Why Terrorism Works

Rating:
Summary: Biased, dangerous, and hypocritical
Review: Dershowitz' book is not so much a book about terrorism as it is specifically an attack on Palestinian terrorism and how terrorism relates to the US and our 51st state, Israel. The author operates from the thesis of why terrorism is effective, and then proceeds to systematically discount every terrorist campaign in the world, leaving only the Israel - Palestine conflict and 9-11 for discussion. One would expect to find more discussion on other conflicts such as those in Ireland or terrorist acts carried out by North Korea (the ultimate example of state-sponsored terrorism), but they are either nowhere to be found or completely dismissed. Dershowitz carefully pares down his topic until he ignores practically everything in our century outside of 9-11 and the PLO.

His anti-Palestinian bias becomes more apparent later in his arguments. His central idea is that terrorist groups feed off the success of other groups. Because Palestinian terrorism is the most effective terrorist campaign in the world, for the sake of world security they must be defeated. However, if you follow this logic it becomes apparent that he leaves no room for the possibility that the Palestinians might have a legitimate complaint or that perhaps they deserve certain rights that we in the US generally consider inaliable. According to his argument, the Palestinians can never see any improvement in their situation, no matter how deserved, because such would be perceived as a victory for terrorism. Therefore, as far as Dershowitz is concerned, they're just plain out of luck.

Dershowitz's attitude seems to be that the Palestinians should have tried nonviolent protest instead of violence. He seems oblivious to the fact that the Israelis used violence to sieze Palestine in the first place, and while he admits that Israelis use terrorist-style violence, he never judges them in the same way he judges the Palestinians.

In fact, Dershowitz advocates the use of torture and assassination and seems to praise the Israeli use of these tactics. I'm at a loss to explain how anyone can advocate nonviolent protest at the same time that they advocate assassination and praise 'preemptive' warfare. I'm likewise unable to understand how anyone can caution us as to the steady erosion of our freedoms at the same time that they argue for state-sponsored torture.

To his credit, Dershowitz reminds us that even hated terrorists have constitutional rights, and he makes a plea for us to remember that even terrorists deserve due process of law. But again, his hyprocrisy is stunningly blatant. How can one argue for universal judicial fairness and advocate torture and assassination at the same time? These concepts are completely antithetical to a fair, democratic judicial process.

The most frightening argument Dershowitz makes is that it is alright to allow our rights to be degraded as long as the "feel of freedom" is maintained. (His words, not mine) He claims that as long as our free speech is protected and our media is critical, it is alright for us to sacrifice our freedom in other ways.

In fact, Dershowitz admits that Palestinians in Israel are second-class citizens, and then says they should be thankful for it because Israel has free speech and a balanced judicial system. I was previously unaware that bulldozing towns and bombing Palestinian civilians constituted a fair judicial system, and it really is a shame that too few Palestinians actually live long enough to enjoy it.

Anyone who reads this book should be frightened to live in a future Dershowitz America.

Rating:
Summary: A Strong Stand on Terrorism AND Civil Rights
Review: Dershowitz makes two main points. First that terrorism proliferates, and 911 was just a consistent progression, as a result of appeasement and recognition of terrorists primarily by Europeans and UN members. Terrorists were released from prison and Palestinians were afforded rights and recognition immediately following acts unacceptable from any other group. In one part of the book, he lists pages of terrorist acts and in the adjoining column notes the positive results they achieved immediately after. He advocates a very tough and intolerant approach to terorism.

His second point is that we do not need to sacrifice our own civil liberties in order to fight terrorism. He is critical of Bush and Ashcroft for requiring military tribunals of non military suspects and suspending sacred lawyer client confidentiality standards.

Dershowitz challenges some civil notions. While it may be better for ten guilty to go free than to convict one innocent; perhaps this does not mean that no pressure should be put on a suspect who threatens tens or hundreds of thousands of people. He has a 'thinking out loud' approach to questioning how some of our civil standards apply to our new threats; but he argues firmly and articulately for the preservations of our civil rights during our war on terror.

