UPDATE: A Research Guide to Cases and Materials on Terrorism

By Andrew Grossman

Andrew Grossman is a retired U.S. Foreign Service Officer who served in Seoul, Abidjan, London, Tehran, Algiers and Geneva. He holds the degrees of B.A. in Economics (Clark), LL.B. (Columbia), M.A. in L.I.S. (University College London) and of Licencié en droit européen et international, Maître & Docteur en droit (Louvain-la-Neuve) and is a member of the New York Bar. He lives in London, where he writes on private international law issues, especially in the fields of nationality and tax. Among his publications are "Conflict of Laws in the Discharge of Debts in Bankruptcy", 5 Int'l Insolvency Rev. 1 (1996), "Nationality and the Unrecognized State", 50 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 849 (2001), "Birthright citizenship as nationality of convenience", Proceedings, Council of Europe, Third Conference on Nationality, Strasbourg, Oct. 11-12, 2004; and "'Islamic land': Group Rights, National Identity and Law", 3 UCLA J. Islamic & Near E.L. 53 (2004). His previous work in this series is "Finding the Law: the Micro-States and Small Jurisdictions of Europe". He recently completed research into conflicts in the cross-border collection of tax claims (including U.S. extraterritorial enforcement under FATCA) and has begun a project analyzing the limits of national autonomy in matters of nationality under European law.

Published September/October 2017

See the Archive Version!

Table of Contents

Introduction

A bibliographic survey of the law relating to terrorism - even one that tries to avoid advocacy and argument, and perhaps even more so on account of that - exposes its author to criticism more than anything over definition and criteria for inclusion. Terrorism itself is a moving target: laws addressing it written by a fearful Establishment, its history written by the victors. Terrorist acts can be undertaken for all sorts of reasons or, conceptually at least, for none at all other than to promote anarchy or to express hatred. A purely criminal undertaking (as in extortion) is the least likely to threaten the wider public (such crime tends to be local or limited to particular ethnic groups) and it is also the easiest to deal with. Terrorist acts commonly arise out of grievance and frustration, real or imagined: religious, political, economic, personal. Terrorism, or the threat of terrorism, can involve weapons of mass destruction, or it can consist of measures of murder and mayhem, repression and intimidation directed at individuals, at a group or class, or at all the inhabitants of a region or state. While a dozen or more sectors of the law are pertinent to terrorism - some as cause, some as effect, some as impediment and some as punishment - historically, no law has been more successful than the mere passage of time in bringing it to an end. Terrorism and its companion, civil unrest, either bring revolutionary change and are then sanctified in a new national myth[1], or they fail and grievances either continue to fester or are overtaken by events.

It can come as no surprise that the political Establishment focuses on terrorism occurring at home, or targeting our friends. When it is by elements of one friendly state against others of our friends (Irish republicans against British and Irish nationalists; ethnic Greeks and ethnic Turks; Orthodox Slavs and Catholic Slavs) one may perhaps side with the group most like oneself. As in Monty Python's "The News for Parrots"[2] a mishap may be seen as tragic only to the extent that it has an impact on ourselves, our group, our class. Motivation, expectation and allegiance may be such that there is no obvious solution: "justice" and "compromise" may prove mutually exclusive in a way ill understood by outsiders. Compromise and sacrifice may be unacceptable to those who, because they have wealth and prospects have the most to lose and also the most political influence.[3] If those charged with combating terrorism fail to appreciate the real limits of their power, or if use the notion of a "war against terrorism" chiefly as a political expedient, the situation they claim to defuse may instead be worsened. Most sovereignty, if one goes back in time far enough, derives from conquest: under modern notions of international law conquest does not afford good title to land, but how many decades or centuries back must one's claim lie in order to be beyond repudiation? The application of legal norms - of the law - to terrorism is itself an expedient: and that's certainly true to the extent that the law's actors are not there to "do justice" but rather "to play the game according to the rules".[4] It is, however, of the essence of the rule of law that those ruled by it accept its decisions.[5]

One would do well to keep in mind the power of claims to vested interests and the ability of those who profit from them, however indirectly to garner support, to delay change and to prolong iniquity. But even an objectively fair offer in compromise may not put an end to facts and myths that draw support, active and tacit, for extremist solutions. There are few ethnic groups whose status and location are not the result of colonization, voluntary or forced movement and war. The treaties concluding the First World War, and the ensuing resettlements[6], the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire[7] and the creation of states and zones of influence, lie behind many recent European and Middle East conflicts. Whether such historical facts will stimulate and support terrorism many years later depends on the existence of a survivor class from among the losing side, of a historical record, of myths, and of a culture that will sustain anger and violent action.

Western Europe, the United States and what is known as the "Old Commonwealth" deem themselves, and are demanded by others, to be pluralistic nations. Mazzini's unity of nation and commonality of nationality commonality of language, territory, ethnicity, culture, religion and history[8] would violate modern notion of human rights - but only in those developed nations[9], target regions for migration by members of other cultures, mainly family members of previous migrants. The result is a bouleversement of what used to be known as "allegiance"[10] (carried over into America and crystalized in the XIVth Amendment and discussed further below), and fears of a developing "fifth column". We have, however, been there before: quite apart from lessons of the Indian wars and of the civil rights movement, the Sedition Act[11], the language laws[12], the German American Bund cases[13], the Chinese exclusion[14] and Japanese internment[15] and expatriation[16] and the Communist cases[17] showed our fear of the "other", and our ability to postulate that this other threatened the well-being of the State. Civil and human rights to dissent, to associate, to sympathize with the enemy, real or perceived, have strengthened in the intervening years. The claim of the State to undivided loyalty of those who owe it "permanent"[18] and "temporary"[19] allegiance has weakened concomitantly.

