Kristopher K. Robison
Civil and State Terror: an Analysis of Terrorism’s Effects on States’ Respect for Human Rights
Recent dramatic events since autumn of 2001 have focused the world’s attention on international terrorism, the
havoc it wreaks and possible solutions to preventing future acts of violence. The “war on terror” and the sweeping
changes in anti-terrorism policies at the national and international levels that followed soon shifted attention to the
alleged relationship between terrorist insurgency at the civil level and the possible infringement and abuse of civil rights
at the state level. The numerous historical anecdotes of concomitant, tit-for-tat civil and state violence in Latin
America, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere suggest that terrorism and state terrorism are closely connected. Nations
across the globe have experienced considerable unrest in the form of violent protest, sporadic acts of terrorism and even
widespread insurgency ostensibly leading their governments to either suspend human rights, ignore them altogether or
otherwise refuse to fully acknowledge or implement the growing international discussion and norms governing human
rights. What prevails in many of these countries is a legacy of violence on the part of the state and a few of its citizens.
While the most egregious forms of human rights abuses have occurred in less than democratic nations, even
modern democracies ranging from the United Kingdom, to Italy and Israel have received criticism for meeting terrorist
violence with what is at the very least termed semi-repressive measures such as warrant-less searches and seizures,
wiretapping and even targeted assassinations (White 2005). Closer to home, the changes in U.S. policy since 9/11 have
resulted in the federal government’s designation of enemy combatants, the increased ability to spy on citizen and
foreigner alike, detain with greater ease and with limited access to due process terrorist suspects and subpoena with less
judicial and legislative oversight personal records of individuals of concern (Hague 2003; Herman 2001). Combined
with rumors of secret prisons, prisoner abuse scandals and the alleged “outsourcing” of detainee torture to autocratic
foreign nations, these measures have stimulated rancorous debate in American society. Indeed, some critics of U.S.
anti-terrorism policy remember the controversy during the middle of the twentieth century over the FBI’s
COINTELPRO program directed against social movements and counter-movements (Cunningham 2003). Similar
concerns have arisen in other parts of the Western world including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain and
Australia
. While most of the West’s counter-terrorism policies are far from equivalent to the obvious forms of physical
torture, executions and disappearances that have occurred in other parts of the world, some worry that seemingly
innocuous anti-terrorism provisions can mutate into even small-scale acts of repression and the curtailment of some
freedoms (Economist 2001).
1
Several nations in Western Europe had already had well-established and elaborate, if not controversial, legal mechanisms for
dealing with terrorism due to decades long terrorist-struggles (van de Linde 2002 ).
1