You are left with a solution to terror that demands a forceful and intellectually consistent repsonse to terror that does not require the sacrifice of the very liberties we are trying to protect.

Rating:
Summary: Blunt assessment
Review: For people looking for (or dreading) the highly charged Dershowitz of the impeachment hearings and/or Florida 2000 this book will disappoint.

For those looking for an almost robotic analysis of Terrorism, its uses and why it works, you will be rewarded.

I say "Robotic" because other that a brief cheep shot at the Wall Street Journal toward the end, this book is pure analysis. It is a cold and calculating look at the world of Terror and the alternatives to defeat it.

It is not an optimistic book but it is not meant to be. It is a frank discussion on a subject that deserves all the solemnity and sober thinking that we can muster.

Other than the above-mentioned cheep shot at the WSJ I dispute only one thing in the book:

Dershowitz brings up the mass internment of Japanese citizens (like many other authors he doesn't mention the internment of Italians and Germans that took place on a smaller scale but that's not my beef.) during World War II. He then declares it a failure citing FBI records that there was not a case of espionage or sabotage by an American resident of Japanese ancestry during the war. Without making a moral judgment about the internment, this sounds a lot like people saying that "Crime is down so why are the prisons full?"

To quote that famous philosopher Ape from George of the Jungle: " DUH!"

Other than that, a worthwhile book, particularly if you want to start a discussion.

Rating:
Summary: Only Nixon in China, only Dershowitz in this book
Review: Have you ever wondered why terrorism continues? Why terrorism seems to work? Then read Why Terrorism Works, Alan Dershowitz's ghastly illumination of the greatest problem facing the world today. It works, in short, because an awful lot of rotten people, and all too many otherwise decent people deliberately choose to reward it. Dershowitz covers a lot of ground here. He is historical and polemic. His long background as a noted law professor shines through. He hits upon ethical questions routinely, as part of his goal in writing this is to put forth ideas about how we can lessen terrorism - ideas that we can implement ourselves, and ones that really should (but never will) have the backing of the whole world.

I can't cover every topic here. Read the book for that. I'll hit on some of the strongest issues. The statement Dershowitz makes that I liked the most (since I've been trying to tell people this for years) is that no matter how just the underlying cause, resorting to terrorism should lower, not raise, lower its importance to the world community. Palestinian terrorism receives the largest share of attention in this volume. Primarily this is because they commit the lion's share of international terrorism, dating back to 1968 (if you're like me, born in the early seventies, don't think airline hijackings started in 1985. The eighties were chicken feed). But Dershowitz points out rightly that whatever hardships they suffer (which they brought on entirely themselves), they pale compared to many other groups of people who really are oppressed, and who's standard of living is much lower. Instead of rewarding them with increased attention (and plenty more, like UN recognition of a terrorist group), we should be ignoring them even more until they behave. Bomb a bus? Terrific. That's one more year we ignore your problems. This, in a nutshell, is why it works. People look at the terrorists and think, "Ah gee, they must have serious problems. They're killing toddlers deliberately. I'd have to be pretty steamed to do that myself. Let's see what's bugging them." Rewarding terrorism begets more of it. Lots more. And just to emphasize the converse, Dershowitz points out that some groups have resorted to terrorist acts and not been rewarded. They tried a few times and quit. They weren't rewarded, so they stopped. I follow this stuff, but I was absolutely livid reading the second chapter on how European countries treat this topic. I can attest from living here that they've built up a wonderful society with many benefits to living in it, but they're scared (deleted)-less about having to actually defend it. So they cave.

One of the strongest features of this book is the author. It is of truly primary importance that Dershowitz is not only a liberal, but also a nationally famous one, and among the foremost civil rights defenders of our time. First, as a liberal, even when taking a firm stance Dershowitz guides the reader through the issues. He doesn't club us over the head with rhetoric, but his style is nonetheless powerful. He points out the various nuances in the topics, but in the end is not afraid to stand up for something. He calls many times for a national debate on any number of topics, because it would be best to have figured out how we want to deal with some of these deeper questions before it becomes a real emergency.