The aim of "official" - i.e., sovereign, terrorism by those who have in law a monopoly of coercive force - is that of "shock and awe": the intimidation of all others by "benign terror". It is not clear that a modern, liberal state can accomplish this the way totalitarian and imperial rulers did and do still. One aim of private, political terrorism is to provoke officialdom to outrageous response and thereby to procure external support. Gandhian passive resistance may not be intended to provoke violent response[20]; but if it does, the State, or the Establishment, has lost: Mississippi Burning[21]. It may be assumed that public suicides such as the 1981 Northern Irish death fasts[22], the self-immolations in Vietnam[23] and suicide-murders[24], as in Israel[25], Iraq[26], Afghanistan[27], Europe[28] America[29]. have as their goal public unease and political destabilization. Mass random killings may aim to provoke disproportionate responses[30] and, gain perversely moral high ground. Once in power terrorists may become "statesmen", be forgiven their crimes and have the opportunity to rewrite history books to make of themselves national heroes.[31] Victims may be marginalized, their private rights and interests subordinated to political and diplomatic expediency. The criminal law may be marginalized by pardon or by refusal to prosecute, as has happened in Northern Ireland. "Truth and reconciliation" through public witnessing[32] happens only sometimes. Old animosities and remembrances of terror may be revived as new myths to support revived rivalries and justify genocide, as happened in the course of the breakup of Yugoslavia. Or they may be denied, suppressed as a matter of official policy: Armenians and Kurds in Turkey; the civil unrest in Cyprus, 1960-1974. Past and present terrorism may be ignored by other states - allies and commercial partners of the perpetrators - when it suits their political and economic interests. Generations that follow the beneficiaries of past terrorism have vested interests that are not easily ignored: children do not, as a rule, inherit the debts of their ancestors. In short, the law is secondary to politics and to diplomacy, pragmatism and expedience. Our investigation of case law will, therefore, be less than fully satisfying: these cases concern, in fact, countries where terrorism is, put in geographic and demographic scale, not a genuine threat to the political, social or economic system. And that is true however much of a public shame and political issue it has become, however much disquiet it may have spawned. Compare, for example, the cost of natural disasters and human error or negligence: the tsunami[33], hurricane Katrina[34], and Chernobyl[35].

The point of this survey is not so much to list sources - many of these could be found with a search engine and legal database; others by using some of the better bibliographic sites listed here. It is rather to provide some assistance in planning research and in formulating issues to address - to examine the range of issues and provide links, first to sources that are considered reliable and unbiased, then to specimen law cases[36] and scholarly articles and, finally, to opinions and arguments not otherwise adumbrated which, even if they are in support of a particular agenda are coherent, plausible and forthright in their advocacy or apologia. Collected here are many of the major court cases involving terrorism and terrorists of the modern era, as well as a sampling of issues related to terrorism.

Whatever the researcher's focus, he or she might well begin by reading the Grotius lecture delivered at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on November 13, 2003 by Judge Gilbert Guillaume.[37]

Because of the relatively short life of many Web sites and links and the limited access to Anglo-American case law by students and researchers in other areas of the world, all the cases cited and many of the articles listed have been archived and should be accessible for some years. Many cases cited within those archived have also been archived and are linked. If access to an outside link is broken readers should try accessing them at Archive.org or searching for the document by title and document name in a search engine. JSTOR, which includes many law reviews and law-related journals, can be accessed at most university libraries and many larger public libraries, sometimes from home. HEIN Online. Westlaw and LexisNexis can be accessed by eligible users at most law libraries in the USA and some in other countries.

General Sources of Information: Comprehensive Sites, Archives, Lists

International Organizations:

NGOs, Private Research Organizations, Universities:

Specialized Journals:

Law Review Articles:

Other Databases:

Government-Sponsored Sites:

Selected Relevant Newspaper Articles:

And see in this context 1951 Refugee Convention, article 1F:

"The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."

and UNHCR, Note on the Exclusion Clauses EC/47/SC/CRP.29 (1997)

Relevant Aspects of Law

Criminal (Penal) Law:

It is not the aim to set out here all the possible crimes that may be charged in connection with a terrorist act, plot or campaign especially since new laws are being enacted in response to new outrages and so any such effort would be chasing a moving target. Existing law addresses arson, sabotage, murder and attempted murder, genocide, civil rights offenses, weapons offenses, conspiracy. New laws cover membership in and aid to scheduled organizations, but the list of such organizations is subject to administrative change and for the accused to prove termination of involvement with a newly-listed entity may be difficult. Recent cases address (in the USA) "support for terrorism or terrorist organizations" and (in Europe) "glorifying terrorism".

The full text of published opinions in major recent U.S. prosecutions may be accessed below. Within each opinion there are further links where judgments in cited cases are available online. Additional cases have been included below either for their notoriety or for their explanatory value. Sections that follow address legal issues peripheral to terrorism. Most of the case law here is from the USA the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The researcher may want to search the European Court of Human Rights database and some of the country-specific sites listed below. Some non-US jurisprudence can be examined indirectly by looking at the US, UK and Canadian cases appearing in the sections on extradition and on refugee law.

Terrorism tends to be cyclical. Researchers will do well to start with the early sedition acts and review the concept of allegiance as it has changed over two centuries. For the USA, the obligations of allegiance are, besides loyalty: payment of taxes, fulfillment of military service upon conscription, and provision of information upon subpoena.[40]

Case Law: Selected Opinions:

Previous Terrorist Cases, Reports:

Prosecution in the USA Based on Violation of A Foreign Statute (Not Necessarily Terrorism-Related):

Online Articles and Other Materials:

Selected Law Review Articles:

Conflict with Freedom of Speech:

Specific Instances:

How terrorism issue can and will be dealt with is dependent upon political and diplomatic issues: whether the incident or movement represents a domestic threat or a threat to trade, investment or other vital national interests. Executive and legislative action may or may be logical and proportionate. Terrorism that is far away and unlikely to impinge on domestic interests[41] escapes the popular imagination, whereas a single terrorist act close to home may unleash irrational fear and disproportionate response. Product tampering is a case in point:

Not far removed from this sort of terrorism is public panic over disease, however remote the actual danger of infection at the time: BSE, avian influenza, smallpox, anthrax. The political search for a scapegoat and a plausible solution are well illustrated by the anthrax cases; but these also demonstrate the propensity of the press to fan hysteria and, indeed, to spur the authorities to action that may be out of proportion to facts and to risk: Hatfill v. New York Times Co., 416 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2005). See also Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331 (1946) (reversing contempt conviction of newspaper editor and publisher following publication of editorials critical of the administration of justice in local courts; citing Campbell v. New York, 186 Misc. 586, 62 N.Y.S.2d 638 (Ct. Cl. 1946) as a quintessential miscarriage of justice case.). The recruitment of public fear and outrage seems to blur the meaning and significance of "reasonable doubt" and make miscarriage of justice more likely; once obtained, the fact that affirmance of a conviction serves to underpin the reputation and integrity of the legal system and the positions of those in power hinders serious consideration of justice.[42] In the United States, the assumption is that executive clemency can be used to resolve the tragedy of miscarriage of justice. Such a remedy is, however, made uncertain by the opposition of some prosecutors to the reopening of cases even for the examination of existing DNA evidence, and the obstacles standing in the way of clemency proceedings and to appeals.[43] On prosecutorial misconduct, see, e.g., Jerry Markon and Timothy Dwyer, "Federal Witnesses Banned in 9/11 Trial", Washington Post, Mar. 15, 2006, p. A01.

