IT Milk: entry

Phillip Jenkins is a distinguished professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State University. He has also held the positions of Director of Religious Studies and Professor of Criminal Justice. Dr. Jenkins’ educational background is a PhD in History from the University of Cambridge where he also studied for his Masters and Undergraduate degree. In addition, he has written twenty books, collaborated on over one hundred other books and refereed articles, and he has written over one hundred book reviews.

Recently, we had the honor of having Dr. Jenkins as a guest lecturer in our SRA 211 (Threats from Terrorism and Crime) class. The following is a brief summary of his enlightening lecture on the subject of the United States’ efforts against terrorism.

There were two underlying themes in Dr. Jenkins’ lecture. The first theme was the process of investigating terrorism, and the second was the inefficiency and incompetency observed in our country’s law enforcement agencies when dealing with terrorism.

Dr. Jenkins started the lecture with two questions that he continued to address throughout the lecture. They were “What are the goals of fighting terrorism?” and “Does it matter if we know who carried out the terrorist attack?”

In regards to the first question, Dr. Jenkins first defined terrorism within the scope of the lecture. He cited the State Department’s definition of terrorism being “team meditated violence directed against non-combatants.”

Also, he mentioned that sometimes there is a fine line between normal crime and terrorism. And how we determine if an event is terrorism is the intent of the crime — is it ideologically or politically motivated?

The goal of fighting terrorism is a double-edged sword. The obvious goal is to stop terrorism before it happens — prevention. However, if you prevent an attack, the public, in hindsight, will not think the threat was serious and consider the whole event to be a joke. Dr. Jenkins asked us to consider what would have happened if the FBI had foiled the entire 9/11 plot. The public would have thought that the whole elaborate scheme was so ridiculous that it would have seemed like a comedy!

Next, the second question was a very complex issue about politics and its relation to terrorism. For instance, even if our government knows who carried out a terrorist attack, there has been evidence that the government does not necessarily pursue those who are responsible or knowingly directs the blame to another party. Why? The main reasons is that claims have consequences, and this can result in a complicated problem or, more importantly, international political problems that could easily lead to war.

The most enlightening part of Dr. Jenkins’ lecture was that politics muddles up terrorism investigations so much that “who is responsible can be unknowable.” Ultimately, giving a conclusion to a terrorist event is a “negotiated political process.” There is a dark side to investigations such as government infiltration of terrorist cells, allowing illegal activities to continue so that we can monitor the terrorists, and arresting “approved terrorists” who fit the preconceived public image of what a terrorist should look and act like.