By this I mean that Dershowitz has brought up some serious issues that only a devout liberal could raise successfully. A chapter is devoted to a discussion of how an immoral, totalitarian country could deal with terrorism, and why many of those methods would actually solve the problem. We're talking about some very nasty things here, like torture and collective punishment. He raises the very real truth that a clean and painful, but not unhealthy use of torture against someone that any rational person would believe has information about a ticking bomb is not worse than letting the bomb go off. (And it is simple, medically sterile stuff, not like the Hussein brothers' unorthodox use of wood chippers). And if an entire village hides a terrorist, cheers a terrorist, encourages a terrorist, provides funding for a terrorist, possibly provides the terrorist from among its residents, rewards the terrorist's family after the fact, supplies religious backing to the terrorist, profits by terrorist activity, and takes wonderful delight in seeing the terrorist blow up a shopping mall (preferably with lots of children inside), just how innocent are the people of that village? If we bulldoze a few of their evacuated houses after the fact, how sorry should we feel for them as they go around crying about it the next day?

As you may have guessed, this is a very hard-hitting book. In content, style, and analysis it may well be the best of its kind. We are a liberal Western country (I'm using liberal in the old fashioned sense at the moment, though I'm happy with the more modern definition too), and we should stand up for our rights and the rights of non-terrorists everywhere. We need to consider that our sense of human rights has been refined over the centuries, and although it's pretty good right now, it can get better. By better, I mean useful and relevant to life in the twenty first century. But to do it right, we need to be willing to actually consider some ideas that may have seemed out of bounds in the past. We are not so addle minded a population that we can't debate these things now when we have that leisure. Because someday all of New York might become a smoking hole in the ground, and if we fail to stop it, we should know how to react to it, or those who happen to be in charge will do so. That is the central point of Why Terrorism Works.

Rating:
Summary: Terrorism - Hey it worked for Israel!
Review: I haven't read this book and don't intend to, but I did look through it. Dershowitz is a trial lawyer and a Jew with an explicit pro-Israel bias, not an expert on terrorism. That being said it amuses me to hear Jews and Israeli Jews complain about terrorism. How quickly they forget, or sugar coat their own past. It was Zionist terrorist groups (dismissed by Dershowitz in one paragraph)that helped drive the British out of Palestine. Assassinations, mail bombs, bus bombs, hotel bombs, booby trapping murdered bodies, you name it, Zionist terrorists did it. So maybe when they wonder why the Palestinians think terrorism works, they should look at their own past, because terrorism helped win the Jews a state.

Rating:
Summary: A Voice of Reason
Review: I titled this review "A Voice of Reason." Because, if anything, Alan Dershowitz is a thinker, and a very good one. I did not mean to imply, however, that I agree with all his reasoning. But, oh how refreshing to hear a non-combative voice of reason on the issue of how to deal with terrorism. Everyone wanting to know more about what we should do and should not do should read Dershowitz' book first. It will set up the mind constructs you need for thinking about the problem.

Some reviewers claim Dershowitz is biased; i.e.--that he focuses too much on Palestinian terrorists. I disagree. His 21 pages enumerating Palestinian terrorist attacks convince me that Dershowitz focuses his attention right where it needs to be. He does not neglect Al Quaeda. He gives them the attention they deserve. And he gives the Palestinian terrorists the attention they deserve.

Dershowitz proposes that there be a world-wide debate about what defensive techniques should be allowed against terrorists. He includes a most thoughtful discussion about whether or not a country is justified in torturing a terrorist if the country feels that a massive terrorist attack is eminent. He argues that history proves that all countries will use torture in such a situation, but it will be sub-rosa torture in the countries where it is outlawed. He argues for a formalized system where the Federal court system gives the okay in extreme situations, so that the protections the judicial branch afford to us are afforded in these extreme situations too. He argues that judges are far less likely to approve such extreme tactics as are heads of intelligence agencies.