It is both simplistic and dangerous to cite as the "root cause" of terrorism a single contemporary movement. Criticizing "liberals" for refusing to label "radical Islamic terrorism" as such a cause is unhelpful, according to diplomats and scholars, but it is fashionable among some politicians including President Trump. This is true if only because Political Islam has been distinguished from Islam as a religion.[44] Racial and ethnic profiling as such are anti-democratic, yet without being used as epithets or offending privacy or civil rights are of obvious use in intelligence matters. Keywords have an obvious function in communications monitoring. What risk does right-wing populism, on the rise in many countries, have for legislation, prosecution and diplomatic response to terrorism? Terrorism, after all, takes many forms:

The Risk of Radiological Terrorism is Undiminished:

Chemicals agents that have been used as instruments of terror include sarin:

Ricin:

Acid, Corrosives:

Some court judgments thus far on ricin-related incidents have bordered on the bizarre:

Membership in Proscribed Organization:

Popular imagination, and the political establishment close behind, have on occasion given human and constitutional rights little priority when they perceive a threat to the status quo, to vested interests, or to society and the State. Aside from immigration, naturalization and deportation cases see:

Membership, or deemed membership, in specific subversive organizations has often had severe consequences under immigration law and, more recently, anti-terrorism law.

UK cases

US cases

Organized Crime:

Political terrorists, such as the IRA and offshoots, and the Protestant militias of Northern Ireland, are addressed elsewhere. Nonpolitical criminal gangs are mentioned here for the sake of completeness. The kidnapping for ransom by terrorist and insurgent groups of individuals, especially foreigners (as in Iraq and Colombia), is scarcely new.

Specimen cases discussing terrorism in the context of organized crime:

Documentary Materials:

Crimes Against Foreign Missions and Internationally Protected Persons:

Demonstrations, sometimes violent, against foreign missions, have been a mainstay of popular protests. It is said that the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 was unexpected even by the demonstrators who succeeded in overrunning it.[45] There had been a similar demonstration only days before which had been diffused by the local police. Perhaps, like Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe when he overran the presidential palace in Monrovia on April 12, 1980[46], their success was accidental, attributable to security errors and failings. As with many crimes, happenstance is a major element of terrorist "success". It is easy for any government and any law enforcement agency to claim "progress" in combating terrorism because so many conspiracies fail or are diffused in the course of planning or in the early stages of execution and before even coming to official notice. Those that succeed can have unintended, or at least unexpected, consequences, no less than in the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914.[47] Cited below are a few notable documents and recent judgments regarding crimes on internationally protected persons. The Erdos case (below) and the 1974 kidnapping and death of U.S. vice consul John S. Patterson, for which Bobby Joe Keesee[48] was convicted of conspiracy and served time in prison, increased U.S. pressure for additional domestic and international legal protections for diplomatic and consular staff.

See also the case of the "November 17" Greek anarchist-terrorists[49] who assassinated foreign diplomats.

Transportation Security:

Tracking Programme (TFTP)

Particular Human Rights Issues; Unintended Consequences

The tension found in the law of refugee status (see below) is also found here: whether a terrorist or a supporter of an organization that conducts terrorist activities should be granted rights that he or she would not allow to others. Taking this issue further is the question of the right of an entire people or nation to vote into office via a democratic election a government that scorns democracy and will violate of human rights, engage in state or state-sponsored terrorism, end democracy and perhaps install a theocratic state.[50] Past interference by foreign governments in the affairs of other countries, Iran and Chile for example, have not been happy ones. A few cases relevant to this issue appear on this page; the researcher may also want to review the International Court of Justice Web site.

The application of anti-terrorist law in situations not obviously considered by the legislature during its passage has a parallel in the wide-ranging use of RICO and tax evasion charges to combat not only organized crime but small-scale drug smuggling and evasion of foreign customs duty and excise taxes, discussed elsewhere on this page. Other current administrative and executive issues include the centralization of power in the Executive; eavesdropping on domestic, or partly domestic, communications; and "racial profiling" as a counter-terrorism law-enforcement tool. These issues may be researched in newspaper databases.

General:

Law Review Articles:

Signals Interception, Wiretaps:

Other Newspaper Articles:

Wartime Issues - A Sampling of Articles and Sources:

Extradition

It is an irony of refugee law that persecuted dissenters are entitled to protection both from the enemies and the friends of the state of refuge[51], subject only to Art. 1(f) and 33 of the 1950 Refugee Convention.[52] The Doherty case and others involving prison escapees and Irish republicans wanted for violent crimes led to a revision of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty that sharply limited grounds for refusing extradition. This treaty, not yet ratified by the United States but effectively implemented by Britain, can have perverse results, as in the Bermingham, Mulgrew & Darby case. There a decision by the British authorities not to prosecute the accused for their actions in the U.K. while employed by a U.K. Bank made them subject to extradition to the United States.[53] See also the Feb. 24, 2006 judgment in the Norris case, below.

Case Law - Selected Opinions:

On the doctrine of specialty, forbidding trial for a crime not specified in the extradition documents, see:

Also, see cases and documents cited and linked at United States v. Keesee, 121 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 1997) (crimes for which defendant was not extradited may be considered in sentencing). On Bobby Joe Keesee, see:

On cross-border enforcement and extradition for tax offences (note that given certain facts tax offenses may be re-characterized as common-law fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, terrorism):

On new expedited, simplified extradition procedures:

Extrajudicial Extraction - Kidnapping, Rendition:

These are extraordinary cases and their outcome seems to depend on diplomatic and political considerations, especially given the lack of legal redress under Ker, Frisbee and Alvarez-Machain (extrajudicial seizures) as well as cases denying Constitutional protection to aliens abroad. The case of U.S. citizen (and military deserter) Ronald Anderson illustrates this: his seizure and frog-marching into the USA from the Canadian side of the border was serendipitously (in the days before camcorders) recorded on 8mm film and widely broadcast, generating Canadian pressure for his release.

Political and diplomatic questions aside, U.S. law enforceable by the courts is represented by a series of cases:

Compare the UK rule:

Treaty and Convention Issues:

With respect to the USA convention matters concern chiefly the death penalty and US courts' definition of "political crime". The latter led to a more expansive extradition treaty with the UK that (notwithstanding that it has not yet been ratified by the United States) has allowed extradition to the US of persons indicted for actions performed in the UK with effects in the USA, in cases where the UK authorities have chosen not to prosecute.

