A Means to an End: Justifications for the Use of Violence in Single-Issue Terrorist Groups
by Aylish Cotter
Abstract
Terrorism is a pervasive strategy which lends itself to an incredibly diverse assortment of individuals, groups and causes. Though the backgrounds and motivations of those who employ these tactics may have very little in common, the personal justifications and rationales for their methods are not necessarily entirely distinct (Bandura, 2003). This paper explores if and how a terrorist group’s mandate affects its members’ individual justifications and neutralizations of the violence they employ. Using a comparative case study analysis, it examines the similarities and differences in justificatory techniques of members of the Army of God and Animal Liberation Front (two similarly structured single-issue terrorist organizations). Specifically, it explores whether or not the Army of God, a ‘pro-life’ anti-abortion terrorist group, uses unique justificatory techniques in accounting for the contradiction of using violence (especially fatal violence) to fight for the pro-life cause. Findings indicate that while some differences exist between individual rationales, the groups share surprisingly similar justificatory techniques.
Terrorism is a widespread global phenomenon that manifests itself in a variety of ways and is employed for equally diverse reasons. Though the motivations of terrorist groups differ a great deal, research has suggested that the justifications for illegal (and often violent) actions may not be so different from one another (Bandura, 2003). This paper explores if and how a terrorist group’s mandate and cause affects individual justifications for force and illegal action. Specifically, it utilizes a comparative case study method to examine similarities and differences in how the Army of God and the Animal Liberation Front (two similarly structured terrorist groups with very different mandates) employ rationalization techniques to justify their actions. Do Army of God (a ‘pro-life’ group) activists employ specific justifications for their use of (murderous) violence to reconcile the contradiction between their aims and actions? Are their rationales qualitatively different from the rationales adopted by members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)? By answering these questions, this paper will contribute to a greater understanding of the interaction between ideology and violence in the context of terrorism.
According to Bandura (2003), individuals and groups who use violence as a means of achieving a goal (namely terrorists and terrorist groups) do not do so because they lack a sense of morality, but rather because they practice moral disengagement. The process of moral disengagement includes (but is not limited to) moral justifications, advantageous comparisons (comparing one’s actions to those of a conventionally praised hero), euphemistic language and displacement of responsibility. The mechanisms of moral disengagement as proposed by Bandura are hardly new; in many ways they resemble the justificatory techniques in Sykes and Matza’s Neutralization Theory (1957). Though both Bandura and Sykes and Matza’s theories provide an important theoretical framework within which we can place the neutralization of illegal and violent behaviors as practiced by individuals, they do not discuss the interaction between a group’s goals and the justifications for their means. Indeed, Neutralization Theory was originally developed to explain delinquency, and thus does not have any direct or immediate applications to terrorism, let alone the interaction between terrorist goals and justifications for the means. To understand how an organization’s mandate affects individual justificatory techniques and responses, we must closely examine how individual members of terrorist groups perceive and justify their actions.
METHODOLOGY
This paper employs a comparative case study analysis to explore whether or not the Army of God employs unique rationalizations to legitimize the contradictory nature of their acts. I examine the discourse of four activists: two members of the Army of God, and two from the Animal Liberation front. The Animal Liberation Front was selected as a reference group for a few reasons. First, like the Army of God, it is a single issue terrorist group, meaning that it exists to fight a specific issue. Second, the Army and ALF share a similar leaderless structure with no hierarchies, cells, training camps, or other formalized structures. These close similarities reduce potential confounding elements as they eliminate the possibility that specific organizational structures influence individual rationales for violence; that is, any major differences in neutralization techniques cannot be attributable to structure or category of terrorism.
The individuals studied here were selected based on criminal conviction of a violent act related to the Army and ALF, and, on available information (personal testimonials, letters, publications, etc.). As the individuals discussed in this paper employ a multitude of overlapping justifications (justifications which overlap with those of others in their respective organizations), this case study will examine those justifications which are reoccurring and which are part of a broader validation. In other words, I will not list every biblical account of violence as used by members of the Army of God, but rather, note some of the more fundamental rationales which appear in their personal discourses. The justifications found in each case will be compared and contrasted with other justifications in order to understand how ideological differences affect personal rationales and justifications for violence.
DEFINING TERRORISM
Terrorism is one of the most complex social phenomena to emerge in the last century. As it is subject to culture, context and perspective, defining it as a coherent practice presents a number of challenges. Indeed, over 100 diplomatic and scholarly definitions exist (Krueger, 2003). As I am examining two groups which have been defined as terrorist by the United States government, I will use their official definition. According to the U.S Department of State, terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” (cited from Krueger, 2003). This definition is not perfect; indeed no definition is. Nonetheless, I believe it provides a capacious and yet adequately restrictive conception of terrorism, particularly in the context of the subject matter at hand.
DEFINING VIOLENCE
Though less contentious and amorphous than terrorism, the definition of violence is also subject to some disagreement amongst individuals. Developing a working definition of violence is especially important when discussing the Army of God and the Animal Liberation Front as it is within this definition that members of these groups justify their actions. That is, by constructing their own understanding of violence, proponents of these groups are able to label their actions as non-violent. According to Jackman, violence can be defined as “actions that inflict, threaten, or cause injury. Actions may be corporal, written, or verbal. Injuries may be corporal, psychological, material, or social.”. (2002 p. 405). This definition may in fact be too inclusive. Embezzlement often causes material harm, but it is not generally classified as violent. I believe that Jackman’s definition can be enhanced if we add that the action in question must carry some form of physical aggression. Such aggression can include direct contact, or the use of technologies which cause physical harm. Both groups to be examined utilize aggression and violence, though with different goals and outcomes. The Army of God uses aggression to cause corporal and material harm, while the Animal Liberation Front uses it to inflict material damage exclusively. While this difference is an important one, it does not change the fact that both groups utilize aggression and violence to further their aims.
THE ARMY OF GOD
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled that no state could restrict a women’s right to an abortion, thereby legalizing the procedure. The decision provoked a widespread protest in the form of what is now called the pro-life movement. Despite some minor victories (such as the reduction of public funding for abortion), overall, the movement continues to be marked by failure. It is out of this dejection and lack of success that the Army of God emerged.
