| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
134175
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
John Brown is usually not considered to have been a terrorist, and even recent analyses of his activities consider him to be a guerrilla fighter or insurgent in his activities in Kansas. Brown, however, meets the criteria of a terrorist more than a guerrilla fighter when his activities in the Kansas Territory are considered. His raid on Harpers Ferry, however, is more in line with guerrilla operations or insurgent activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
155182
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Risk sensitivity combined with prospect theory and framing concepts can be quite useful in explaining which individuals and groups can become radicalised and more likely to resort to terrorism to achieve their political and economic objectives. Such a radicalisation can occur with groups willing to use violence for major gains and for groups seeking to prevent significant losses of status or wealth. The Sikh uprising in the Punjab in the latter part of the twentieth century is an example of terrorism based not on poverty but as part of an effort to preserve or regain a relatively advantageous position. The Sikhs were in a somewhat advantageous situation in India but faced increasing challenges to their economic, political and social position in the Punjab and in India in general. The counterterrorism policies of the government contributed to the perception of threat that further radicalised the Sikh community.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
065986
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
|
| Description |
ix, 223p.
|
| Standard Number |
9781403966469
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 050197 | 303.625/LUT 050197 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
169912
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The decision in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project raised important issues about civil liberties in the United States (2010), including freedom of speech and freedom of association, in relation to U.S. foreign policy actions. While the decision has the potential to infringe on certain liberties, the decision itself was based on very limited information on the nature of terrorism, the foreign terrorist organizations involved, and the processes by which terrorist groups can be induced to peacefully re-enter domestic political systems. There are also concerns about what can be the arbitrary designation of groups as foreign terrorist organizations. These issues raise serious questions about the role of the Supreme Court in the overall political system and judgments in cases involving terrorism and foreign policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|