European Arrest Warrant:

European Court of Human Rights:

Canada: Canadian Charter of Human Rights:

Current Cases:

Status and Immigration Including Deportation Issues and Refugee Law

One may see in the current context of a "war on terror"[55] (as in past crises of "clear and present danger"[56]) not only preventive measures and new criminal sanctions but the tightening of public surveillance and of control of status. Thanks to the capabilities of modern computerization these changes may, unlike past wartime measures, be irreversible. It has been a hallmark of Common Law countries that citizens are not required to carry identity documents and need not register their addresses with the local authorities.[57] The parliamentary debate in Britain over the proposal to introduce national identity cards[58], and that in the United States over security in the issuance of driving licenses[59], a quasi-identity card[60], have highlighted the issue.

A further inevitable response to the terrorist threat from abroad is to tighten border controls and visa issuance, with unintended consequences for the innocent.[61] There may be a limit: member states of the European Union, the European Economic Area and Switzerland are bound by treaty to allow unrestricted entry of nationals of other member states (except for reasons of national security, health and public policy, strictly construed).[62] The USA, Canada and Mexico have lesser mutual entry obligations under NAFTA. There may also be pressure to abrogate through legislation the grant of nationality by jus soli - birthright citizenship[63] - although the need for a constitutional amendment makes that a daunting proposition in the United States.[64]

Almost alone[65] among human-rights oriented legal instruments and likely due to the factual context in which the Convention was conceived, the Refugee Convention makes its protection (the grant of refugee status) dependent upon prior conduct compatible with the preservation of human rights and "the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (Refugee Convention, art. 1(f) and 33 (unworthiness))

Documents:

International Refugee Instruments:

Newspaper Articles:

Bibliography:

Selected Law Review Articles:

Case Law - Selected Opinions:

Charity, Foundation, Eco-Terrorism Issues

There are two separate issues here: entities that may or may not register as 501(c)(3) charitable and 501(d) religious organizations that support, directly or indirectly, terrorist activity abroad; and domestic extremist organizations that initiate and support violence or the threat of violence for political aims, typically anti-abortion, animal rights and environmental issues. Various Muslim charities have been before the courts in the recent past and some reported cases are included here; see also "money laundering" below.

"Animal Rights", Anti-Abortion, Eco-Terrorism, Quasi-Charity Terrorism:

Laws and Legal Instruments:

Charities:

Eco-Terrorism and Animal Rights:

Anti-Abortion:

Money Laundering and the Financial Support of Terrorism

"Money laundering" is an expansive term that may be attached to the handling of money in connection with any sort of offense. Much of the support of low-level terrorist activity in the Middle East, and the financing of the 9/11 attacks in the USA, has been financed by such crimes as small-scale credit card and check fraud and excise tax evasion (tobacco trafficking).[68] Money-laundering and, to a degree, tax evasion has sometimes been assimilated to terrorism. Indeed, anti-terrorism statutes and treaties have been applied in what appear to be purely financial crimes. The use of hawalas and other informal money-transfer systems, cross-border charities, opaque business and nonbusiness entities and lax banking controls (including within the United States) have served as enablers of terrorist finance.

Treaties:

Case Law:

Selected Statutes and International Materials:

Newspaper Articles:

Reports and Documents:

Selected Law Review Articles and Books:

Other Crimes

Counterfeiting:

(1) Of currency by one sovereign of the currency of another (viz: North Korea and Nazi Germany):

(2) Of intellectual property on behalf of terrorists:

Bank Robbery, Kidnapping:

Traffic in Weaponry:

Corruption:

"Street Terrorism" (gang affiliation and violence):

Treason

The issue is the threat, real or imagined, of violent overthrow of the existing order. Underlying the modern problem is the erosion of the claim by the State to allegiance[69]: permanent in the case of its nationals, temporary in the case of non-national residents. The allowance of dual nationality implies a recognition of conflict of allegiances. This is probably inevitable with the end of unity of the family in matters of nationality and domicile, and an independent right of women to retain their nationality and to transmit it to offspring born in wedlock. Modern views of civil and human rights make it difficult for the State to demand a primacy of loyalty and to inhibit sympathy for foreign and dissident states, ethnicities and groups. It also calls into question any demand for primacy of the loyalty of its expatriates from foreign governments.[70] In the past, members of particular sects deemed threatening to the State's interests and primacy, have encountered hostility and discrimination: Jehovah's Witnesses[71], Amish[72], Seventh-day Adventists[73], Scientologists[74].

Case Law - Selected Opinions:

Internment Cases:

Prosecution for Disclosure of Official Secrets:

Statutory Law:

"The modern treason statute is 18 U.S.C. § 2381; it basically tracks the language of the constitutional provision. Other provisions of Title 18 criminalize various acts of war-making and adherence to the enemy. See, e.g., § 32 (destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), § 2332a (use of weapons of mass destruction), § 2332b (acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), § 2339A (providing material support to terrorists), § 2339B (providing material [*561] support to certain terrorist organizations), § 2382 (misprision of treason), § 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), § 2384 (seditious conspiracy), § 2390 (enlistment to serve in armed hostility against the United States). See also 31 CFR § 595.204 (prohibiting the "making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services" to terrorists); 50 U.S.C. § 1705(b) (criminalizing violations of 31 CFR § 595.204). The only other citizen other than Hamdi known to be imprisoned in connection with military hostilities in Afghanistan against the United States was subjected to criminal process and convicted upon a guilty plea. See United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541 (ED Va. 2002) (denying motions for dismissal); [Katharine] Seelye, ['Threats and Responses: The American in the Taliban',] N. Y. Times, Oct. 5, 2002, p. A1, col. 5."

