AMERICA: NOT IMMUNE
The United States and its citizens remain a prime target of international terrorism, although relatively few terrorist acts have occurred within its borders.Following are excerpts of a September 1996 report on terrorism -- background and issues for Congress -- prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress.
Historical Context --
In recent years, terrorism has been primarily viewed as an international and foreign policy issue. Numerous acts of state-sponsored terrorism and of foreign-based groups have given support to this notion.
While the United States is a prime target for international terrorism -- in 1994, 24% of all terrorist incidents worldwide were committed against U.S. citizens or property -- the vast majority of those acts take place on foreign soil. The U.S. public perception of terrorism as primarily an international issue, however, may be changing with the advent of the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York and the federal building in Oklahoma City.
Although the United States has not been immune from terrorist acts historically, relatively few have occurred within its borders. For example, the FBI reports that between the years 1982 and 1992, a total of 165 terrorist acts occurred within the United States. These include bombing attacks, malicious destruction of property, acts of sabotage, hostile takeover, arson, kidnapping, assaults, alleged assassinations, assassinations, robbery, attempted robbery, and hijackings.
Acts of terrorism and political violence have occurred throughout the history of the United States. For example, the Ku Klux Klan's attacks against blacks had their origin in the era of Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War (1861-1864), and some Klan activities persist even today.
Prior to the Klan's emergence was the "nativist movement," which first manifested itself in the early 1850s and recurs from time to time. Based on distrust of aliens and immigrants, it was particularly antagonistic to the Irish who arrived in the United States around 1840.
More recently, domestic terrorism appeared to rise with the groundswell of opposition to political leaders and governing institutions of the 1960s. During that period, certain interest groups and movements, most espousing various far left ideologies, resorted to extreme tactics or terrorist actions to bring about change or destruction of perceived social inequities within the United States and to U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia....
The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York on February 26, 1993, brought the domestic threat of international terrorism to the forefront of U.S. public attention. A federal court found four men guilty of the bombing and sentenced them to life in prison. Several months later, police uncovered another plot by a related group of conspirators to bomb tunnels, bridges, and other critical sites in and around New York City.
On October 1, 1995, a federal court convicted nine men, including Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, an extremist Muslim cleric from Egypt and spiritual leader of radical Muslim groups in the United States, of conspiring to commit assassinations and bomb New York landmarks....
The Oklahoma City Bombing --
On April 19, 1995, a bomb exploded, destroying the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killing 168 people. An additional 500 people were injured in the blast, making it the worst terrorist incident ever to take place in the United States....
Within hours of the bombing, a suspect, Timothy James McVeigh, was arrested by police, initially in connection with a driving violation, and on May 10, 1995, Terry Lynn Nichols, a friend of MeVeigh who had been held as a material witness, was charged in connection with the crime. McVeigh and Nichols allegedly have ties to citizen paramilitary militias in Michigan and Arizona and, since the bombing, official and media attention has focused on these groups. On August 16, 1995, the two suspects were arraigned in federal court. They pled not guilty.
U.S. RESPONSE TO COMBAT TERRORISM
Domestic Legislation --
Much U.S. policy against terrorism was shaped in reaction to the murders of Israeli athletes in the 1972 Munich Olympics. Much of the policy remains unchanged, but the thrust became increasingly aggressive as terrorist attacks against U.S. people abroad became more frequent and deadlier in the 1980s. Congress passed a series of laws to clearly identify terrorism as a crime, to set up procedures for apprehending and punishing perpetrators worldwide, and to require or permit sanctions on countries supporting terrorism.
No all-encompassing federal law explicitly pertains to domestic terrorism. For example, a terrorist act may be an actual or attempted bombing, armed robbery, arson, assassination, assault, rocket attacks, hijacking, kidnapping, or a foreign embassy takeover. All of these activities are violations of federal or state laws and, depending on the motive, may be acts of terrorists. The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or 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." Between 1989 and the end of 1993 there were 23 recorded acts of terrorism in the United States.
In the current federal statutory structure, terrorism is addressed in a variety of ways. Extraterritorial acts of hostage-taking or terrorism aimed at U.S. nationals or actions intended to coerce the United States are federal offenses.
Under P.L. 104-132 (signed into law by President Clinton on April 24, 1996), certain acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries are federal offenses, as are conspiracies within U.S. jurisdiction to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or property in a foreign country....
Current immigration law permits exclusion of aliens who have engaged in terrorist activity or aliens whom a consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reasonable grounds to believe are likely to engage in terrorist activity after entry.
International Efforts --
Past U.S. administrations have employed a range of options to combat international terrorism, including the use of military force. Foreign governments supporting international terrorism (as identified by the Department of State) are prohibited from receiving U.S. foreign assistance, and export credits to those governments are prohibited. In addition, export of munitions to such countries is foreclosed. Also noteworthy is the Department of State's anti-terrorism assistance program, which provides training and equipment to foreign countries to help them improve their anti-terrorism capabilities....
Most experts agree that the most effective way to fight terrorism is to gather as much intelligence as possible and to disrupt terrorist plans and organizations before they act and to organize multinational cooperation against terrorists and countries that support them. The United Nations (U.N.) action against Libya is an example of the latter. Libya's refusal to meet a U.N. deadline to turn over individuals suspected of two aircraft bombings in 1988 and 1989 resulted in U.N.-mandated sanctions starting April 15, 1992.
The U.N. action against Libya was significant as the first worldwide coalition against a country accused of international terrorism. Several factors made the action possible: First, terrorism has touched many more countries in recent years, forcing governments to put aside parochial interests. (Citizens from over 30 countries died in Libyan-sponsored bombings.) Second, the end of the Cold War contributed to increased international cooperation against terrorism. And third, U.S. determination to punish terrorist countries -- by military force in some instances -- once their complicity was established was a major factor spurring other countries to join U.N.-sponsored action.
It took a long time for the international community to come together against a terrorist state. Most governments have preferred to handle terrorism as a domestic problem without outside interference. Some governments were also wary of getting involved and possibly attracting additional terrorism in the form of reprisals. Others were reluctant to join in sanctions if their own trade interests might be damaged or they sympathized with the perpetrators cause. These impediments have not disappeared. And finally, there is the persistent problem of defining terrorism without abandoning long-held protection for persons fleeing persecution for political crimes.
One valuable law enforcement tool in combating international terrorism is extradition of terrorists. International extradition traditionally has been subject to limitations. These include the refusal to extradite for political or extraterritorial offenses and the refusal of some countries to extradite nationals. The United States has been encouraging the negotiation of agreements with fewer limitations, in part as a means of facilitating the transfer of wanted terrorists.
Because terrorism involves politically motivated violence, the Department of State has recently sought to curtail the availability of the political offense exception to avoid extradition for certain types of violent acts. However, some argue that curtailing the political offense exception and other restrictions on extradition may be inappropriate when dealing with non-democratic governments.
Constitutional/Statutory Limitations --
In responding to the risk of terrorist activity here and abroad, sensitivity to constitutional protections is necessary. For example, during investigations of allegations of possible terrorist activity, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment, the protection of the freedoms of speech and association in the First Amendment, the protection of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, and due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments may be implicated. The constitutional framework sets the outside limits within which any official investigations must operate.
__________
The CRS Issue Brief, "Terrorism: Background and Issues for
Congress," was prepared by Ralph F. Perl, Coordinator of CRS's
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, along with
Elizabeth Bazan and Larry Eig of the American Law Division, and
Suzanne Cavanagh of the Government Divison.
