Revolutionary terrorism is a form of terrorism where the practitioners intend to totally abolish a political system and replace it with new structures. It is the application of force in countering revolutionaries. An example of a revolutionary terrorist group is the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). I strongly believe the group is composed of revolutionary terrorists because of its main goal. The group aims at eliminating the capitalist regime and replace it with a Marxist-socialist one, making it a revolutionary terrorist group.
Arguably, the colonists who revolted against the British during the American Revolution were terrorists. This is because they wanted to abolish the British regime that was characterized by high taxation and replace it with a new system of self-governance that promoted equity. This perfectly suits the definition of a revolutionary terrorist group.
I believe the death of Osama Bin Laden has negatively affected Al Qaeda while enhancing Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). For example, it is clear that the morale of the terrorist has been adversely affected, making the group’s terrorist capacity to decline. Al Qaida's operations have been decentralized, making it easier for the counterterrorism authorities to decline its dominance.
I believe Marc Sageman’s viewpoint about the current operational capabilities of Al Qaeda closely aligns with mine. As he notes, currently the terrorist threat never arises from Al Qaida, but rather radicalized individuals and groups that organize and plot crimes through the internet.
First, a witness is likely to identify the same person he/she identified in an earlier line-up even if that person is not the perpetrator. This is because the witnesses are unable to reconsider their initial understanding as a result of the reconstruction of their memory. Second, memories are influenced by retelling, making it hard for witnesses to offer a neutral fashion (Engelhardt, 1999). Through tailoring stories to listeners, witnesses distort the initial formation of memory due to bias.
I think Miranda warnings should not be required in situations characterized by imminent danger to a large number of people such as suspected terrorist attacks. Further, Miranda rules should not be required in situations during routine booking. In situations where a suspect mentions something that is likely to connect him/her to a crime, then Miranda warnings should not be required.
References
Engelhardt, L. (1999). The problem with eyewitness testimony: Commentary on a talk by George Fisher and Barbara Tversky. STAN. J. LEGAL STUD., 1, 25-27.
