As a part of the so-called
“large, intelligence-led counterterrorism operation,” the British police arrested six men and a woman in Birmingham on terrorism-related charges early Monday morning (September 19th). This particular investigation had uncovered links to Islamic militancy and was one of the more important counter-terrorism operations this year. The police statement said that the men were arrested on the basis that they were under “suspicion of preparing or instigating an act of terror”. As the operation is still ongoing, limited details of the case are being released, but a police official, though declining to confirm that the arrested people were Islamic extremists, said that the operation was connected to international cases. The issue implied in the article is whether the arrests of the six men and woman were just.
The idea that the six men and woman were arrested made on the premise that the men and woman were under mere “suspicion” of terrorist activity is questionable. It brings up areas in the ways of knowing of language and sense perception. Two key word/phrases that relate to the language issues taught in class are “suspicion” and “act of terror”. It’s common understanding that to be under suspicion is to have another person think your behavior is odd or wrong. However, what does odd or wrong behavior entail? The same idea can be said about “act of terror”. What constitutes as an act of terror? On Wikipedia, an act of terror constitutes as a violent act that is intended to instill fear, is committed for a religious, political, or ideological goal, and deliberately targets/disregards the safety of civilians. The issue with this definition is then, what is fear because fear may not be the same for everyone. The language issues brought up with these particular words can be applied to all languages.
The definition of language itself implies an imperfection. Languages are tools in which people use to communicate with one another. Therefore, it is not the exact thoughts a person may want to convey. Essentially, this concept is similar to how the “map is not the territory”. Language is not a perfect representation of our thoughts. However, it is the only tool available. For this reason, we are left with little or no choice but to use the imperfect tool of language to communicate and judge things like “suspicion” and “acts of terror” based on common understandings of the word. Since the arrests were based on the collaborative conclusion that they were behaving suspiciously, it could be logical to conclude that the arrests were just.
In addition to language issues, problems with sense perception are also raised in this article. The determination of the suspicious behavior is based on the observations of the police officers. It is highly improbable that all of the police officers observed exactly the same things. Therefore, it can be concluded that observation is subjective. For example, if the “act of terror” that was supposedly done to incur suspicion were buying materials for a house-made bomb, one officer may interpret the purchases as simply a man/woman buying something they need for a chore.
The issue with sense perception is that we can’t be sure that what we see, hear, taste, touch, and feel are accurate or truly real. Similar to language, we are forced to assume that our sense perceptions are accurate based on the collaborative consensus that they are accurate. If most of the officers claimed to have thought they saw suspicious behavior, then the arrestees must have been suspicious, and possibly really preparing for an act of terror.
A similar case to this arresting of the men and woman in Birmingham is one in Miami in which Jose Padilla’s (convicted of terrorism conspiracy in 2007) 17-year sentence was deemed too lenient by a federal appeals court. The key word for the language issue in this article is “lenient”. What does lenient mean? Lenient is also subjective because the sentence is lenient depending on the severity of the crime. Essentially, the definition for lenient is constantly changing, thus emphasizing the imperfections of the tool we call language.
Photo Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/europe/british-police-announce-terrorism-arrests.html?ref=world
This article really questions the how can one determine when a certain act is an act of terrorism and harm to the society. It is similar to the article which was used as a practice blog post about whether it is ok to block social media. I agree with the fact that the police are acting too fast to arrest these people and do not take into consideration that these items can be also used for household chores. The police are seeing what they want to see and disregard how it is possible for this list of materials to be bought just for the sake of something else; there is no real correlation between buying them and making a home-made explosive. In the study done by Rosenhan (1973), people who are mentally healthy were able to act “abnormal” and pretend to be schizophrenia. This shows how someone who is considered to be “normal” has the possibility to be looked upon by others to be “abnormal”, which could be the case here. There is a mention of how if most of the officers claim to have seen suspicious behavior, then the arrestees must be guilty. I disagree with this statement at even though most people believe that one thing looks a certain way that doesn’t directly mean that it is the truth; truth isn’t based on majority. It could be said that a majority of the English police force are unaware of their culture and could also be acting merely based on the fact that they are “abnormal”. The arrest of these people seem unethical as it is impossible to actually tap into someone’s thoughts and say that they are planning acts of harm, but it can also be too late to act against these people when the thought is put into reality. I think that the major problem in this arrest is how the arrest can be made when the investigation is still ongoing and only limited details are released. Could other details show that these people were in fact innocent and have no connection to international cases? That is also probable, thus the police should be investigate more beforehand to minimize the problems involved in the arrest of these six men and women.
ReplyDeleteA new way to understand this issue is to consider it with regards to ethics. Governments are constantly catching people who partake in “terrorist activity.” One prominent example is Operation Geronimo, which led to the killing of Al Queda leader Osama Bin Laden. In this example, most Americans hailed the Obama government as heroes because after the Twin Towers fell, most Americans viewed Bin Laden as a terrorist. However, the issue arises on two accounts when there are conflicting views on the definition of “terrorist activity.” For example, U.S. and European governments arrest suspects of hacking groups such as Anonymous or suspects of leaking classified information to Wikileaks. However, there are people who would argue that such organizations are beneficial to society because they keep the governments in check and promote freedom of media. Is it ethical that these suspects are arrested just because they destabilize the current government? The other question is, are governments allowed to target people on the basis that they engage in “terrorist activities”? What instigated the London riots, the death of Mark Duggan, occurred as a part of Operation Trident, which was targeted BLACK gun crime. Who’s to say that governments won’t be targeting other minorities?
ReplyDeleteYou raised a critical issue when addressing the definition of right and wrong and what constitutes as terror. Human language itself is flawed. You did a good job in raising the issues in language but I think it would make your argument more complete if you had also considered the benefits of language in relations to understanding greater depths of knowledge as well. After all, humans do benefit greatly from the use of language on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the questions that you brought up, another essential question to consider is where can the line between individual rights and collective security be drawn? Does the government have the right to arrest people in suspicion of preparing an act of terror. If individual right is placed before collective security, you risk putting the general public in danger. But in the alternate situation, the rights of individual will be jeopardized which could lead to more serious problems with authoritative control. In a society where independence and rights are placed with such importance, it make it particularly difficult to draw the line between what is defense and what is attack. Citizens of capitalistic nations have agreed to give up part of their rights in return for the protection of the government. But what exactly was the agreement?
Lastly in your analysis of the issues with sense perception you mentioned that we can't be sure that what we see, hear, taste, touch, and feel are truly real. I think what is crucial to emphasize here is the idea of reality. What is real and how do you know? Other than some small areas that you could expand upon, overall I think you did a good job analysis the underlying issues of the article.