Overview
of Terror Threats For Austin, Texas
Austin,
although recently the site of a shooting spree portrayed as
hate-crime terrorism and the site of an attack by airplane on the IRS
in 2010, shares the same risk of terror attack as other Texas cities.
The major threat to Austin is narco-terror activities.
A
2013 Texas Department of Public Safety
(DPS) report identifies the “Mexican cartels are the most
significant organized crime threat” to Texas (DPS, 2013, p.2).
This directly ties into terror activities; “The ambiguous
definition of narco-terrorism does not actually imply a partnership
between the drug trade organizations and terrorist organizations.
It could simply mean the merger of the two phenomena”
(Björnehed,
2004, p. 308). The drug cartels have widely displayed their use of
terror attacks in Mexico. This is borne out in the DPS assessment;
“Another risk of international and domestic extremist activity in
Texas occurs in the context of a growing convergence of terrorist
networks and criminal networks” (DPS, 2013, p.40). One way this
can be seen is in the affiliation of gangs with the cartels; “One
of the most serious issues facing Texas is the fact that many gangs
have developed
relationships
with Mexican cartels. Gangs working with the Mexican cartels are
involved in a
level
of crime that affects the entire state”(DPS, 2013, p.20).
The
DPS report further identifies the nature of the cartel threat:
Of
particular concern from a public safety perspective is the evolution
of cartel tactics in
Mexico,
which now include the use of torture, beheading, intimidation, and
terrorist tactics.
Cartel
weapons now also include improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and
conventional military
ordnance
and weapons. Most recently, several cartels in Mexico have begun
using vehicle-borne
improvised
explosive devices (VBIEDs) (DPS, 2013, p.15).
Potential
targets for narco-terrorist activity differ from the norm of Leftist
and Islamic terror of seeking property damage or mass casualties.
The political nature of cartel crimes lies in destroying law
enforcement capability through corruption and violent intimidation;
“Mexican cartels are adept at corrupting law enforcement officers
in Mexico, and they also seek to corrupt public officials in the
US”
(DPS, 2013, p.34). In addition, the political nature of cartel
attacks are also focused on destroying any public opposition to their
activities, such as their assassination
of journalists. Finally, the majority of targets chosen for cartel
violence are involved with cartel business. Narco-terrorism
is not comprised of a single attack intended to sway public opinion,
but a constant series of crimes used to intimidate
those that would interfere with their business. These attacks are
brutal and beheading is a norm, as in the case of four men
decapitated recently in Mexico (Borderland Beat, 2015).
Because
these activities cover a wide range of crimes, many of which go
unreported, any evaluation of impact must be done in general terms.
Certainly the range of effects include a public in fear, the
corruption of law enforcement and judicial officials, the sabotage
of public expression, and the potential of cartel alliance with other
terrorist organizations. The targets of these activities end up
dead, or living under the yoke of intimidation.
Due
to the economic motive of the cartels, it can be argued that the
cartels do not meet the criterion of a terrorist organization.
However, the use of violence as a tool is a major component of the
terrorist definition.
Attacks on the justice capability of the state, and attacks on
symbols of free speech, do constitute
a political
factor. Martin contends that there is an “instinctive
understanding” of the definition
of terrorism which includes three factors; a political component,
the targeting of easy to hit(or “soft”) targets, and the intent
to terrify (2012, p.11). The cartels meet this criterion. In fact,
any organization or individual can meet this criterion, including
States. For example, Nicaragua,
under the leadership of the Sandinistas, waged a war against the
Miskito Indians; some specific charges against the Sandinistas
include “49 Miskito villages along the Coco River were burned down
by Sandinista soldiers; 65 bombs were dropped on six villages in 11
days” (Corry, 1986, para. 4).
In
both the case of the Sandinista
and the drug lords, violence is used as a tool of coercion. Is
politic coercion
always related to terrorism? Not necessarily. Martin ties the
concept of terrorism to violent action (2012,
p. 32). States often use nonviolent methods of political coercion.
The use of taxes as a tool to discourage activity of a specific
nature; cigarette and alcohol
taxes are a prime example of this sort of activity. A specific
example would be Operation Choke Point:
Operation
Choke Point was created by the Justice Department to “choke
out”companies the Administration considers a 'high risk' or
otherwise objectionable, despite the fact that they are legal
businesses. The goal of the initiative is to deny these merchants
access to the banking and
payments
networks that every business needs to survive. (Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, 2014, p.1)
Indeed,
the concept of terrorism started
as a study of State violence; “In its original definition in the
eighteenth century, it described violent actions by those in control
of a state” (Nacos, 2011,p. 19). As anti-State actors began to
take action against States, the concept
of terror began to be applied to their actions; Berman notes that a
“fad for political assassination”
starts in Russia in 1878 (2004, p.31).
Along
the same lines of the question as to whether
political
coercion is tied to terrorism is the question of whether
criminal acts of violence, including those committed for personal
gain, can be considered to be terrorist acts. We return to Martin's
discussion of an “instinctive understanding”
of what terrorism consists of and find that there must be a political
element, such as we find in the case of the cartels.
There
can be no justification for terrorism based on this “instinctive
understanding”.
This ties into “just war” theory. Clausewitz states that “War
is the continuation of politics by other means”; terrorism is
partly defined by a political characteristic. “Just war” is
based on the behavior of the combatants and just conduct in war is
based on the protection of noncombatants.
Terrorism by definition
targets non-combatants. Terrorism cannot be morally justified.
References
Berman,
P. (2004). Terror and liberalism. New York, London. W.W.
Norton & Company
Björnehed,
E. (2004). Narco-Terrorism: The Merger of the War on Drugs and the
War on Terror. Global
Crime, 6(3-4),
305–324. doi:10.1080/17440570500273440
Borderlandbeat.com
(2015, January 14). 4 Decapitated in Atizapán, México State.
Borderland Beat.
Retrieved January 15, 2015 from
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2015/01/4-decapitated-in-atizapan-mexico-state.html
Corry, J. (1986, July 29). On 13,
Sandinistas vs. Miskitos. The New York Times. Retrieved January 15,
2015 from
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/29/movies/on-13-sandinistas-vs-miskitos.html
Martin, G. (2012).
Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, 4th
Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. Retrieved January 15, 2015
from
http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781452255699/id/ch2
Nacos, B. L. (2011).
Terrorism and Counterterrorism, 4th Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf
version]. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from
http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781256378334/id/ch02
Texas
Public Safety Threat Overview 2013. (2013).
Texas
Departmrnt of Public Saftey. Retrieved January 15, 2015 from
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/threatOverview.pdf
The
Department of Justice’s "Operation Choke Point":
Illegally choking off legitimate businesses? (2014).
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
House of Representatives. Retrieved January 15, 2015 from
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Staff-Report-Operation-Choke-Point1.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment