Executions
Add Fuel to Terrorist Causes
Jessica
Stern , March 1, 2001 CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts The United States
has decided that anyone convicted of terrorism should face the
possibility of the death penalty. But is this wise? This question
is worth asking, now that four men are being tried in New York for
their alleged participation in the 1998 bombings of American
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people and
wounded thousands. Two defendants, Mohammed Rashed Daoud Owhali
and Khalfan Khamis Mohammed, who allegedly worked for the Islamic
militant leader Osama bin Laden, could face the death penalty if
convicted. Another terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, is scheduled for
execution May 16 for his role in the bombing of the federal
building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh has refused to appeal his death
sentence, preferring, he now says, to have his execution broadcast
live on television. Some of his victims worry that McVeigh will
become a martyr, inciting further violence. One can argue about
the effectiveness of the death penalty generally. But when it
comes to terrorism, national security concerns should be paramount.
The execution of terrorists, especially minor operatives, has
effects that go beyond retribution or justice. The executions play
right into the hands of one's adversaries. One turns criminals
into martyrs, invites retaliatory strikes and enhances the public
relations and fund-raising strategies of one's enemies. Moreover,
dead terrorists don't talk, while a live terrorist can become an
intelligence asset, doling out much-needed information. Of course,
imprisoning, rather than executing, terrorists is not risk-free.
Supporters could try to kidnap Americans, and refuse to release
them until their colleagues are released. Still, other countries
with far more experience in counterterrorism have concluded that
imprisoning terrorists is the better option in the long run. For
instance, Britain debated in 1973 whether to repeal the death
penalty in Northern Ireland. By a margin of nearly three to one,
the House of Commons decided that executing terrorists, whose goal
is often to martyr themselves, only increased violence and put
soldiers and police at greater risk. In a highly charged political
situation, it was argued, the threat of death does not deter
terrorism. On the contrary, executing terrorists, the House of
Commons decided, has the opposite effect: It increases the
incidence of terrorism. The Israeli government unwisely creates
martyrs with what it calls preventive attacks, in which military
or intelligence operatives kill those suspected of terrorism. By
contrast, judges in Israel have never sentenced terrorists to
death; capital punishment would be dangerous and counterproductive.
Terrorism's greatest weapon is popular support. We have already
seen this dynamic at work. After Mr. bin Laden's 1998 embassy
bombings, the United States retaliated by striking a purported
chemical weapons facility in Sudan and a few crude camps in
Afghanistan. The result? In the extremist religious schools I
visited in Pakistan after the attack, Mr. bin Laden had become a
hero. Parents named their children after him. Schools and
businesses were renamed in his honor. Does anyone believe that
executing his minions will deter Mr. bin Laden from future
terrorist attacks? The opposite is far more likely: The United
States could become more frequently targeted. The most powerful
weapon against terrorists is a commitment to the rule of law. The
United States must use the courts to make clear that terrorism is
a criminal act, not jihad, not heroism, not holy war. America must
not make martyrs out of murderers.The writer, a senior fellow at
the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, served as
director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs at the
National Security Council. She contributed this comment to The New
York Times. CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts The United States has decided
that anyone convicted of terrorism should face the possibility of
the death penalty. But is this wise? This question is worth asking,
now that four men are being tried in New York for their alleged
participation in the 1998 bombings of American embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania, which killed 224 people and wounded thousands. Two
defendants, Mohammed Rashed Daoud Owhali and Khalfan Khamis
Mohammed, who allegedly worked for the Islamic militant leader
Osama bin Laden, could face the death penalty if convicted.
Another terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, is scheduled for execution May
16 for his role in the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma
City. McVeigh has refused to appeal his death sentence, preferring,
he now says, to have his execution broadcast live on television.
Some of his victims worry that McVeigh will become a martyr,
inciting further violence. One can argue about the effectiveness
of the death penalty generally. But when it comes to terrorism,
national security concerns should be paramount. The execution of
terrorists, especially minor operatives, has effects that go
beyond retribution or justice. The executions play right into the
hands of one's adversaries. One turns criminals into martyrs,
invites retaliatory strikes and enhances the public relations and
fund-raising strategies of one's enemies. Moreover, dead
terrorists don't talk, while a live terrorist can become an
intelligence asset, doling out much-needed information. Of course,
imprisoning, rather than executing, terrorists is not risk-free.
Supporters could try to kidnap Americans, and refuse to release
them until their colleagues are released. Still, other countries
with far more experience in counterterrorism have concluded that
imprisoning terrorists is the better option in the long run. For
instance, Britain debated in 1973 whether to repeal the death
penalty in Northern Ireland. By a margin of nearly three to one,
the House of Commons decided that executing terrorists, whose goal
is often to martyr themselves, only increased violence and put
soldiers and police at greater risk. In a highly charged political
situation, it was argued, the threat of death does not deter
terrorism. On the contrary, executing terrorists, the House of
Commons decided, has the opposite effect: It increases the
incidence of terrorism. The Israeli government unwisely creates
martyrs with what it calls preventive attacks, in which military
or intelligence operatives kill those suspected of terrorism. By
contrast, judges in Israel have never sentenced terrorists to
death; capital punishment would be dangerous and counterproductive.
Terrorism's greatest weapon is popular support. We have already
seen this dynamic at work. After Mr. bin Laden's 1998 embassy
bombings, the United States retaliated by striking a purported
chemical weapons facility in Sudan and a few crude camps in
Afghanistan. The result? In the extremist religious schools I
visited in Pakistan after the attack, Mr. bin Laden had become a
hero. Parents named their children after him. Schools and
businesses were renamed in his honor. Does anyone believe that
executing his minions will deter Mr. bin Laden from future
terrorist attacks? The opposite is far more likely: The United
States could become more frequently targeted. The most powerful
weapon against terrorists is a commitment to the rule of law. The
United States must use the courts to make clear that terrorism is
a criminal act, not jihad, not heroism, not holy war. America must
not make martyrs out of murderers. The writer, a senior fellow at
the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, served as
director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs at the
National Security Council. She contributed this comment to The New
York Times.
|