2003-2007 Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination Against Arab Americans

Analyzes rates, patterns, and sources of anti-Arab-American hate crimes and discrimination, including detainee abuse, delays in naturalization, and threats; civil liberties concerns; bias in schools; and defamation in the media. Includes case summaries

Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law

British tradition and the American Constitution guarantee trial by jury for serious crime. But terrorism is not ordinary crime, and the presence of jurors may skew the manner in which terrorist trials unfold in at least three significant ways. First, organized terrorist groups may deliberately threaten jury members so the accused escapes penalty. The more ingrained the terrorist organization in the fabric of society, the greater the degree of social control exerted under the ongoing threat of violence. Second, terrorism, at heart a political challenge, may itself politicize a jury. Where nationalist conflict rages, as it does in Northern Ireland, juries may be sympathetic to those engaged in violence and may acquit the guilty. Alternatively, following a terrorist attack, juries may be biased. They may identify with the victims, or they may, consciously or unconsciously, seek to return a verdict that conforms to community sentiment. Jurors also may worry about becoming victims of future attacks. Third, the presence of jurors may limit the type of information provided by the state. Where national security matters are involved, the government may not want to give ordinary citizens insight into the world of intelligence. Where deeply divisive political violence has been an issue for decades, the state may be concerned about the potential of jurors providing information to terrorist organizations. These risks are not limited to the terrorist realm. Criminal syndicates, for instance, may try to intimidate juries into returning a verdict of not guilty, and public outrage often accompanies particularly heinous crimes. But the very reason why these other contexts give rise to a similar phenomenon is because terrorist crimes have certain characteristics-characteristics that may be reflected in other forms of crime, but which are, in many ways, at the heart of what it means for an act to be terrorist in nature: terrorist organizations are created precisely to coerce a population, or specific individuals, to accede to the group\u27s demands. The challenge is political in nature, and the method of attack is chosen for maximum publicity. Terrorist organizations, moreover, can and often do use information about the state to guide their operations. It is in part because of these risks that the United Kingdom and United States have changed the rules governing terrorist trials-at times eliminating juries altogether.This Article reflects on the relationship between terrorism and jury trial and explores the extent to which the three dangers identified can be mitigated within the criminal-trial framework. It does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the rich case law and literature that address jury trial—one of the most studied legal institutions on both sides of the Atlantic. Instead, its aim is more modest: The text weighs the advantages and disadvantages of suspending juries specifically for terrorism. Here, the United Kingdom\u27s experiences prove illustrative. The Article considers the extent to which similar concerns bear on the U.S. domestic realm, and the decision to try Guantánamo Bay detainees by military tribunal. It suggests that the arguments for suspending juries in Northern Ireland are more persuasive than for taking similar steps in Great Britain or the United States. This Article then considers ways to address concerns raised by terrorism that stop short of suspending juries. Juror selection, constraints placed on jurors, and the conduct of the trial itself provide the focus. Of these, emphasis on juror selection, although not unproblematic, proves most promising. Again, distinctions need to be drawn between the United Kingdom and the United States. In the former, for instance, occupational bars to jury service could be lowered, while in the latter, increased emphasis on change in venue may prove particularly effective. Changes in the second category, constraints on jurors, may be the most damaging to the states\u27 counterterrorist programs. Finally, while changes in the trial process may help to address risks, they also may prove contentious and be prone to seeping into the criminal realm. The Article concludes by questioning whether and to what extent such alterations could be insulated from the prosecution of non-terrorist criminal offenses

