Robert Jay Matthews, the founder of the Order, a white-supremacist group, was killed on December 8, 1984. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had been in persistent manhunt for Matthews since November 24, 1984 after his escape under the custody of the FBI in Portland, Oregon. The fate of Matthews after long search ended after a 35 hours standoff period with the officials. Known for being a right-wing conservative, Matthews was a consistent violator of the law ever since. In the early 1977, Matthews very involved in extreme right-wing politics.
The influence of Matthews’s involvement in the National Alliance, a white-supremacists group had profoundly influenced his life. In late September 1983, Matthews formally invited members to his newly found group, The Order. Significantly influenced by the novel of William L. Pierce, the Turning Diaries, the group followed the narration of The Order’s objectives. Being profoundly influenced by the book, Matthews and his group turned to illegal fund -raising activities which include robberies and other violent crimes to in turn, disrupt the American economy.
After a series of crimes and the persistence of the FBI to capture Matthews and the other members of the Order, setting fire on Matthews hiding place ended The Order’s organization as a viable group. Although several other members remained in hiding after the incident, FBI forged ahead with eradicating all member of the Order. The campaign to eradicate The Order’s terror campaign was formalized in December 1984 when federal prosecutors from six states planned how to combat the organized crime of the group and other related affiliates.
On April 15, 1985, the Department of Justice organized a massive conspiracy case against the Order and by the end of April charged and indicted all but one of the organization’s members. The trail of the charged Order members is a classic example of disputing former members who became co-conspirators of the members. The defense insists that the credibility of the members is still questionable and their statements being that of fabricated lies. In the end, their statements became one of the most convincing evidence during the trial.
During the during of the 35-hour standoff against Matthews, agents set up the operation in front of the small cabin south of Coupeville, Washington with over 500 agents present. Matthews resisted and exchanged gun fire with the agents. The FBI decided to fire dozens of smoke grenades in attempt to force Matthews out, but Matthews was prepared to hold out the smoke wearing a protective mask. In agitation, the FBI fired several M-79 Starburst flares inside Matthews’s cabin setting hand grenades and much ammunition.
This initiated the fire of the cabin and Matthews insisted firing at the agents until he stopped, and was found dead after the fire. FBI worked in a progressive order. Maintaining capturing Matthews alive up until Matthews continuously resisted. The FBI has no choice but to uphold what they came for, and in the end resorted to firing up the cabin in attempt to force Matthews out of the house. This tactic proved to be an uncalculated one since Matthews, earlier in the stand-off was holding nothing back resisting arrest.
The attempt forcing FBI to resort to setting fire of the cabin was the last resort they could think of, and in the end, provided an avenue for many sympathizers to side with Matthews. FBI made a critical decision in possibly killing Matthews in the process, and that, like any other similar cases proves detrimental for the FBI. (Vohryzek-Bolden et al. , 2001) The FBI must maintain continuous efforts to catch the culprit alive. In the situation of Matthews, the FBI could have miscalculated the fact that Matthews can choose to stay in the house even with the fire
CRIMINALS OR TERRORISTS In the modern world, an additional stigma is branded on any criminal activity related to terrorism. The popular notion of terrorism as a gruesome tool employed by idealists to call attention on their ideas regardless of the victims has led to a distinct bias upon association. In a jury composed of twelve ordinary citizens, the likelihood of this bias permeating their decision is highly probable. Although committing a crime is a detestable act, jury sympathy upon the reason by which the crime was committed could prove to be vital in the sentencing process.
The attachment of a terrorist brand on a criminal could do nothing but to sway jury sympathy away from the offender. In comparison, a person would be more likely to sympathize more with a bank robber who robs a bank to obtain money for vital needs like food, housing or medicine, than for a criminal who robs a bank to obtain funds for terrorist activities. If that person were sitting in a jury, even though evidence leads to finding both defendants guilty, the difference would lie in how the offender would be made to pay for their crime, with the likelihood that the terrorist would be sentenced far heavier than the common criminal.
It would only then be ethical for the persecutor to attach a defendant’s radical leanings in court proceedings only if it pertains directly to the crime in question. If for example no direct connection exists, the persecutor would be guilty of introducing evidence meant to defame the defendant, not to persecute the crime. The evidence of stereotyping in the society is typical. It is know that not all men are governed with rational thinking, because many still considers the emotional aspect and the regards of sympathy and understanding.
In most defensive arguments, lawyers will try to sway the jury with argumentum ad misericordiam or the appeal to pity. Although in logic, it accounts as a fallacy to be persuaded, emotions of the people are very subjective, thus most jury trialing a case will hate accused terrorists for doing their crime and pardoned criminals out of their “justified” offense because of need. This accounts for both reality and practice we see today unless people are made to re-evaluate and re-define their way of thinking, this phenomena will continue to occur.