The Army of God is a loosely organized, American anti-abortion terrorist group. Hailing from different parts of the country and sharing different (Christian) backgrounds, members are united by a single idea: abortion is murder, and therefore it must be eradicated by any means necessary (Jefferis, 2011). The “any means necessary” precept of the group (and how it is justified) is of particular interest to this paper. Over the years, members who identify with the Army have committed a host of violent (and sometimes lethal) acts. Because of the distinctly unorganized nature of the group, it is hard to account for the precise number of violent acts committed by its’ members. However, from what we know, affiliates of the Army have been responsible for approximately 10 deaths since 1993. The victims are a mix of abortion doctors and employees who worked at abortion clinics (nurses, receptionists, security guards) (Jefferis, 2011). Members have also been charged with several counts of arson as well as use of butyric acid for property destruction, attempted murder, clinic bombings, and a numerous other acts. Thus, the Army of God presents a very real and serious threat to both the safety and rights of individuals involved in, or seeking, reproductive health care.
The Army of God is a challenging group to define. Unlike more “traditional” terrorist networks, there is no official leadership, no hierarchical structure, no cells and no collaboration in attacks; essentially, there is very little organization within the group. However, there are elements of the group’s structure which would suggest that its similarity to an army is not in name alone. For example, most of the members are connected by loose personal ties, many of which are facilitated online. Through these relationships, affiliates encourage and enable one another by offering practical advice for executing violent and illegal acts. Additionally, members work off of each other’s ideas and justifications for murder and violence. The group also publishes official literature which serves as manifestos, offering justifications and practical information for murder, building a bomb, and so forth. Finally, the group holds an annual “White Rose Banquet”, which commemorates “Prisoners of Christ”, or those who are currently serving time for anti-abortion violence. What is especially interesting about the Army of God is the apparent contradiction between their beliefs and actions. They are pro-life, meaning that they support an individual’s (born or unborn) right to life, yet they strive to commit violent, life-threatening acts. Understanding the mechanisms by which members are able to justify their position and neutralize this glaring contradiction requires a thorough investigation of the rationales of the members of the Army of God.
THE ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT
Though their membership demographics and ideologies are radically different, the ALF and the Army of God share many structural characteristics. Like the Army, the ALF is a non-hierarchical organization in which members are united by an idea. According to the ALF’s website, “Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.” (ALF, date unknown). These guidelines include the liberation of animals from abusive situations, the infliction of economic damage on those who profit from animal exploitation, the importance of revealing animal related atrocities, and taking all necessary precautions to prevent the harming of life.
In these guidelines, we see a fundamental distinction between the two organizations: while the Army of God justifies killing and harming people the ALF does not. However, that is not to say the group’s mandate and actions do not present a contradiction. Despite claiming to be wholly non-violent, the ALF has been responsible for multiple bombings of laboratories, arson, property damage and a host of other economically harmful acts. Indeed, the ALF is non-violent, so long as violence is strictly the intentional physical harm of living beings. However, that is not how violence has been defined earlier in this paper, nor does such a definition adhere to more conventional and widespread understandings of violence.
The following section explores the justificatory discourses of Paul Hill and Shelly Shannon (of the Army of God) as well as Walter Bond and Keith Mann (of the Animal Liberation Front).
FINDINGS
Case 1: Paul Hill of the Army of God
In 1994, Paul Hill was convicted for the murder of Dr. John Britton and Dr. Britton’s bodyguard, James Barrett. Though executed in 2003, Hill has left behind a great deal of literature which describes both the process which led him to shoot and kill Britton and Barrett and his justifications for doing so. As a devout Christian, most of Hill’s validations for the use of illegal force were theologically based. To address the moral issues surrounding murder, Hill frequently cites the Sixth Commandment in his various personal publications and testimonials. He posits that though the common translation of this commandment is “thou shall not kill”, it should more accurately be understood as “thou shall not murder”. As such, this commandment does not necessarily condemn killing, just (immoral) murder. And, as “some killing is evil, while some are good and necessary” and some sins are more heinous than others (Hill, 2003), Hill is able to reconcile killing abortion doctors and clinic employees with the Sixth Commandment. Hill also extends the meaning of the Sixth Commandment from not murdering to not consciously preventing murder. In other words, according to Hill, the Sixth Commandment demands that one cannot knowingly allow murder without at least attempting to prevent it.
According to Hill, one of the contexts in which killing is morally correct is in self-defense, or defense of another. He refers to a story involving Abraham having to use violent force in order to save his nephew, Lot. Hill writes “The circumstances described in Genesis 14 required Abraham to leave his place of residence, and execute an attack that he knew would involve lethal force. Since he used the means necessary, under the circumstances, to save Lot, his actions were not only moral, they were positively praiseworthy, and resulted in his receiving God’s blessing through Melchizedek (a type of Christ)”. Hill argues that in some contexts, the use of lethal force is necessary in order to fulfill one’s obligations to God.
Another major justificatory theme which emerges from Hill’s book and testimonials is related to the law. Hill posits that though his actions were illegal in the eyes of the state, they were not necessarily sinful. He cites the biblical cases in which various individuals (the most prominent being Jesus) violated laws to perform the work of God. Hill also quotes Acts to further justify defiance (“we must obey God rather than men” Acts 5:29). He notes that “When the government has sanctioned mass murder, and thousands are being slaughtered each day, it is immoral to avoid the subject of using the means necessary to defend these people, or to stress submission to those who forbid this protection. God will hold those who have served as teachers during the abortion holocaust, and who have failed to maintain this duty, to special account” (Hill, 2003). Thus, Hill does not need to neutralize his violation of the law because he believes that he answers to a higher order.
In sum, Hill attempts to reconcile the apparent contradiction between his pro-life beliefs and his murderous actions by providing biblical precedence and reasoning. He states that there are some cases in which lethal force is biblically (and thus morally) sanctioned, and that in these situations, it is not only excusable, but righteous to use force. Furthermore, though prohibited by the laws of man, Hill’s actions are not illegal in the eyes of God, and thus, are legally and morally justified.
Case 2: Shelly Shannon of Army of God
In August of 1993, Shelly Shannon shot Dr. George Tiller in both arms, maiming him. She was subsequently convicted of attempted murder and is currently serving a prison sentence for both the aforementioned crime and several counts of arson. Though not as prolific as Hill, Shannon has also produced ample literature which describes her justifications for the use of force against abortion doctors and clinics. Shannon’s justifications can be typified as theological, pragmatic/consequentialist and historical.
Like all members of the Army of God, Shannon’s reasons for the use of force are largely theological. In The Shelly Shannon Story, Shannon argues that saving the life of the unborn child is analogous to preserving belief in God, as children are made in the image of God. So, as one is defending much more than just human life, there is “no denying the justifiability of the use of force”(2009). Shannon also justifies her use of force by comparing her actions (and the actions of other Army members before her) with what she believes Jesus would have done in her situation. In “Toward the Use of Force”, Shannon describes a major turning point in her pro-life career:
“One nice day I was standing out in my garden, using the hose to water things and enjoying the sun. I wondered to myself: If Jesus were walking the earth today as a man, what would He do about abortion? What came to mind was Jesus casting out them that sold in the temple, overturning their tables ("vandalism?"), saying, "How dare you make merchandise of my Father's temple."
Shannon asserts that the use of force is morally justified because Jesus (and thus, by extension, God) engaged in force to confront unjust circumstances. She compares her actions (particularly her vandalizing of clinics) with those of Jesus. The logic here is that if Jesus not only condones, but also performs such action in the face of anti-Christian practices, then so can members of the Army of God.
Shannon also provides more practical and pragmatic justifications for her actions which are dependent on moral justifications. Shannon’s views on the practical nature of the use of force are articulated by Michael and Jane Bray in The Shelly Shannon Story. According to a summary of the list prepared by the Brays, the use of force: “combines protest with successful rescue, is the most effective method of accomplishing the urgent goal of saving children threatened with imminent death, expresses the very highest regard for the safety of the child/victim” and, when practiced covertly, “is particularly advantageous as it permits the shortage in numbers of rescuers to exert a greater number of missions” (Jefferis, 2011). Thus, for Shannon, the use of force is justified at least in part because of its relative effectiveness in preventing abortion. Indeed, in “A Response”, Shannon writes that she believes that picketing and peaceful protest can do some good, however, such actions are simply inadequate for achieving the cause. What is necessary, according to Shannon, is force.
The final major theme in Shannon’s writings on the use of force is historical. That is, Shannon often relates the work of the Army of God to that of more famous and respected individuals who have opposed institutionalized “evil”. For example, in “Toward the Use of Force”, Shannon describes how she “began to compare abortion to the Nazi holocaust.” In that same publication, Shannon writes:
“Can we really stop murderers like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or abortionists, by voting right? By educating people? I pictured Christians blocking access to an extermination facility in Hitler's Germany. Maybe they would save some lives, but they would soon be removed and dealt with, and the killing would continue. Now if someone were to bomb those gas chambers...”
In this passage, Shannon compares those who condone abortion with a historical figure and group who the vast majority of people would label as “evil”. In doing so, she re-constructs herself and the Army of God as heroic freedom fighters battling injustice in the face of severe repercussions. Furthermore though the name was not created by Shannon, the Army of God hosts an annual “White Rose Banquet”, named after the White Rose society in (a non-violent intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany).
Like Hill, Shannon uses biblical precedent and extensions of pre-existing theology to reconcile her use of force against abortion providers and clinics. Shannon also offers a consequentialist argument for violence: violent tactics are effective and produce a desirable end, thus violence as a mean is permissible. Violence is acceptable because no form of peaceful protest has proven to be as successful. Finally, Shannon relates the Army of God’s battle against legalized abortion with Nazi resistance groups. In doing so, Shannon relates the Army of God’s struggle with that of Nazi resistance groups, thus positioning herself as a hero rather than a terrorist.
Case 3: Walter Bond of ALF
In 2010, Walter Bond was arrested for the arsons of a sheepskin factory in Denver, a leather factory in Utah, and a Utah restaurant which sold Foie Gras. A longtime vegan, Walter is a self-proclaimed member of the Animal Liberation Front. Like members of the Army of God, he thoroughly believes in the legitimacy and necessity of his actions, and therefore offers several justifications for these actions. Such justifications include the re-interpretation of language, the lesser evil argument, historical comparisons, and finally, a consequentialist rationale for illegal force.
In a FAQ publication put forth by the ALF, Walter Bond discusses both the need and justifications for the use of force. First, and perhaps most importantly, Bond asserts that his actions, such as arson, are not violent as violence “cannot be inflicted upon a piece of property…[it] can only be visited upon sentient life” (2011). Thus, property destruction is not an act of violence, but rather, an act of destruction. By re-constructing the meaning of violence, Bond and other proponents of the ALF are able to understand their behaviors as non-violent protest.
In this same document, Bond also presents readers with a “lesser evil” approach to fighting animal cruelty, arguing that there are times when force can be “used for the greater good” (2011). To support his case, Bond discusses a scenario in which a Good Samaritan intervenes in the violent rape of a woman. He argues that though this savior used force, he/she was justified in doing so as they were acting to defend another. Such a situation, Bond argues, is not unlike an ALF member using force to safely liberate innocent animals from immediate violence.
Another justification found in the FAQ document written by Bond is a historical one. Like Shannon, Bond relates ALF’s plight with other historical struggles which are conventionally viewed as just. When confronted with the question of the illegality of some of his actions, Bond writes “how would it have been possible to be an abolitionist in the days of slavery and to not support the Underground Railroad. That would be patently ridiculous. It bears mentioning that not all abolitionists were part of the Underground Railroad but certainly none were against it.” (2011). By drawing comparisons between his work and the work of slavery abolitionists in the United States, Bond suggests that he is clearly morally justified in breaking the law, just as proponents of the Underground Railroad were justified in breaking laws of the time.
Finally, Bond’s literature presents a consequentialist argument for the use of force in the liberation of animals. He maintains that “Anything that stops animals from being murdered and/or stops their oppressors is of value” (2011). As force is often effective in preventing the immediate harm of animals being raised for food, fur, science or entertainment, it is also justifiable.
Case 4: Keith Mann of ALF
Keith Mann is an ALF activist who has been involved in a number of direct action operations, including acts of arson, raids, and other forms of property destruction. His convictions include attacking the home of a fox hunter, possessing incendiary devices, conspiring for burglary, and other actions (Mann). His justifications for his violent and/or illegal actions can be classified as such: last resort, lesser evil, and higher moral law.
In an interview on BBC’s Hardtalk, Mann explains ALF violence and illegal action as necessities to the ALF cause. He claims that “we’re not going to achieve anything by writing letters” and that “the most important actions to raise these issues [animal exploitation] tend to be illegal”. Additionally, he notes that “our right to peaceful protest has been taken away” (Mann, 2008). In another interview, when discussing his first direct action operation (which involved stealing a neighbor’s mistreated rabbit), Mann says “she wasn’t going to get her life back by any other way other than me rescuing her”. Thus, Mann justifies his, and other ALF actions as a last resort, or the only effective means of achieving ends. Peaceful protest and lobbying has not and does not work, and thus more serious measures must be taken to both prevent the immediate harm of animals and bring the subject of animal cruelty to the forefront.
In that same interview, when confronted with the question of property destruction causing harm, Mann argues that actions which harm “inanimate objects” are negligible in the grand scheme of things and that they can scarcely be considered truly harmful (Mann, 2008). He continues to say that “there are bigger issues, there are things we should be discussing that are far more important, which is the damage that is being caused to life”. In some ways, Mann’s argument for the use of violence against non-sentient beings/objects is similar to Bond’s in that he contends that violence can be perpetrated against inanimate objects. However, because he acknowledges the harm caused by these actions, but argues that such harm is quite minor when compared to the importance of the issue, this rationale is more appropriately labeled as a “lesser evil” approach.
Mann’s final argument for the use of illegal action and force is one of a higher moral law. In an online interview, when asked about the fact that many of his actions have been illegal, Mann asserts that “there’s a higher moral law that we have to pay attention to” (Mann, 2009). In other words, he believes that the illegal status of some ALF actions is irrelevant as there is a greater ethical code which must be followed.
DISCUSSION
Despite differences in demographics, ideologies, and even methods (corporal vs. non-corporal violence), members of the Army of God and Animal Liberation Front share remarkable similarities in the way they justify their actions. Re-interpretations of language, discussion of a higher moral power, consequentialist and lesser evil arguments, and historical comparisons are all employed by the ALF and Army of God proponents discussed in the above case studies.
The re-interpretation of language is a theme that appears in justifications discussed by Paul Hill, Walter Bond, and, to a certain extent, Keith Mann. Hill asserts that the Sixth Commandment specifically condemns “murder” and that this subtle distinction in language allows for killing under certain circumstances. Alternatively, Bond asserts that bombing buildings and other forms of property destruction is not violence, because violence can only be defined as an act with harms a sentient being. Finally, Mann argues that his and other ALF actions are not truly harmful because they do not harm life. Though these justifications are not identical, they all follow a pattern of language reinterpretation.
Another theme that emerges from these cases is the reference to a higher moral power. For Paul Hill, this power was God’s word as interpreted from scripture. Quoting biblical citations which assert that God’s law must be followed above that of men, Hill posits that though his actions may have violated the rule of the state, they did not violate the will of God, and were therefore justified. Similarly, when asked about the illegality of his actions, Keith Mann maintains that there is a higher ethical code which one must follow above all else. As his actions were consistent with this code, they were ultimately justified.
Consequentialist arguments are also apparent throughout the discourses of the individuals discussed in these cases. Shelly Shannon avows that direct action is not only legitimate, but also necessary as it is the only effective means to prevent abortion. Likewise, animal activist Walter Bond claims that any type of action which prevents the cruelty against animals is valuable. These justifications see success as a rationale in and of itself.
Yet another argument which is prevalent in Army of God and ALF justifications is that of the “lesser evil”. Walter Bond argues that there are certain situations in which a lesser evil (force and destruction) must be used to combat a greater one (animal cruelty). Such a situation is not desirable, but it occurs nonetheless. Like Walter Bond, Paul Hill of the Army of God writes that self-defense (or extended self-defense) can sometimes call for the use of violence.
The final major common theme which emerged from the four cases was historical comparisons. Shelly Shannon and Walter Bond both use comparisons with historical heroes and villains to construct both themselves and their opponents within a certain moral framework. While Bond compares human animal exploitation with slavery and the ALF with slavery abolitionists, Shannon relates abortion practitioners and the American government with Hitler and his infamous Nazi regime and the Army of God with Nazi resistance groups. By creating links between themselves and groups which now have a great deal of public support, the ALF and Army of God attempt to situate themselves as freedom fighters, rather than terrorists. This is of course the ultimate justification for violence; surely, no one would object to the murder of Adolf Hitler if it meant saving millions of lives and the removal of an evil and dangerous person. Similarly, no one would object to the destruction of slave owners’ property if it was necessary to abolish slavery.
CONCLUSION
According to the findings in the cases discussed above, the only major distinction between how the ALF and the Army of God justify their use of force is theology, or religion. While the Army of God uses biblical and faith based arguments for violence, the ALF does not. Thus, with the exception of theological arguments, the Army of God does not seem to use particularly unique or original rationalization approaches despite its contradiction of being a murderous pro-life group. Based on these findings, we might expect other terrorist groups to share similar justifications for violence, however, as the current study is a qualitative examination of only four cases, further research must be undertaken to test this hypothesis. Once we have a richer and more generalizable understanding of the ways in which terrorist groups rationalize violence, we can potentially use this information to develop counter-terrorist strategies and policies.
REFERENCES
Animal Liberation Front. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 18, 2011, from Animal Liberation Front: (http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm)
Bandura, A. (2004). Role of selective moral disengagement in terrorism and counterterrorism. In F. Moghaddam, & A. Marsella, Understanding Terrorism: Psychological Roots, Consequences and Interventions (pp. 121-150). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Bray, M., & Bray, J. (2009, January 1). Tiller's Unheeded Warning: The Shelley Shannon Story . The Shelley Shannon Story . Retrieved November 29, 2011, from (http://www.scottroeder.org/warning.pdf)
Bond, W. (2011, February 9). FAQ's. Support Walter Bond. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from http://supportwalter.org/Articles/2011/11-02-09_FAQs.htm
Hill, P. J., & Leake, A. (2007). Mix my blood with the blood of the unborn: the writings of Paul Jennings Hill. Salt Lake City, UT: Millennial Mind Pub.
Hill, P. (n.d.). I Shot An Abortionist - Short version. Army of God - Pro-Life Virginia. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from
(http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot)
Jackman, Mary (2002). “Violence in Social Life” Annual Review of Sociology 28:387-415
Jefferis, J. (2011). Armed for Life: the Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States . Santa Barbara: Praeger .
Krueger, Alan and Jitka Maleckova (2003). “Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is there a Causal Connection?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17:119-144.