The Global Risks Report 2016, 11th Edition

Now in its 11th edition, The Global Risks Report 2016 draws attention to ways that global risks could evolve and interact in the next decade. The year 2016 marks a forceful departure from past findings, as the risks about which the Report has been warning over the past decade are starting to manifest themselves in new, sometimes unexpected ways and harm people, institutions and economies. Warming climate is likely to raise this year's temperature to 1° Celsius above the pre-industrial era, 60 million people, equivalent to the world's 24th largest country and largest number in recent history, are forcibly displaced, and crimes in cyberspace cost the global economy an estimated US$445 billion, higher than many economies' national incomes. In this context, the Reportcalls for action to build resilience – the "resilience imperative" – and identifies practical examples of how it could be done.The Report also steps back and explores how emerging global risks and major trends, such as climate change, the rise of cyber dependence and income and wealth disparity are impacting already-strained societies by highlighting three clusters of risks as Risks in Focus. As resilience building is helped by the ability to analyse global risks from the perspective of specific stakeholders, the Report also analyses the significance of global risks to the business community at a regional and country-level

The ISCIP Analyst, Volume XIII, Issue 6

This repository item contains a single issue of The ISCIP Analyst, an analytical review journal published from 1996 to 2010 by the Boston University Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology, and Policy

Spartan Daily, December 3, 2004

Volume 123, Issue 64https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/10068/thumbnail.jp

Finalist essays from the Center for Homeland Defense and Security's First Annual Essay Competition, 2008

The Center for Homeland Defense and Security (CHDS) announces the winner and finalists of its first annual essay contest. CHDS launched the contest last year to provide people from around the country the opportunity to express their opinions on homeland security issues and to suggest new ideas. The winner and four finalists were selected from eighty contest submissions by a committee comprised of CHDS staff, faculty, and alumni. The variety of the essay topics submitted, as well as the backgrounds of the authors, highlights the vast scope of the impact that homeland security policies, programs, and challenges have on our communities and professions. This year’s contestants were asked to answer the question “What single aspect of Homeland Security has been most successful, and what single aspect will be most critical to Homeland Security success?”Naval Posgraduate School, Center for Homeland Defense and Securit

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the central concepts in a textbook that examines the role of media in the political sphere in comparative perspective. The book has a particular focus on media models, theories of news production, the journalistic profession as well as the performance of the media in elections, war, terrorism and on line. The book focuses on the media and journalists in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation

Terrorism in Australia: Myth or reality? A psychometric study into the Western Australian public\u27s perception of terrorism

Terrorism is not a new concept as terrorist individuals and organisations since time immemorial have used the threat of violence or actual violence to generate fear in individuals, organisations and governments alike. Fear is a powerful weapon and it is used in order to gain political, ideological or religious objectives. The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on the 11th September 2001 (9/11) highlighted the dangers of the inadequate intelligence, border security and immigration practices that led to this event. The attacks were a security wake up call not only for the United States of America but for the entire world. The 9/11 attacks and other more recent terrorist attacks such as the Bali (12th October 2002 & 1st October 2005), Madrid (11th March 2004) and London (7th July 2005) bombings have sent security shockwaves around the world, as governments scramble to ensure that their own anti-terrorism security strategies are adequate to meet this new threat. The Federal Australian government undertook a range of security reviews and participated in a number of regional forums, bilateral pacts and international counter terrorism aid partnerships. Domestically, Australia also enhanced its capacity to respond to a possible terrorism event through multiple security enhancements across key areas including border security, defence and intelligence based agencies. In partnership with these new security initiatives a national public counter terrorism campaign was implemented in December 2002. Due to the unprecedented nature of these terrorist events, there has been little specific research into how terrorist events have impacted on the Australian public or how the public\u27s social psychometric risk perception of terrorism contrasts with other known risks. This study\u27s purpose was to address this shortfall in knowledge, by examining key social and security changes in Australian society post 9/11. The study used a number of primary and secondary data sources, a literature review and a research survey to address the study\u27s research questions. The research survey was based on a Likert scale devised to measure the public\u27s psychometric risk perceptions of terrorism. This research compared terrorism to other similar risks and found it ranked second highest in terms of dread risk and midrange in terms of familiarity risk. The study recommended changes to current first response management practices and reinforced that there was an ongoing need for research into public risk perception and public awareness safety campaigns. It is only through an understanding of the public\u27s reactions to risk that policy and decision-makers can promote and implement effective health, safety and security reforms that will be of benefit to both industry and the general community alike