Essentials of Terrorism , political science game assignment help
RULES OF THE GAME
1. You may consider the questions as long as you like with the two exceptions listed immediately below.:
A. You must limit your writing time to no more than 2 hours. You must also limit your entire exam to no more than 7 double-spaced, typed pages, or 3.5 typed single-space pagers. The layout of those pages must allow for at least a 1 inch margin on top, bottom, and the left and right sides of the page. You must also use a common script and a 12 point or larger font. So be economical in your writings. And you are definitely NOT obliged to write that much if you can answer the questions adequately in less space.
2 You may consult the book: Gus Martin, Essentials of Terrorism (4th Edition)
Iacobucci and Toope, After the Paris Attacks
3. Answer Parts I, II, & III as indicated
——————————————————————————————————-
PART I. Please identify or answer IN YOUR OWN WORDS each of the following questions. Do NOT waste space repeating the question You do not have to answer in complete sentences. On the other hand, be certain that you answer ALL parts of each question. (30%)
1. The Supreme Court’s permissive ruling in 2010 that the U.S. government may prohibit all aid to designated terrorist groups, including advice on entirely peaceful and legal activities, reminds us that United States counter-terrorism activity operates within the framework of a separation of power system. Please identify the broad institutional and other variables that influence policy-making, and indicate in particular how these variables have affected the United States “war on terrorism” at home Finally, please discuss the extent to which the executive branches have been able to circumvent these checks and balances since 9/11, and whether you believe these efforts are justified.
2. What, if any, are the principal differences between the political extremists practicing terrorism today as opposed to those engaging in terrorism at the time of the Munich massacre? And are these differences in degree or essentially differences in kind?
3. Why does modern terrorism begin, in the minds of many, with the French Revolution? If so, what does 9/11 signify? And have their been any watershed moments in the evoluton of terrorism since 2001?
4. To what extent has political violence been a persistent feature of American history? Alternately, why is so little attention given to it in American history texts and why did the United States ot frame any specific anti-terrorist legislation until after September 11th 2001 as opposed to treating terrorist acts like those of the KKK and Army of God witin the ordinary criminal justice system.
PART II. Please answer one (1) of the following questions. Be very certain that you use both the readings and other supplied materials in answering. Likewise, do not rush your response. Rather, take the time to be certain that you are answering all parts of the question you choose. Value: 40%
1. Of the various theories of and perspectives on terrorism discussed in the readings, which one(s) do you believe best explain the nature of (a) domestic terrorism in the United States, (b) homegrown terrorism in Europe, and ( c ) international terrorism? Please make your reasoning clear, cite very specific examples, and conclude by indicating the utility of these theories in terms of planning counter-terrorist policies and operations.
2. The Washington Post reported nearly six years ago that the “United States military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials, and the Taliban in order to insure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country.”
We had already been inundated over previous decade with reports of such other practices associated with the war on terror and “nation-building” as the humiliation and torture of prisoners, foreign detention camps, and substantial collateral damage to civilian populations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which increased with the growing use of killer drones by the Obama administration there and in other locations..
Are such activities common where democratic governments face terrorist threats to their domestic security? More broadly are there limits to what democratic governments should or can do in adopting and employing the policies of authoritative and repressive regimes without losing their moral mandates or violating their constitutional traditions? If so, what are those limits? If not, why not? Please make your reasoning clear and cite specific examples where appropriate.
PART III. Drawing on the readings in general but especially on the readings in the After the Paris Attacks volume, please answer the following question. Value: 30%
Perhaps more than ever before, the struggle between liberty and security in democracies is at the forefront of policy making. With its written Constitution and hence constitutional protection of the freedom of speech, press, and association, the United States is in a slightly different position in trying to strike that balance than many of the countries of Europe. So the question is this: how are they addressing this problem `in the afternath of the Paris shooting, and does the absence of United States-style constitutional restraints seem to be enabling them to be any more successful in combating terrorists than our authorities. Why or why not? Please make your reasoning explicit.