Mann, K. (n.d.). Keith Mann. From Dusk 'til Dawn. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from (http://www.fromdusktildawn.org.uk/km)
Sackur, S. (2007). Interview with Keith Mann [Television series episode]. In HardTalk . London: BBC
Shannon, S. (n.d.). A Response: By Shelley Shannon . Army of God – Pro-Life Virginia. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from
(http://www.armyofgod.com/ShelleyResponse)
Shannon, S. (n.d.). Shelley Shannon - Toward the Use of Force. Army of God - Pro-Life Virginia. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from
(http://www.armyofgod.com/ShelleyForce)
Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
Aylish Cotter
Aylish Cotter is a U3 Sociology major at McGill University. Though her research interests span across a wide range of topics, she is particularly interested in social conflict and social deviance. After graduation, she hopes to pursue graduate studies in social work.
by Aylish Cotter
Abstract
Terrorism is a pervasive strategy which lends itself to an incredibly diverse assortment of individuals, groups and causes. Though the backgrounds and motivations of those who employ these tactics may have very little in common, the personal justifications and rationales for their methods are not necessarily entirely distinct (Bandura, 2003). This paper explores if and how a terrorist group’s mandate affects its members’ individual justifications and neutralizations of the violence they employ. Using a comparative case study analysis, it examines the similarities and differences in justificatory techniques of members of the Army of God and Animal Liberation Front (two similarly structured single-issue terrorist organizations). Specifically, it explores whether or not the Army of God, a ‘pro-life’ anti-abortion terrorist group, uses unique justificatory techniques in accounting for the contradiction of using violence (especially fatal violence) to fight for the pro-life cause. Findings indicate that while some differences exist between individual rationales, the groups share surprisingly similar justificatory techniques.
Terrorism is a widespread global phenomenon that manifests itself in a variety of ways and is employed for equally diverse reasons. Though the motivations of terrorist groups differ a great deal, research has suggested that the justifications for illegal (and often violent) actions may not be so different from one another (Bandura, 2003). This paper explores if and how a terrorist group’s mandate and cause affects individual justifications for force and illegal action. Specifically, it utilizes a comparative case study method to examine similarities and differences in how the Army of God and the Animal Liberation Front (two similarly structured terrorist groups with very different mandates) employ rationalization techniques to justify their actions. Do Army of God (a ‘pro-life’ group) activists employ specific justifications for their use of (murderous) violence to reconcile the contradiction between their aims and actions? Are their rationales qualitatively different from the rationales adopted by members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)? By answering these questions, this paper will contribute to a greater understanding of the interaction between ideology and violence in the context of terrorism.
According to Bandura (2003), individuals and groups who use violence as a means of achieving a goal (namely terrorists and terrorist groups) do not do so because they lack a sense of morality, but rather because they practice moral disengagement. The process of moral disengagement includes (but is not limited to) moral justifications, advantageous comparisons (comparing one’s actions to those of a conventionally praised hero), euphemistic language and displacement of responsibility. The mechanisms of moral disengagement as proposed by Bandura are hardly new; in many ways they resemble the justificatory techniques in Sykes and Matza’s Neutralization Theory (1957). Though both Bandura and Sykes and Matza’s theories provide an important theoretical framework within which we can place the neutralization of illegal and violent behaviors as practiced by individuals, they do not discuss the interaction between a group’s goals and the justifications for their means. Indeed, Neutralization Theory was originally developed to explain delinquency, and thus does not have any direct or immediate applications to terrorism, let alone the interaction between terrorist goals and justifications for the means. To understand how an organization’s mandate affects individual justificatory techniques and responses, we must closely examine how individual members of terrorist groups perceive and justify their actions.
METHODOLOGY
This paper employs a comparative case study analysis to explore whether or not the Army of God employs unique rationalizations to legitimize the contradictory nature of their acts. I examine the discourse of four activists: two members of the Army of God, and two from the Animal Liberation front. The Animal Liberation Front was selected as a reference group for a few reasons. First, like the Army of God, it is a single issue terrorist group, meaning that it exists to fight a specific issue. Second, the Army and ALF share a similar leaderless structure with no hierarchies, cells, training camps, or other formalized structures. These close similarities reduce potential confounding elements as they eliminate the possibility that specific organizational structures influence individual rationales for violence; that is, any major differences in neutralization techniques cannot be attributable to structure or category of terrorism.
The individuals studied here were selected based on criminal conviction of a violent act related to the Army and ALF, and, on available information (personal testimonials, letters, publications, etc.). As the individuals discussed in this paper employ a multitude of overlapping justifications (justifications which overlap with those of others in their respective organizations), this case study will examine those justifications which are reoccurring and which are part of a broader validation. In other words, I will not list every biblical account of violence as used by members of the Army of God, but rather, note some of the more fundamental rationales which appear in their personal discourses. The justifications found in each case will be compared and contrasted with other justifications in order to understand how ideological differences affect personal rationales and justifications for violence.
DEFINING TERRORISM
Terrorism is one of the most complex social phenomena to emerge in the last century. As it is subject to culture, context and perspective, defining it as a coherent practice presents a number of challenges. Indeed, over 100 diplomatic and scholarly definitions exist (Krueger, 2003). As I am examining two groups which have been defined as terrorist by the United States government, I will use their official definition. According to the U.S Department of State, terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” (cited from Krueger, 2003). This definition is not perfect; indeed no definition is. Nonetheless, I believe it provides a capacious and yet adequately restrictive conception of terrorism, particularly in the context of the subject matter at hand.
DEFINING VIOLENCE
Though less contentious and amorphous than terrorism, the definition of violence is also subject to some disagreement amongst individuals. Developing a working definition of violence is especially important when discussing the Army of God and the Animal Liberation Front as it is within this definition that members of these groups justify their actions. That is, by constructing their own understanding of violence, proponents of these groups are able to label their actions as non-violent. According to Jackman, violence can be defined as “actions that inflict, threaten, or cause injury. Actions may be corporal, written, or verbal. Injuries may be corporal, psychological, material, or social.”. (2002 p. 405). This definition may in fact be too inclusive. Embezzlement often causes material harm, but it is not generally classified as violent. I believe that Jackman’s definition can be enhanced if we add that the action in question must carry some form of physical aggression. Such aggression can include direct contact, or the use of technologies which cause physical harm. Both groups to be examined utilize aggression and violence, though with different goals and outcomes. The Army of God uses aggression to cause corporal and material harm, while the Animal Liberation Front uses it to inflict material damage exclusively. While this difference is an important one, it does not change the fact that both groups utilize aggression and violence to further their aims.
THE ARMY OF GOD
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled that no state could restrict a women’s right to an abortion, thereby legalizing the procedure. The decision provoked a widespread protest in the form of what is now called the pro-life movement. Despite some minor victories (such as the reduction of public funding for abortion), overall, the movement continues to be marked by failure. It is out of this dejection and lack of success that the Army of God emerged.