Detractors of his argument claim Dershowitz is proposing a reversion from civilized morality back to a darker era. He asserts, however, that he is not proposing anything new or reversionary. Rather, he is protesting the fact that torture occurs sub-rosa instead of being subject to judicial review. Disagree if you will, but it is wrong to mischaracterize what Dershowitz proposes. It is, after all, the same kind of argument as the "condoms for kids" issue. One side argues that premarital sex is happening anyway, so we should provide condoms to help prevent pregnancy and disease. The other side argues that the condoms themselves promote ever more promiscuity. There is truth on both sides of the argument. Dershowitz is fully cognizant of both sided of the issue. I wonder if some of the reviewers here are.

Dershowitz' argument for NICs (national identity cards) is the single area where I think he may have missed a critical point. Undoubtedly, NICs would help us control who gets into and stays in the United States. They also would stop lots of identity theft, fraud, and abuse. No arguments there. No arguments with his rationales either. But, just like the Social Security number, soon businesses would require the NIC as proof of person. Can you imagine the economic damage that could be done to a person if his/her NIC came up "invalid?" You could buy nothing without cash, and you couldn't get the cash without a valid NIC. Hmmm! That gives the government power to economically sanction individuals that voice opposition to their policies. The invalidation of your NIC would, of course just be an "unfortunate mistake" should you be successful in drawing the media's attention to it. Dershowitz says nothing about this possibility, which surprised me, because no fundamentalist Christian would ever miss this "mark of the beast" issue.

Notwithstanding the one omission just mentioned, I heartily recommend this book. The author makes you think, and leaves you enlightened and assured that we can manage terrorism and still preserve our liberties if we approach the problem with non-partisan rationality.



Rating:
Summary: Utterly Frightening--Oh So Important
Review: In "Why Terrorism Works", Alan Dershowitz writes a compelling and very frightening recent history of terrorism. Some of the individual acts were shocking--for example, in the recent past, European governments would use terrorist attacks to justify letting other terrorists out of prison (and the governments tended to have a soft spot for terrorists to begin with). So, when one such government held some terrorists for hijacking, they helped other terrorists stage another false hijacking, and as a result, the government released all the prisoners, like some kind of reward.

Alan Dershowitz describes how, although identifying and treating "root causes" of terrorism (poverty, hunger, etc.) may sound like a fine short-term answer, they will actually encourage terrorism--this being what the terrorists want. There have been many peoples throughout history deserving of attention who have not resorted to terrorism, Dershowitz argues.

Dershowitz instead advocates resorting to "barbaric" punishments--like torture, which, by the way, has is still being used in countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Terrorism has been rewarded so long (case in point, the Palestine Liberation Organization, which reached its goal of being recognized by the United Nations through the threat of terrorism) that now only serious measures could prevent it from being used further.

This book, although upsetting at times in its horrid description of terrorist acts and their "punishments" (often, the perpetrator is simply released to their home country and given a hero's welcome) is timely, informative, and very detailed. I would recommend all to read it, just to get more of an understanding of the challenges we face in the war against terrorism, and the possible solutions.

Rating:
Summary: Is this a modern version of "A Modest Proposal"?
Review: In 1729 Jonathan Swift caused quite a stir with his satirical essay entitled "A Modest Proposal", in which he uses logic to propose eating children. Well, Alan Dershowitz's suggests something equally outrageous in this book. He's a law professor and quite experienced at persuasive argumentation and pleading cases in front of juries. He also has a way with words and a forceful way of stating his case. Problem is though, this book is not meant to be satirical. That's the problem.

In searching for the root causes of terrorism, the author discounts the easy answer of poverty or disfranchisement. There are many peoples throughout the world who suffer in this in this way and yet they do not resort to attacking innocent civilians.

According to the author, terrorism works for one reason. The world rewards it.

The first third of the book contains specific examples, mostly drawn from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From the Munich Olympics to airplane hijackings, we see the terrorists gain more and more power. Twenty pages are devoted to a timeline connecting a terrorist act with a specific gain, including having the Palestinian cause recognized by the U.N. By the time I finished the chapter, I agreed that terrorism was an awful tool and something had to be done about it. However, I knew that before I started the book.