The motive to commit a crime is very subjective when taking into account the reason for doing such crimes- this accounts for reasoning beyond what logic justifies. It transcends from culture to culture, imbedded beliefs and other factors regarding how man thinks. USE OF PROFILERS Profiling criminals is just one way for the FBI to put into an organized database the criminals of the system. Much of the profiling system includes association of the gathered behavioral characteristics of suspected criminals and offenders.
In the case of using profiling in the Unabomber pursuit, the FBI was most of the time mislead by a terrorist apparently doing with his way to become undetected in the profiling system. (Chase, 2004) The FBI was unaware that someone as intelligent as the Unabomber purposely knows how to become under the radar of the profiling system. The investigation of the Unabomber became greatly dependent on behavioral profiling, the main reason why the Unabomber took much time in getting away with his deeds. This dependence of the FBI on the profiling system constitutes one of its inabilities to see that criminals and terrorists are getting smarter.
Even criminals today have an idea on how the FBI works, and that becomes a great problem for the FBI in doing its duties. HIGHER EDUCATION AND TERRORISM Higher education pertains to more opportunity to gather knowledge and quality education. Everyone is entitled to that privilege. Democracy in a country such the United States entails free education for all. In context with availability in the attainment of higher education, not only does the knowledge of the individual progress but also his or her level of reasoning and understanding of world issues and concerns.
James Russell Lowell once said, “It is not the insurrections of ignorance that are dangerous, but the revolts of intelligence”. Only the best institutions and universities in the country have a handful of men and women, who in the future will make a name in history. Most of which comes from pure intelligence, but the influence and the foundation of thinking and reasoning within these institutions is also critical in molding the individual. In most cases, great men with profound intelligence can pose a great danger in the society because of the great amass of knowledge they have and the ample reasoning ability to put that knowledge into use.
Even Albert Einstein was not aware that his invention of the atomic bomb can pose as one of the greatest threat to humankind. These cases proves that all men poses that level at which they can do harm to people and society. The problem is that officials consider only the “stereotyped” criminals, and most associated factors are borne out of societal or economic status. (Turchie & Puckett, 2007) But history defines most dangers in society to arise from intelligent men, those who understands things well and those who have an idea what to do, not just someone who needs to do it for some reason such as money or wealth.
Yes, indeed we have seen some of the most complex and destructive terrorism activities and crimes from people who had received the highest of educational attainment of IQ levels. (Stern, 2003) However, this should not be again a basis for another stereotype for criminals. Officials who uphold the law in any society must account all possible suspects, not judging from any standard category. This also entails not allowing prejudice to take place. Oftentimes officials would rule out a particular suspect because his high education and status in society does not quantify his need to commit any crime, but to some intelligent men it does apply.
Officials must maintain the same reasoning and thinking that all individual, no matter how high their education attainment is, nor how wealthy they are, are all subjected under the law. Mentioned a while ago is the critical role of educational institutions to mold individuals. This accounts that universities and colleges has the same responsibility just like other institutions to uphold freedom and societal consciousness. In this effort, education institutions allow students their freedom to organize, and to have their own reasoning to whatever philosophy they would support.
In the process, educational institutions grants diversified ideas of thinking without the appropriate measures to regulate them or constitute their beliefs and ideas. In any aspect of freedom, there is the sense of limitation each one should uphold – the right from wrong. Although morals and morality does not constitutionally applies strictly in the responsibilities of educational institutions, as one of the influential institutions of an individual, universities and colleges must be able to see to it that activities of such diversified groups does not inflict harm and peace in the society.
Under their wings, educational institutions can start to regulate and monitor any activities which if permitted and left alone, could be harmful for the society. Each step against the prevention of any security and peace issues shall need to start at the beginning. Universities and colleges are said to be the breeding ground of the future leaders and known men in history, it also entails the environment of people’s influence and behavior. The freedom which the higher education institutions grant, serve as the starting point of possible threat to human and societal harm. Reference
Alston Chase, A Mind for Murder: The Education of the Unabomber and the Origins of Modern Terrorism, 2004, ISBN 0-393-32556-3 Terry D. Turchie and Kathleen M. Puckett, Ph. D. , “Hunting the American Terrorist: The FBI’s War on Homegrown Terror,” 2007, ISBN 978-1933909349 Stern, Jessica. 2003. Terror in the Name Of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Vohryzek-Bolden, Miki, Olson-Raymer, Gayle, and Whamond, Jeff. 2001. Domestic Terrorism and Incident Management: Issues and Tactics. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas Publishing, Inc.