Note: Jose Padilla has since been prosecuted as a civilian. See:

Passive Support of Terrorists and Terrorism, "Glorifying" Terrorism

Early treason cases addressed the disloyalty of individuals owing allegiance, permanent or temporary, to the sovereign or the republic by fact of birth or presence respectively. Post-World War II cases punished treasonous propaganda and abuse of Allied war prisoners by persons owing allegiance to Allied states. At least since the Vietnam War, however, overt criticism of one's own country's war-making has been impossible of prosecution in the West. The issue has become more complex as massive immigration followed by "family reunification" of spouses and offspring has led to the formation of communities with solidarity - to varying degrees - to the culture and state of origin.[76] The fear of "fifth column" support of the enemy and a presumption of terroristic intent was behind the German-American Bund cases (FBI reports; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)) and the internment of Japanese. But such fears merge easily with fear and loathing of the "other" and blatant racism.[77] In the recent past, it has morphed - in the Balkans and in parts of Africa - to ethnic cleansing, genocide and murder. There is an alternative or supplementary motivation, one that was seen in Nazi plunder, the Minorities Treaties, the Armenian genocide and the reciprocal plunder of assets of Jews expelled from Arab countries and Arabs expelled or who fled from present-day Israel. In the Middle East and North Africa, as earlier with massive population movement, it has led to the transportation or expulsion of ethnic groups with or without compensation. It has also led, less dramatically but no less measurably, to the erosion of minority populations in some countries and regions.[78]

This issue includes within it to a certain degree the charities and quasi-charities (more fully covered in the section above on financial support of terrorism) which funnel money from the ethnic communities in the West and from philosophic supporters of the aims of foreign groups which may be disposed to violence. The difference between the threat posed by al Qaeda, the Salafists[79], the "Islamic State" (Daesh or ISIS) and their sympathizers is demographic: no other minority in the West can mobilize comparable numbers both abroad (in Asia and Africa) and locally (in Europe, the Americas and Australia). The Muslim Diaspora can be called upon to demonstrate solidarity over specific issues, and for funds.[80] The incident over the caricatures of Mohammed published first in Denmark and then elsewhere is illustrative.[81] The lack of symmetry between the expectations of and demands for by many Muslims of Western respect for theirs, and their own disdain for Western, values, norms and symbols should be unsurprising.[82] Other violent groups, too, find solidarity in Westernized migrant communities abroad, some of whom may deem those members of their faith who practice a more orthodox and literal version of it to be worthy of respect and support.[83] It is impossible to know how widespread such support for the more religiously observant may be[84] although litigation following the closure by U.S. authorities of certain Muslim charities provides at least anecdotal information. The Israeli peace movement has provided some details of the funding of West Bank settlements and of "violence-prone settlers".[85]

The most unfortunate source of passive support for terrorism is an unreasoned enmity and a schadenfreude based on no greater logic than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".[86] On the other hand, Christopher Harmon (below) reminds us that "most terrorist groups come to an end".

Selected Articles:

A collateral issue is that of apologetics and of propaganda support for terrorists, past and present. Holocaust denial is a crime in some countries. Statutes are being enacted and prosecutions attempted for giving encouragement to terrorists and "aid and comfort to the enemy".

Case Law:

Libel Cases and Their Limitations:

The issue is retaliation for an accusation of involvement in or support of terrorism. United Kingdom courts are particularly hospitable to plaintiffs in libel cases. In addition to the cases where organizations have sought to avoid classification as supporters of terrorism, there is potential for litigation over published allegations, or over expressions of an essentially political nature, as in the cases below. In the USA, First Amendment rights as explained in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) severely limit in the United States the scope of actions in defamation and for enforcement of foreign libel judgments. An alternative form of intimidation, SLAPP suits, has achieved a certain notoriety there.[87] The cases here cited have a nasty political, but not a genuine terrorism, aspect. Defamation, leafleting and the haranguing of clientele are not on the plane of economic sabotage, violence and threats of physical harm (see "eco-terrorism", above). Legislation against revisionism (Holocaust denial and the like) appealing to violent nationalist extremists raises yet further issues regarding the proper way to deal with incipient domestic terror.

More on the conflict between globalization and culture and the involvement of legal systems:

On Apologists for Terrorism, "Glorifying" Terrorism:

On the (UK) Terrorism Bill and provisions against "glorifying terrorism" - political analysis:

Counter-Terrorism Strategy - Entrapment, Informants:

"State Terrorism"

This is a title easily and conveniently applied to the acts, the failure to act and the inability to act of feared or despised pariah states and governments (as in "axis of evil"). It is as easily used by the accused as by the accusers.[89] The term is thus weakened by its extensive use for propaganda purposes by left and right and it has appeared in few legal judgments. It encompasses governments that rule by terrorizing their own citizens[90] and is distinguishable from the more banal "state-sponsored terrorism" undertaken by non-governmental parties with the connivance or support of the state. Just as the inverse of "terrorist" is "freedom fighter", the inverse of defense against terrorism, or defense of the status quo and vested interests, is bound to also to attract the "state terrorism" label for some. The more so as one of the aims of terrorism is to provoke violent response, and perhaps over-reaction, from the authorities of the target state. The term is probably more political than legal, and for our purposes ought to be restricted to events and situations of the sort that have come before tribunals, domestic and international and international bodies. The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, the International Criminal Tribunal, the ICTY and other tribunals charged with prosecuting perpetrators of particular atrocities, the UN and domestic cases seeking asylum and refugee status, punishment of foreign officials or recompense for wrongful death, torture, injury and loss constitute relevant case law. Military action in defense of empire and other displays of overwhelming power to intimidate others either by way of reprisal or to protect of paramount national interests have yielded uncountable instances of the deliberate use of terror or the toleration of terror by state actors or by members of one ethnic group against another. Genocide is just one example.

Terror, domestic or cross-border, may be unleashed by dysfunctional government or by the venality of rulers as an instrument of policy or by inability to govern: the Khmer Republic, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and, arguably, Zimbabwe at various times are examples, in no particular order. Non-state actors like the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and warlords in a number of other countries are subsets of the foregoing. To a greater or lesser extent, such terror will have overseas implications, economic, political and demographic.

The Nuremburg Trial and the Eichmann Case (Terror, Genocide as Instruments of Government Policy):

Libya:

International Tribunals:

Other "Universal Jurisdiction" Cases and Issues:

General:

ICJ:

United States Cases:

United Kingdom Cases:

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria; Geneva Convention Issues:

Saudi Arabia Issues:

Risk of War, Generally:

Religion and Terrorism

The historical link between religion and aggression is notorious, reaching back to antiquity and continuing to the present. Indeed, modern concepts of human rights and refugee law stem from the World War II and the Cold War eras. Extremists of all kinds have conducted, incited, or supported terrorist acts, but most are isolated atrocities by individuals and small groups, or assassinations, although a martyr may later be made icon of a particular terrorist movement: Baruch Goldstein[92] and uncountable numbers of suicide bombers, particularly Palestinians who have attacked or died attempting to attack Israeli targets. Religion may be only one element of ethnicity in regional terrorism, as with the Tamil Tigers[93]. Within Islam, murderous hostility simmers between the major divisions, Shia and Sunni[94] and against minor sects such as the Ahmadis, deemed heretics in Pakistan and denied there the status of Muslims.[95]

