Internship - Week one

My internship is amazing.  I am deeply in debt to you, Yehuda, for selecting this one for me.  Being able to do my own research and potentially get something published will really help out my resume.  The first week, however, has been fairly slow.  Stevie asked me to read a book on counter-terrorism written by one of the faculty at the ICT.  The premise was interesting, mostly that we need a fully comprehensive definition of terrorism before we can truly fight it and the logic behind countries who don't want it standardized.  Basically, in order to condemn terrorist actions and hold states accountable for their support of it, we have to have a legal framework built around the definition in order to bring the issue to a head.  Surprisingly, it is states like Syria and Iran that are the most proactive about forming a true definition because they want to have it written so that it can justify their support of organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.  They see them as freedom fighters and not terrorists, so their definition will exempt their actions.  However, the US is against a true definition because we don't want to have any legal repercussions against our CT actions and military operations fighting it.  We also support a number of organizations within countries that oppose the regimes we are not friendly with and either of these issues could result in action against us in the international courts or the UN.  

I was generally surprised when I finished reading this because I had imagined that the US would be all for a policy of standardization of the framework against terrorism.  After reading this, though, it makes complete sense from a political point of view.  As the global superpower, we are currently able to operate with impunity in most of the international arena.  I don't see this as just, but it is a fact that we deal with.  From a CT point of view, it also makes sense for us.  When we can operate within the international anarchy, we are able to take the actions that we deem necessary to protect ourselves and our interests.  While defining the concept would have some, limited, benefits, it could be tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot in the international battle against extremism.  Allowing the government to operate outside a legal framework it excellent for keeping citizens safe from everyone except the government that is trying to protect them.  It removes rights in exchange for protection which is, of course the great dilemma with all security arguments.  How many of your rights are you willing to concede in order to feel safe?  (To paraphrase what one member of the IC told me once: Safety is positively correlated to the number of clothes you have to take off at the airport.)