The Army of God is a loosely organized, American anti-abortion terrorist group. Hailing from different parts of the country and sharing different (Christian) backgrounds, members are united by a single idea: abortion is murder, and therefore it must be eradicated by any means necessary (Jefferis, 2011). The “any means necessary” precept of the group (and how it is justified) is of particular interest to this paper. Over the years, members who identify with the Army have committed a host of violent (and sometimes lethal) acts. Because of the distinctly unorganized nature of the group, it is hard to account for the precise number of violent acts committed by its’ members. However, from what we know, affiliates of the Army have been responsible for approximately 10 deaths since 1993. The victims are a mix of abortion doctors and employees who worked at abortion clinics (nurses, receptionists, security guards) (Jefferis, 2011). Members have also been charged with several counts of arson as well as use of butyric acid for property destruction, attempted murder, clinic bombings, and a numerous other acts. Thus, the Army of God presents a very real and serious threat to both the safety and rights of individuals involved in, or seeking, reproductive health care.
The Army of God is a challenging group to define. Unlike more “traditional” terrorist networks, there is no official leadership, no hierarchical structure, no cells and no collaboration in attacks; essentially, there is very little organization within the group. However, there are elements of the group’s structure which would suggest that its similarity to an army is not in name alone. For example, most of the members are connected by loose personal ties, many of which are facilitated online. Through these relationships, affiliates encourage and enable one another by offering practical advice for executing violent and illegal acts. Additionally, members work off of each other’s ideas and justifications for murder and violence. The group also publishes official literature which serves as manifestos, offering justifications and practical information for murder, building a bomb, and so forth. Finally, the group holds an annual “White Rose Banquet”, which commemorates “Prisoners of Christ”, or those who are currently serving time for anti-abortion violence. What is especially interesting about the Army of God is the apparent contradiction between their beliefs and actions. They are pro-life, meaning that they support an individual’s (born or unborn) right to life, yet they strive to commit violent, life-threatening acts. Understanding the mechanisms by which members are able to justify their position and neutralize this glaring contradiction requires a thorough investigation of the rationales of the members of the Army of God.
THE ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT
Though their membership demographics and ideologies are radically different, the ALF and the Army of God share many structural characteristics. Like the Army, the ALF is a non-hierarchical organization in which members are united by an idea. According to the ALF’s website, “Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.” (ALF, date unknown). These guidelines include the liberation of animals from abusive situations, the infliction of economic damage on those who profit from animal exploitation, the importance of revealing animal related atrocities, and taking all necessary precautions to prevent the harming of life.
In these guidelines, we see a fundamental distinction between the two organizations: while the Army of God justifies killing and harming people the ALF does not. However, that is not to say the group’s mandate and actions do not present a contradiction. Despite claiming to be wholly non-violent, the ALF has been responsible for multiple bombings of laboratories, arson, property damage and a host of other economically harmful acts. Indeed, the ALF is non-violent, so long as violence is strictly the intentional physical harm of living beings. However, that is not how violence has been defined earlier in this paper, nor does such a definition adhere to more conventional and widespread understandings of violence.
The following section explores the justificatory discourses of Paul Hill and Shelly Shannon (of the Army of God) as well as Walter Bond and Keith Mann (of the Animal Liberation Front).
FINDINGS
Case 1: Paul Hill of the Army of God
In 1994, Paul Hill was convicted for the murder of Dr. John Britton and Dr. Britton’s bodyguard, James Barrett. Though executed in 2003, Hill has left behind a great deal of literature which describes both the process which led him to shoot and kill Britton and Barrett and his justifications for doing so. As a devout Christian, most of Hill’s validations for the use of illegal force were theologically based. To address the moral issues surrounding murder, Hill frequently cites the Sixth Commandment in his various personal publications and testimonials. He posits that though the common translation of this commandment is “thou shall not kill”, it should more accurately be understood as “thou shall not murder”. As such, this commandment does not necessarily condemn killing, just (immoral) murder. And, as “some killing is evil, while some are good and necessary” and some sins are more heinous than others (Hill, 2003), Hill is able to reconcile killing abortion doctors and clinic employees with the Sixth Commandment. Hill also extends the meaning of the Sixth Commandment from not murdering to not consciously preventing murder. In other words, according to Hill, the Sixth Commandment demands that one cannot knowingly allow murder without at least attempting to prevent it.
According to Hill, one of the contexts in which killing is morally correct is in self-defense, or defense of another. He refers to a story involving Abraham having to use violent force in order to save his nephew, Lot. Hill writes “The circumstances described in Genesis 14 required Abraham to leave his place of residence, and execute an attack that he knew would involve lethal force. Since he used the means necessary, under the circumstances, to save Lot, his actions were not only moral, they were positively praiseworthy, and resulted in his receiving God’s blessing through Melchizedek (a type of Christ)”. Hill argues that in some contexts, the use of lethal force is necessary in order to fulfill one’s obligations to God.
Another major justificatory theme which emerges from Hill’s book and testimonials is related to the law. Hill posits that though his actions were illegal in the eyes of the state, they were not necessarily sinful. He cites the biblical cases in which various individuals (the most prominent being Jesus) violated laws to perform the work of God. Hill also quotes Acts to further justify defiance (“we must obey God rather than men” Acts 5:29). He notes that “When the government has sanctioned mass murder, and thousands are being slaughtered each day, it is immoral to avoid the subject of using the means necessary to defend these people, or to stress submission to those who forbid this protection. God will hold those who have served as teachers during the abortion holocaust, and who have failed to maintain this duty, to special account” (Hill, 2003). Thus, Hill does not need to neutralize his violation of the law because he believes that he answers to a higher order.
In sum, Hill attempts to reconcile the apparent contradiction between his pro-life beliefs and his murderous actions by providing biblical precedence and reasoning. He states that there are some cases in which lethal force is biblically (and thus morally) sanctioned, and that in these situations, it is not only excusable, but righteous to use force. Furthermore, though prohibited by the laws of man, Hill’s actions are not illegal in the eyes of God, and thus, are legally and morally justified.
Case 2: Shelly Shannon of Army of God
In August of 1993, Shelly Shannon shot Dr. George Tiller in both arms, maiming him. She was subsequently convicted of attempted murder and is currently serving a prison sentence for both the aforementioned crime and several counts of arson. Though not as prolific as Hill, Shannon has also produced ample literature which describes her justifications for the use of force against abortion doctors and clinics. Shannon’s justifications can be typified as theological, pragmatic/consequentialist and historical.
Like all members of the Army of God, Shannon’s reasons for the use of force are largely theological. In The Shelly Shannon Story, Shannon argues that saving the life of the unborn child is analogous to preserving belief in God, as children are made in the image of God. So, as one is defending much more than just human life, there is “no denying the justifiability of the use of force”(2009). Shannon also justifies her use of force by comparing her actions (and the actions of other Army members before her) with what she believes Jesus would have done in her situation. In “Toward the Use of Force”, Shannon describes a major turning point in her pro-life career:
“One nice day I was standing out in my garden, using the hose to water things and enjoying the sun. I wondered to myself: If Jesus were walking the earth today as a man, what would He do about abortion? What came to mind was Jesus casting out them that sold in the temple, overturning their tables ("vandalism?"), saying, "How dare you make merchandise of my Father's temple."