As the author is a legal expert and also has a large team of young lawyers willing to research legal precedents, he weaves legal arguments throughout. This is what he is trained to do, of course - choose a position and then give lots of factual supporting documentation. The reader is cast in the role of a jury. Problem is there is no attorney on the opposite side presenting a different viewpoint.

But whether or not there is a precedent in law, I had no problem agreeing that we need to tighten control on our borders. I can even see the reasons for having a national identity card. Logically, he believes that vigorous debate can create the right compromise as to what information will be stored on the card, especially after open discussions.

In addition to this, he believes, that in certain situations, where the public safety is at great risk, a little torture can go a long way. He gives examples of what totalitarian governments do and suggests we might adopt some of their techniques as a means to get information and also as a punishment. He talks about ways this can be done legally with "torture warrants" in only the most extraordinary circumstances. He talks about a sterilized needle under the fingernail, which would cause extreme non-lethal pain. He specifically repeats the words "sterilized" and "non-lethal" as if this could make the act acceptable.

I'm not naïve. I know this goes on all over the world. It's been done since human beings existed. It's done as a matter of course in Sri Lanka, Algeria, Africa and throughout the Middle East. I even know that our government lets terrorist suspects be questioned in Jordan. I'm sure that they don't sterilize their needles in these places. But that's not the point.

I recoil in horror. Can this guy be for real? This is America. We don't do THAT here. And I don't care if a million other countries find it effective. I don't care if it can supposedly save lives. I don't even care if it works. This is wrong!

One of the things I liked best about the book was that it was provocative. It clearly put the problem of terrorism in front of his audience, and I do agree that it shouldn't be rewarded. He has no real solution, of course. And I don't think we're likely to find any. It's a very imperfect world out there. There are no easy answers. I wonder if there are answers at all.

Do read this book. And read other books too. Learning as much as we can is a privilege we have right now. Let's take advantage of it.

Rating:
Summary: Failed Argument for Torture
Review: Mr. Dershowitz, renowned Harvard Professor in the school of law gets a rating of - 10 on this book because of his dastardly proposal that the U.S. should use torture to fight terrorism. Professor Dershowitz has written eloquently in another book, Shout Fire about the significance of the Bill of Rights. He devotes a chapter to the Eighth Amendment where he cites Supreme Court opinions stating that torture is what is meant by cruel and unusual punishment. Yet Mr. Dershowitz finds reason to resort to torture without mentioning that it would take a repeal of the eighth amendment for such a proposal to take effect.

What is most disturbing and Mr. Dershowitz proposal is that he attempts to smuggle in an understanding of torture which ignores the reality of this heinous practice. According to Mr. Dershowitz, a public official with the approval of a judge could inflict pain on a suspected "ticking bomb" terrorist without doing any lasting damage. He suggests a surgical needle under the fingernails or toenails or an a drilling to a tooth without benefit of anesthesia. Mr. Dershowitz claim that this form of torture is little more than a bad day at the dentist office flies in the face of the testimony of countless torture survivors, medical experts and therapists who work with torture survivors. According to Mr. Dershowitz, anyone shocked by these suggestions is suffering from an "aesthetic reaction." Mr. Dershowitz argues torture is not as bad as Capital Punishment which is legal in the majority of States in the U.S. In Mr. Dershowitz words: "pain is overrated death is underrated." As for mental suffering accompanying torture, Mr. Dershowitz says that the Eighth Amendment does not protect against it.

Mr. Dershowitz intends to torture those who have not been tried or found guilty of anything. The victims are only suspected of having knowledge of or planting a bomb somewhere.

And what of this ticking bomb scenario ? Mr. Dershowitz reports that the Supreme Court of Israel has rejected the use of torture in the ticking bomb case.

Approving torture in a ticking bomb case offers high drama but little or no real protection to victims. The ticking bomb scenario is not a plot to be fleshed out in a Hollywood studio with every contingency worked out in advance with the climatic ending preordained. What are some of the contingencies that make the issue Mr. Dershowitz raises highly problematical.