While the United States has been threatened from within, notably by millenarian and neo-Christian militia groups[96], it is the 9/11 hijacking-murders (New York, Washington, Pennsylvania) (and in England the 7/7 London bombing-murders) by radical Muslims that have generated the most fear. There is a theoretical, doctrinal underpinning to this Islamic radicalism which can be traced to the Muslim Brotherhood[97] and the writings of Sayyid Qutb[98] which castigate the Islamic civil state as well as the west for "jahiliyyah" (ignorance of divine guidance) - justifying jihad. Qutb rejects civil sovereignty and nationality, all sovereignty belonging to Allah; a rejection taken further by others who demand a return to the Muslim Caliphate[99]. The Deoband school (of which the Taliban are representative but naïve)[100] has taken such integrist teachings to extremes.[101]

Cases: Militia and Radical Christian Sects; Religious-Based Provocation:

Other Reports and Articles:

The asymmetry of the demands of Islamists and some other Muslims regarding religious-based issues, and law in the USA and Europe arise first in the reservations regarding human rights, and the Arab Charter on Human Rights, and, in 2006, in the matter of the cartoons of Muhammad published first in Denmark and then in many other countries. But dual standards are nothing new, and as law ago as UNCTAD, representatives of African and Asian nations justified them by pointing out that it was the West that had (1) enunciated the standards and (2) declared that it was observing them. There is a particular problem with titled officials of revealed religions who claim exclusivity for their faiths: ecumenism is both modern and liberal.

Selected Newspaper Articles:

Other Articles:

Medical Preparedness and Bio-Terrorism

Cases Addressing Selected Miscellaneous Legal Issues

Anti-suit injunction:

Torture:

Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights

European Cooperation:

Right to Privacy:

Relevance of the Law of War, the Geneva Conventions

Please Note: Proposals for revision of the Geneva Conventions need to take account of the number of independent states created since the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol were drafted, ratified and became part of the body of international law. Many of these new States will have no wish to further the interests of those older States that are the traditional destinations for asylum seekers. Legal systems of Member States of the Council of Europe bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are challenged to incorporate and coordinate rights attributable to individuals by the two systems. Thus: UK Human Rights Act 1998

Other

Statutes and Bills; Legislative Projects; Commentaries: (Selection based on on-line availability and provided as examples, not an exhaustive survey)

Algeria:

Argentina:

Australia:

Austria:

Belgium:

Brazil:

Canada:

Chile:

China:

Egypt:

El Salvador (Gangs)

France:

Georgia

Germany:

Indonesia:

Ireland:

Israel:

Italy:

Luxembourg

Mexico:

New Zealand

Nigeria:

Panama:

Philippines:

Russia:

South Africa:

Spain:

Sweden:

Switzerland:

Trinidad and Tobago

Turkey:

Ukraine:

United Kingdom:

United States:

Government, Academic and Scholarly Reference Sites, Archives:

Government Reports:

Articles, Documents: Skeptical, Contrary and Critical Views:

Middle East Matters:



[1] See the writings of Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson.

[3] Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948 War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, at 298-302 (2001). The European - and Israeli - expectation is compromise and concession; the Palestinian is "justice" without regard to compromise or counterclaim and this without regard to issues of security.

[4] Michael Herz, "'Do Justice!': Variations of a Thrice-Told Tale", 82 Va. L. Rev. 111 (1996).

[5] N.Y. Times editorial, "The Judges Made Them Do It", Apr. 6, 2005; Gina Holland, "Ginsburg Reveals Details of Threat", Washington Post/AP, Mar. 15, 2006; Washington Post, Charles Lane, "Ginsburg Faults GOP Critics, Cites a Threat From 'Fringe'", Washington Post, Mar. 17, 2006, p. A03.

[6] On this see Stelio Séfériadès, "L'échange des populations", 25 Rec. des cours 307 (1928-IV).

[7] Jean S. Saba, L'Islam et la nationalité (1931); Paul Ghali, Les Nationalités détachées de l'Empire Ottoman à la suite de la Guerre (1934); Abdelouahed Belkeziz, La Nationalité dans les Etats arabes (1963); Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, The Crystallization of the Arab State System, 1945-1954 (1993).

[9] Shall "human rights" be a relative norm notwithstanding the contrary presumption of the Universal Declaration?. Compare the draft Arab Charter of Human Rights

[10] F. T. Piggott, "The 'Ligeance of the King'", The Nineteenth Century and After, No. 464, Oct. 1915, p. 729.

[11] Law of July 14, 1798, 1 Stat. 597; e.g., United States v. Callender, 25 F.Cas 239 (C.C.D.Va. 1800) (No. 14,709).

[12] Prohibiting the teaching of foreign languages in primary schools; see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U.S. 404 (1923).

[13] Among them United States v. Baeker, 55 F.Supp. 403 (E.D. Mich. 1944).

[15] Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943)

[16] Co-operative Committee on Japanese Canadians v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1947] A.C. 87.

[17] Thus: Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943).

[18] United States v. Kawakita, 96 F. Supp. 824; aff'd 190 F.2d 506 (9th Cir. 1951), 343 U.S. 717 (1952)

[19] The Pizarro, 15 U.S. 227 (1817), Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99 (1830).

[21] Jurist; University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School "Famous Trials" FBI, "Mississippi Burning".

[23] See Frances FitzGerald, Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam (1972).

[24] Assaf Moghadam, Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaida, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide Attacks, 33 Int'l Security 46 (2008-09).

[25] Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Wave of Terror" (2016) British National Archives, documents concerning Irgun.

[27] Afghanistan Watch: "Iraq tactics hit Afghanistan" (2005); Greg Sanders, Review Digest: Human Rights and the War on Terror: Afghanistan (Univ. of Denver).

[28] Jan Oskar Engene, Five Decades of Terrorism in Europe: The TWEED Dataset, 44 J. Peace Res. 109 (2007).

[29] Sean D. Murphy, ed., Terrorist Attacks on World Trade Center and Pentagon, 96 Am. J. Int'l L. 237 (2002); The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9/11 Commission Report (2004).

[30] An erosion of human, civil and even political rights may be counted among these.

[31] Menahem Begin (and see: Jean Shaoul, "Terrorism and the Origins of Israel" ("World Socialist Web Site"; repeating an essay that appears on numerous anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Web sites)); Yassir Arafat (but see: "The Nobel After Arafat"); Gerry Adams; Nelson Mandela (Umkhonto we Sizwe; see also Wikipedia's account).