Shannon asserts that the use of force is morally justified because Jesus (and thus, by extension, God) engaged in force to confront unjust circumstances. She compares her actions (particularly her vandalizing of clinics) with those of Jesus. The logic here is that if Jesus not only condones, but also performs such action in the face of anti-Christian practices, then so can members of the Army of God.
Shannon also provides more practical and pragmatic justifications for her actions which are dependent on moral justifications. Shannon’s views on the practical nature of the use of force are articulated by Michael and Jane Bray in The Shelly Shannon Story. According to a summary of the list prepared by the Brays, the use of force: “combines protest with successful rescue, is the most effective method of accomplishing the urgent goal of saving children threatened with imminent death, expresses the very highest regard for the safety of the child/victim” and, when practiced covertly, “is particularly advantageous as it permits the shortage in numbers of rescuers to exert a greater number of missions” (Jefferis, 2011). Thus, for Shannon, the use of force is justified at least in part because of its relative effectiveness in preventing abortion. Indeed, in “A Response”, Shannon writes that she believes that picketing and peaceful protest can do some good, however, such actions are simply inadequate for achieving the cause. What is necessary, according to Shannon, is force.
The final major theme in Shannon’s writings on the use of force is historical. That is, Shannon often relates the work of the Army of God to that of more famous and respected individuals who have opposed institutionalized “evil”. For example, in “Toward the Use of Force”, Shannon describes how she “began to compare abortion to the Nazi holocaust.” In that same publication, Shannon writes:
“Can we really stop murderers like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or abortionists, by voting right? By educating people? I pictured Christians blocking access to an extermination facility in Hitler's Germany. Maybe they would save some lives, but they would soon be removed and dealt with, and the killing would continue. Now if someone were to bomb those gas chambers...”
In this passage, Shannon compares those who condone abortion with a historical figure and group who the vast majority of people would label as “evil”. In doing so, she re-constructs herself and the Army of God as heroic freedom fighters battling injustice in the face of severe repercussions. Furthermore though the name was not created by Shannon, the Army of God hosts an annual “White Rose Banquet”, named after the White Rose society in (a non-violent intellectual resistance group in Nazi Germany).
Like Hill, Shannon uses biblical precedent and extensions of pre-existing theology to reconcile her use of force against abortion providers and clinics. Shannon also offers a consequentialist argument for violence: violent tactics are effective and produce a desirable end, thus violence as a mean is permissible. Violence is acceptable because no form of peaceful protest has proven to be as successful. Finally, Shannon relates the Army of God’s battle against legalized abortion with Nazi resistance groups. In doing so, Shannon relates the Army of God’s struggle with that of Nazi resistance groups, thus positioning herself as a hero rather than a terrorist.
Case 3: Walter Bond of ALF
In 2010, Walter Bond was arrested for the arsons of a sheepskin factory in Denver, a leather factory in Utah, and a Utah restaurant which sold Foie Gras. A longtime vegan, Walter is a self-proclaimed member of the Animal Liberation Front. Like members of the Army of God, he thoroughly believes in the legitimacy and necessity of his actions, and therefore offers several justifications for these actions. Such justifications include the re-interpretation of language, the lesser evil argument, historical comparisons, and finally, a consequentialist rationale for illegal force.
In a FAQ publication put forth by the ALF, Walter Bond discusses both the need and justifications for the use of force. First, and perhaps most importantly, Bond asserts that his actions, such as arson, are not violent as violence “cannot be inflicted upon a piece of property…[it] can only be visited upon sentient life” (2011). Thus, property destruction is not an act of violence, but rather, an act of destruction. By re-constructing the meaning of violence, Bond and other proponents of the ALF are able to understand their behaviors as non-violent protest.
In this same document, Bond also presents readers with a “lesser evil” approach to fighting animal cruelty, arguing that there are times when force can be “used for the greater good” (2011). To support his case, Bond discusses a scenario in which a Good Samaritan intervenes in the violent rape of a woman. He argues that though this savior used force, he/she was justified in doing so as they were acting to defend another. Such a situation, Bond argues, is not unlike an ALF member using force to safely liberate innocent animals from immediate violence.
Another justification found in the FAQ document written by Bond is a historical one. Like Shannon, Bond relates ALF’s plight with other historical struggles which are conventionally viewed as just. When confronted with the question of the illegality of some of his actions, Bond writes “how would it have been possible to be an abolitionist in the days of slavery and to not support the Underground Railroad. That would be patently ridiculous. It bears mentioning that not all abolitionists were part of the Underground Railroad but certainly none were against it.” (2011). By drawing comparisons between his work and the work of slavery abolitionists in the United States, Bond suggests that he is clearly morally justified in breaking the law, just as proponents of the Underground Railroad were justified in breaking laws of the time.
Finally, Bond’s literature presents a consequentialist argument for the use of force in the liberation of animals. He maintains that “Anything that stops animals from being murdered and/or stops their oppressors is of value” (2011). As force is often effective in preventing the immediate harm of animals being raised for food, fur, science or entertainment, it is also justifiable.
Case 4: Keith Mann of ALF
Keith Mann is an ALF activist who has been involved in a number of direct action operations, including acts of arson, raids, and other forms of property destruction. His convictions include attacking the home of a fox hunter, possessing incendiary devices, conspiring for burglary, and other actions (Mann). His justifications for his violent and/or illegal actions can be classified as such: last resort, lesser evil, and higher moral law.
In an interview on BBC’s Hardtalk, Mann explains ALF violence and illegal action as necessities to the ALF cause. He claims that “we’re not going to achieve anything by writing letters” and that “the most important actions to raise these issues [animal exploitation] tend to be illegal”. Additionally, he notes that “our right to peaceful protest has been taken away” (Mann, 2008). In another interview, when discussing his first direct action operation (which involved stealing a neighbor’s mistreated rabbit), Mann says “she wasn’t going to get her life back by any other way other than me rescuing her”. Thus, Mann justifies his, and other ALF actions as a last resort, or the only effective means of achieving ends. Peaceful protest and lobbying has not and does not work, and thus more serious measures must be taken to both prevent the immediate harm of animals and bring the subject of animal cruelty to the forefront.
