and bombings as a means of trying to end British rule in Northern Ireland. But they say the funds they raise do not go toward the purchase of bullets and bombs (Wittig, 2014). Rather, they say, Noraid funds are earmarked exclusively for charitable relief programs that help the families of imprisoned IRA members. The funds are distributed through groups like An Cumman Cabhrach in Dublin and Green Cross in Belfast, they explain (Wittig, 2014).


It is clear from public records and interviews with government officials and Noraid officers that Noraid would prefer not to make public any of the details of its inner workings or finances (Wittig, 2014). What is not clear is why an organization claiming to do exclusively charitable fund-raising work should be so secretive about its operations.


Security officials in Northern Ireland, Britain, and the US have long suspected that part of the reason for Noraid's reluctance to make full, public disclosures is that some of the group's funds may be diverted for other than charitable relief work. They say Noraid may also be bankrolling part of the IRA's supplies of guns and explosives. If it is only speculation on Noraid, then the United States knows that there is no action that can be taken against the group other than public pressure through the media.

Noraid has most recently come into the public spotlight following reports that the US was the source of seven tons of IRA arms confiscated Sept. 29 off Ireland's southwest coast aboard the Irish fishing trawler Marita Ann (Wittig, 2014). Irish officials used the occasion to condemn Noraid, though there was no established Noraid link at the time. Noraid is being made the escape goat and the main group to blame for any arms coming out of the United States that may or may not reach the IRA. All the blame being pointed at Noraid with such little evidence could just be a ploy to undermine the fund-raising efforts of the organization in the United States.


                                                        Bibliography


Wittig, T. Understanding terrorist finance. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.


Hanley, Brian. “The politics of NORAID.” Irish Political Studies, vol. 19, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1–17., doi:10.1080/1356347042000269701.