[35] Wikipedia; Richard Garwin, Council of Foreign Relations, letter to APS Forum on Physics and Society, vol. 28, Jan. 1999.

[36] The issues decided by cited judgments may be peripheral to terrorism as a research subject; they are included for illustrative purposes. Few decisions address the definition of "terrorism" as such, and indeed black-letter law can only punish specific acts and deeds. See Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 380 F.Supp.2d 1134 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 18 U.S.C. § 23339B(g)(6) provides: "'terrorist organization' means an organization designated as a terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act": in other words, an organization so designated from time to time by the Secretary of State.

[37] Published at 53 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 537 (2004).

[38] Apparently nonpartisan, but with a stated agenda "to support the defense of democratic societies under assault by terrorism and Militant Islamism."

[39] Information "about events and trends in those societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United States".

[40] Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 437 (1932) (Writ of certiorari; fines imposed on a U.S. citizen resident in France for disobeying a subpoena to testify in a criminal case). For background on Henry Blackmer, see "Cripple Creek History". The case attracted substantial contemporary interest in France, and a book: Albert Gouffre de Lapradelle, Affaire Henry M. Blackmer extradition (1929).

[41] But see the Letelier v. Republic of Chile cases, 488 F.Supp. 665 (D.C.D.C. 1980); 502 F.Supp. 259 (D.C.D.C. 1980); 748 F.2d 790 (2d Cir. 1984) (F.S.I.A. issues).

[42] Bob Woffinden, Miscarriages of Justice (1987); Jessica Blanc and Erc Jenses, The Exonerated. Referred to in the latter play is the convictions of Sonia Jacobs (Jacobs v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1282 (11th Cir. 1992)). See also Northwestern Law School Center on Wrongful Convictions

[43] Adam Liptak, "Serving Life, With No Chance of Redemption", N.Y. Times, Oct. 5, 2005; Adam Liptak, "To More Inmates, Life Term Means Dying Behind Bars", N.Y. Times, Oct. 2, 2005.

[44] See the work of Gilles Kepel and Bernard Lewis, and Navil Mouline, The Clerics of Islam: Religious Authority and Political Power in Saudi Arabia (Yale U.P. 2014), especially Chapter 9.

[45] The author was petroleum attaché ("regional resources officer") at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979 but fortuitously escaped being taken hostage. There had been a similar demonstration a few days earlier which was defused. Classified exchanges between the Embassy and Washington on the issue of giving the Shah a visa was included by the Embassy attackers among many purloined cables published as "Documents from the nest of spies".

[46] Biographic notes: Samuel K. Doe.

[50] Shibley Telhami, "In the Mideast, the Third Way Is a Myth", Washington Post, Feb. 17, 2006, p. A19.

[51] Celia W. Dugger, "Asylum Rules Protect Both U.S. Allied and Adversaries, I.N.S. Says", New York Times, Aug. 5, 1997.

[52] See below, "Status and Immigration".

[53] Stephen Howard, "Three win Enron Trial Extradition Reprieve". The defendants are mentioned in In re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivatives and "ERISA" Litigation, 2005 WL 3504860.

[54] See note 50.

[55] "War" must be in the figurative sense, since the "enemy" remains undefined except in the imagination. This creates a problem in purporting to apply (or not) the laws of war. There is, in any case, an asymmetry and a risk of the "war" degenerating into a typical colonial conflict. In Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 352 F.3d 695 (2d Cir. 2003) the Second Circuit had to address whether the President has "inherent power" to detain a suspected or presumed enemy combatant "for the duration of armed conflict". That the conflict is with a non-sovereign enemy without corporate existence or centralized power structure was not addressed, but the possibility of its indefinite duration was.

[56] Words used by Mr. Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) and in 107 U.S. Supreme Court judgments since then.

[57] For purposes of comparison, the European Commission Web site shows the registration requirements for each member state

[59] And, potentially, the insurance coverage of unlicensed drivers. The misrepresentation issue is addressed in a few cases including Perez v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., 2005 WL 2363828 (N.J. Super.) and State Farm Ins. Co. v. Sabato, 767 A.2d 485 (N.J. Super. 2001).

[61] Nina Bernstein, "Seized with Heavy Hand at Border, For Paperwork Errors", N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2006.

[62] See a string of European Court of Justice cases severely limiting the right of member states to exclude European citizens, notably R. v. Pieck, [1980] E.C.R. 2171 (lack of residence permit) and Van Duyn v. Home Office, [1974] E.C.R. 1337 (staff member of Church of Scientology), Adoui & Cornuaille v. Belgium, [1982] E.C.R. 1665 (prostitution).

[63] See the writer's paper on this subject, submitted to the Council of Europe Conference on Nationality in October 2004.

[64] Already the exercise of family reunification claims have been hindered: the issuance of K (fiancé(e)) visas and immigrant visas for spouses and immediate family are subject to strict conditions and some delay. USCIS "How do I bring my fiancé(e) to the United States?" (with links to relevant U.S. Code and C.F.R. provisions).

[65] The Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons copies it nearly verbatim.

[66] Reported in N.Y. Times: March 27, 1951, pp. 1, 18; Nov. 2, p. 11; Nov. 3, pp. 1 & 5; Nov. 4, p. 42; Ellen Raphael Knauff, The Ellen Knauff Story (1952), includes the text of the Board's 29 Aug. 1951 judgment in Case No. A-6937471 and the Attorney General's decision of Nov. 2 approving the grant of immigrant status leading to naturalization.

[67] The issue here may be more serious than many would assume. Assimilating in-your-face dissent and eccentricity to support of terrorism, or using laws, deliberately vague and open-ended and designed to thwart terror against passive dissenters, may deny the government a consensus for measures necessarily questionable in terms of human rights because they are aimed at presumed planners of terrorist acts and their supporters. Compare the more general issue of suppressing public dissent in the presence of policymakers, e.g. the January 31, 2006 Cindy Sheehan T-shirt incident: CNN report; Sheehan (Truthout).

[68] The following trafficking cases were motivated by greed, not terrorism: United States v. Trapilo, 130 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 1997) ("We therefore hold that a scheme to defraud the Canadian government of tax revenue is cognizable under the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, and reverse the order of the district court that dismissed the indictment alleging a money-laundering conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956"); similarly, United States v. Pasquantino, 336 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2003); contra, United States v. Boots, 80 F.3d 580 (1st Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 905 (1996).