In that same interview, when confronted with the question of property destruction causing harm, Mann argues that actions which harm “inanimate objects” are negligible in the grand scheme of things and that they can scarcely be considered truly harmful (Mann, 2008). He continues to say that “there are bigger issues, there are things we should be discussing that are far more important, which is the damage that is being caused to life”. In some ways, Mann’s argument for the use of violence against non-sentient beings/objects is similar to Bond’s in that he contends that violence can be perpetrated against inanimate objects. However, because he acknowledges the harm caused by these actions, but argues that such harm is quite minor when compared to the importance of the issue, this rationale is more appropriately labeled as a “lesser evil” approach.
Mann’s final argument for the use of illegal action and force is one of a higher moral law. In an online interview, when asked about the fact that many of his actions have been illegal, Mann asserts that “there’s a higher moral law that we have to pay attention to” (Mann, 2009). In other words, he believes that the illegal status of some ALF actions is irrelevant as there is a greater ethical code which must be followed.
DISCUSSION
Despite differences in demographics, ideologies, and even methods (corporal vs. non-corporal violence), members of the Army of God and Animal Liberation Front share remarkable similarities in the way they justify their actions. Re-interpretations of language, discussion of a higher moral power, consequentialist and lesser evil arguments, and historical comparisons are all employed by the ALF and Army of God proponents discussed in the above case studies.
The re-interpretation of language is a theme that appears in justifications discussed by Paul Hill, Walter Bond, and, to a certain extent, Keith Mann. Hill asserts that the Sixth Commandment specifically condemns “murder” and that this subtle distinction in language allows for killing under certain circumstances. Alternatively, Bond asserts that bombing buildings and other forms of property destruction is not violence, because violence can only be defined as an act with harms a sentient being. Finally, Mann argues that his and other ALF actions are not truly harmful because they do not harm life. Though these justifications are not identical, they all follow a pattern of language reinterpretation.
Another theme that emerges from these cases is the reference to a higher moral power. For Paul Hill, this power was God’s word as interpreted from scripture. Quoting biblical citations which assert that God’s law must be followed above that of men, Hill posits that though his actions may have violated the rule of the state, they did not violate the will of God, and were therefore justified. Similarly, when asked about the illegality of his actions, Keith Mann maintains that there is a higher ethical code which one must follow above all else. As his actions were consistent with this code, they were ultimately justified.
Consequentialist arguments are also apparent throughout the discourses of the individuals discussed in these cases. Shelly Shannon avows that direct action is not only legitimate, but also necessary as it is the only effective means to prevent abortion. Likewise, animal activist Walter Bond claims that any type of action which prevents the cruelty against animals is valuable. These justifications see success as a rationale in and of itself.
Yet another argument which is prevalent in Army of God and ALF justifications is that of the “lesser evil”. Walter Bond argues that there are certain situations in which a lesser evil (force and destruction) must be used to combat a greater one (animal cruelty). Such a situation is not desirable, but it occurs nonetheless. Like Walter Bond, Paul Hill of the Army of God writes that self-defense (or extended self-defense) can sometimes call for the use of violence.
The final major common theme which emerged from the four cases was historical comparisons. Shelly Shannon and Walter Bond both use comparisons with historical heroes and villains to construct both themselves and their opponents within a certain moral framework. While Bond compares human animal exploitation with slavery and the ALF with slavery abolitionists, Shannon relates abortion practitioners and the American government with Hitler and his infamous Nazi regime and the Army of God with Nazi resistance groups. By creating links between themselves and groups which now have a great deal of public support, the ALF and Army of God attempt to situate themselves as freedom fighters, rather than terrorists. This is of course the ultimate justification for violence; surely, no one would object to the murder of Adolf Hitler if it meant saving millions of lives and the removal of an evil and dangerous person. Similarly, no one would object to the destruction of slave owners’ property if it was necessary to abolish slavery.
CONCLUSION
According to the findings in the cases discussed above, the only major distinction between how the ALF and the Army of God justify their use of force is theology, or religion. While the Army of God uses biblical and faith based arguments for violence, the ALF does not. Thus, with the exception of theological arguments, the Army of God does not seem to use particularly unique or original rationalization approaches despite its contradiction of being a murderous pro-life group. Based on these findings, we might expect other terrorist groups to share similar justifications for violence, however, as the current study is a qualitative examination of only four cases, further research must be undertaken to test this hypothesis. Once we have a richer and more generalizable understanding of the ways in which terrorist groups rationalize violence, we can potentially use this information to develop counter-terrorist strategies and policies.
REFERENCES
Animal Liberation Front. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 18, 2011, from Animal Liberation Front: (http://animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/WhatisALF.htm)
Bandura, A. (2004). Role of selective moral disengagement in terrorism and counterterrorism. In F. Moghaddam, & A. Marsella, Understanding Terrorism: Psychological Roots, Consequences and Interventions (pp. 121-150). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Bray, M., & Bray, J. (2009, January 1). Tiller's Unheeded Warning: The Shelley Shannon Story . The Shelley Shannon Story . Retrieved November 29, 2011, from (http://www.scottroeder.org/warning.pdf)
Bond, W. (2011, February 9). FAQ's. Support Walter Bond. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from http://supportwalter.org/Articles/2011/11-02-09_FAQs.htm
Hill, P. J., & Leake, A. (2007). Mix my blood with the blood of the unborn: the writings of Paul Jennings Hill. Salt Lake City, UT: Millennial Mind Pub.
Hill, P. (n.d.). I Shot An Abortionist - Short version. Army of God - Pro-Life Virginia. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from
(http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot)
Jackman, Mary (2002). “Violence in Social Life” Annual Review of Sociology 28:387-415
Jefferis, J. (2011). Armed for Life: the Army of God and Anti-Abortion Terror in the United States . Santa Barbara: Praeger .
Krueger, Alan and Jitka Maleckova (2003). “Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is there a Causal Connection?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17:119-144.
Mann, K. (n.d.). Keith Mann. From Dusk 'til Dawn. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from (http://www.fromdusktildawn.org.uk/km)
Sackur, S. (2007). Interview with Keith Mann [Television series episode]. In HardTalk . London: BBC
Shannon, S. (n.d.). A Response: By Shelley Shannon . Army of God – Pro-Life Virginia. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from
(http://www.armyofgod.com/ShelleyResponse)
Shannon, S. (n.d.). Shelley Shannon - Toward the Use of Force. Army of God - Pro-Life Virginia. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from
(http://www.armyofgod.com/ShelleyForce)
Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.
Aylish Cotter
Aylish Cotter is a U3 Sociology major at McGill University. Though her research interests span across a wide range of topics, she is particularly interested in social conflict and social deviance. After graduation, she hopes to pursue graduate studies in social work.