In a ticking bomb case, time is of the essence. What if there is no time to reach a judge to obtain a warrant to precede with torture? What if a judge finds the evidence insufficient and requires more evidence. How many lives must be at stake in order to justify torture. Would it be justified to torture a friend or relative of the real terrorist if it is believed the person had knowledge of the whereabouts of the bomb even though the individual had no active participation in the crime? In the post 9/11 world, why should torture be limited to this one case? Why not extend the practice to include torturing whole groups of captured terrorists for information they may possess about planned attacks in the uncertain future?

Terrorists who belong to a groups such as Al Qaeda, divided into independent cells, could not be prevented from a terrorist attack unless every single Al Qaeda member was rounded up. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993 and was still vulnerable to attack on 2001. Car bombs and suicide bombers may be supported by various groups. There seems to be an endless number of recruits for these actions. Mr. Dershowitz himself alludes to this argument but then raises the stakes by asking about "mega-terrorism."

Mr. Dershowitz points to a success in 1995 when Philippine authorities n foiled a plot to assassinate the pope and to crash eleven commercial airliners carrying approximately four thousand passengers into the Pacific Ocean as well as fly a private Cessna filled with explosives into CIA headquarters.

"For sixty-seven days, intelligence agents beat the suspect "with a chair and a long piece of wood breaking most of his ribs, forced water into his mouth, and crushed lighted cigarettes into his private parts--a procedure that Philippine intelligence service calls tactical interrogation. After successfully employing this procedure ( italics mine) they turned him over to the American authorities, along with the lifesaving information they had beaten out of him."

By calling this torture a procedure we can see how Mr. Dershowitz use of language is taking him into Orwell's 1984.

The ticking bomb case, taken literally, can have an endless number of permutations and unanswerable questions. The real impact of this case is that it will be used as a gateway argument, or like a computer virus, it will wend its way into the legal and moral fabric of American society corrupting the foundation of freedom we all cherish.

Mr. Dershowitz in Shout Fire has written :"The United States Constitution is in its third century--and there is much to celebrate. No charter of liberty has been as enduring as our Constitution and its first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. Although they are called amendments, the Bill of Rights is an organic part of the original document. Without it, the Constitution would not have been ratified, because it created a structure for centralized power without sufficient assurances of liberty. The Bill or Rights struck the balance necessary to alleviate the concerns of those, like Thomas Jefferson, who worried that a constitution without explicit grants of liberty would strike an improper balance between government power and individual rights... The irony--one repeated throughout history--is that it is generally the citizens themselves who want rights curtailed in the name of safety, security, or inconvenience."

If Professor Dershowitz looks in the mirror he will see Citizen Dershowitz whose proposal for judicial torture would curtail an individual's rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment in the name of safety, security, or inconvenience.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book - Disturbing Facts
Review: Rarely have I read a book that demonstrated such a disturbing trend - a trend in which terrorism is rewarded with incentives and practically forced into further terrorist actions. Dershowitz follows the apparent (and for terrorism, the appearance of success equates to actual success) causal relationship between terrorist attacks on innocent civilians and the subsequent recognition and advancement of the groups' cause. Because of this, terrorism has been encouraged by not only the lack of deterrence and the lack of a tough stand on terrorism, but also by the effective promotion of it through the advancement of terrorist groups' causes - such as inviting Arafat to speak at the United Nations after numerous plane hijackings and the ordered murder of American diplomats.

As disturbing as the fact that nearly all terrorists captured outside the Middle East were released in a matter of weeks or months (of the 204 terrorists captured between 1968-1975 outside the Middle East, only 3 remained in prison by 1975), is the assertion that for much of the history of modern international terrorism, the policies of our European allies and the United Nations have only served to further increase terrorism. The arguments not only make sense, they're backed by the historical facts.

The root cause of terrorism is its success, and this book takes a good look at how/why it has succeeded (and in some instances failed) thus far and how a moral society should respond to terrorism.