[69] For background see Clive Parry, British Nationality Law and the History of Naturalisation (1954).

[70] Speech of President Mohammad Khatami to Iranian-Americans at the United Nations, 20 Sept. 1998, reported by Associated Press, 20 Sept. at 16.25 EDT.

[71] B. (R.) v. Children's Aid, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315 (transfusion for infant); Re Jensen, (1976) 67 D.L.R.(3d) 514, 69 I.L.R. 194 (naturalisation oath); Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121 (use of public facilities); Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society v. Mount Roskill Borough, [1959] N.Z.L.R. 1236 (S.Ct.) (reversing finding of "subversive"); Walsh v. Lord Advocate, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 1002 (H.L.) (conscription); Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Commonwealth, [1943] 67 C.L.R. 116 (H.C. Australia) (prejudicial to conduct of war).

[72] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (compulsory education); United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) (state pension scheme).

[73] Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) (refusal to work on the Sabbath); Prais v. Council, [1976] E.C.R. 1589 (recruitment examination held on a Saturday).

[74] Van Duyn v. Home Office, [1974] E.C.R. 1337, upon reference in [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1107 (Ch. Div.); Hubbard v. Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84; Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner for Pay-roll Tax, (1983) 49 A.L.R. 65 (H.C. Australia); Church of Scientology v. Sweden, ECHR, 14 July 1980, R. & D., vol. 21, p. 109, Application No. 8282/78.

[75] But see also Kawakita (Hayashi) v. Lorenz, 271 P.2d 18 (Cal. 1954) (dismissal of claim for fraudulent disposal of Kawakita family property during their internment).

[76] See note 67 above.

[78] Robert Fisk, "Exodus: Christians of the Arab World Flee Their Biblical Homeland", Independent, Sept. 24, 1997, p. 11.

[80] Tara Lewelling, "Exploring Muslim Diaspora Communities in Europe through a Social Movement Lens: Some Initial Thoughts", 4 Strategic Insights (May 2005 Naval Postgraduate School, Center for Contemporary Conflict, (PDF 80Kb.).

[81] Francis Elliott et al., "The Two Faces of Islam UK", Independent, Feb. 12, 2006.

[82] See the references under "Relgioin and Terrorism".

[83] Thus: The Kach movement of Rabbi Meyer Kahane, Jewish Virtual Library; Center for Defense Information (2002); India: B. Raman, "Terrorism: India's Unending War", Rediff, April 4, 2003 and see: "Moneylaundering and the financial support of terrorism" above. The support of extremist Islamic centers abroad by sometimes outwardly "moderate" Saudi donors is well known: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "Subversion from within: Saudi funding of extremist groups in the United States" (2003); Aspen Institute Berlin, Interview with Irshad Manji, Steven Emerson and Gilles Kepel (undated, probably 2005).

[84] Yoginder Sikand, Pakistan, Islam and Indian media stereotypes, Daily Times (Pakistan), Feb. 3, 2006.

[86] Samuel Brittan reviewing Samuel P. Hungtington, The Clash of Civilizations (2002). See also Niall Ferguson, "The crash of civilizations", Los Angeles Times, Feb. 27, 2006 and Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations?", 72 Foreign Affairs 22(Summer 1993).

[87] George W. Pring and Penelope Canan, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out (1996). Several bibliographies and analyses can be found with a search engine.

[88] The case may hold lessons for those charged with distinguishing harmless propaganda from incipient terrorism. One remarkable point of the judgment was that McDonalds (who seemed to be claiming that it was being terrorized by defamatory leafleting) was libeled because they were said to be depleting the rain forests when in fact their agricultural demands are affecting Latin American forests. The defendants speak the language of anarchists, but only the plaintiffs seem to have seen them as terrorists. This writer attended part of the trial.

[89] "'[T]he proposals contained in this draft shall be binding [when] ... State terrorism against Libya shall end, there shall be a halt to threats and provocations against it'", quoting a letter from representatives of the Libyan Government, in Smith v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 886 F.Supp. 306, 314 (E.D.N.Y. 1995).

[90] "Europe's last dictatorship? Just grin and bear it", Economist, Mar. 20, 2006. When this writer was at the National Library of Belarus in Minsk on a legal documentation project some years ago, he was astonished to find missing from the law library shelves certain numbers of the second series of the Official Gazette. He was advised that these had been suppressed by the Presidency. There are a few, but not many, governments that enforce unpublished laws and regulations.

[91] Mr. Justice Lawrence Collins, mentioned in this and the following article, is the general editor of Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws and writer of many books and articles on private international law, pre-judgment remedies, European law and other legal subjects, including, recently, "Comity in Modern Private International Law", in James Fawcett, ed., Reform and Development of Private International Law, Essays in Honour of Sir Peter North 89 (2002). Not addressed in that article is the denial of comity to the ruling of a court in a terrorist state or corrupt legal system: Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406 (Iran); Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Haw. 91, 969 P.2d 1209 (1998) (Philippines); cf. Muduroglu Ltd. v. T.C Ziraat Bankasi, [1986] Q.B. 1226 (Ct. App.) (Libya; forum non conveniens); Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2000) (Liberia; civil war, corruption); Rockwell Int'l Systems, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., 719 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1983) (letter of credit case; post-revolutionary Iranian judicial system incapable of affording an adequate remedy); Corporacion Salvadorena de Calzado, S.A. v. Injection Corp., 533 F.Supp. 290 (S.D.Fla. 1982) (due process; failure to abide by procedural rules of Salvadoran law).

[92] Wikipedia, "Baruch Goldstein"; cf. the fringe Jewish Task Force.

[94] South Asia Analysis Group, "Massacres of Shias in Iraq and Pakistan" (2004).

[95] Newspaper articles archived on an Ahmadiyya-sponsored site (2011); Pervez Amir Ali Hoodbhoy, "How Islam Lost Its Way", Washington Post, Dec. 30, 2001.

[97] Ewen MacAskill, "UK to build ties with banned Islamist group", Guardian, Feb. 17, 2006.

[98] Sayyid Qutb; David Von Drehle, "How an Egyptian student came to study 1950s America and left determined to wage holy war" Smithsonian, Feb. 2006; Wikipedia; Ashland University Ashbrook Center, "The Thought of Sayyid Qutb"; Milestones ("Ma'alim fi'l Tariq") (1965) (and at several other Internet sites).

[100] Chip Brown, "The Freshman", N.Y. Times Magazine, Feb. 26, 2006 (former Taliban ambassador/spokesman then a freshman at Yale).