Similar countries are often expected to respond to threats in similar ways. Nevertheless, in Europe alone, similar countries have responded significantly different to the threat of terrorism. The purpose of this thesis is to examine how strategic culture, based on five elements (dominant threat perception; core tasks of the armed forces; willingness to use force; civil-military relation, and public opinion) have influenced the role of the armed forces in domestic counterterrorism in Belgium and Sweden. Albeit previous research has addressed the role of the armed forces in domestic security and counterterrorism, it has not empirically conducted a systematic comparison of two countries with differing roles. Moreover, the theoretical explanations have been insufficient in explaining why some countries use their armed forces whilst others do not. Thus, by employing a comparative case study, utilizing a qualitative content analysis aimed at analysing strategic and defence documents, articles, and previous research, I sought to investigate how strategic culture have influenced the role of the armed forces in domestic counterterrorism between 2014-2020, something that has been largely neglected in previous research. The findings demonstrated differences in all five elements, indicating that strategic culture likely influence the role of the armed forces in Sweden and Belgium.

International security, and particularly the threat of terrorist attacks, remains to be one of the most concerning and debated political topics a decade after the September 11th attacks. In particular, the newly elected Obama administration is at a point where they have a chance to reformulate their response to terrorist threats. Traditionally, the US government has resorted to a "hard" style approach of preventive measures and detention of terror suspects. Typically these measures are carried out by the US federal agencies themselves; however the use of civilians in the form of military contractors has become more popular in recent years. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, an ally of the US has employed a radically different style in dealing with the threat of terrorism in their country. Their rehabilitation programs are part of an entire campaign that chooses a more human-based approach. This research analyzes the effectiveness of the Saudi Arabian program and the US non-governmental approaches to see if there are beneficial methods that can be adopted by the US in their traditional federal methods.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The competing values of national security and civil liberties have been contested as conflicting ideas during times of national emergencies and war, in which the canonical knowledge asserts that the temporary secession of civil liberties is sometimes necessary to protect national security. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack there has been increased pressure on the U.S. government to provide safety and security, which has required Americans to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms, leading to debates about whether liberty or security should be prioritized. The increasing popularization of securitization in post 9/11 discourse justified by a perpetual state of emergency via the War on Terror, has reinforced the racialization of reified "others," specifically Muslims or people who are perceived to be descendent from the Middle East. The conceptualization of Middle Easterners as 'terrorists' and 'threats' to be securitized has been constructed by political elites and media narratives to garner support for security measures leading to the diminished civil liberties of those stereotyped as "terrorists." Using the theoretical approach of racialized "othering" and the minority threat perception, this research seeks to analyze public opinion on counterterrorism policies when the race/ethnicity and ideological motivations of perpetrators in a hypothetical terrorist attack scenario are manipulated. To investigate this premise, an online survey experiment distributed through Amazon MTurk was conducted to gather public opinion data on counterterrorism policies. Regression analyses were conducted from the 314 respondents to evaluate support amongst various social groups for the counterterrorism policies and whether or not this support was affected by the presence of either American-born, White, men motivated by the teachings of far-right extremism or American-born, men of Middle Eastern descent motivated by the teachings of Islamic extremism. Respondents were asked to evaluate two counterterrorism policies, one that required ceding the civil liberties of the public at large, and the other required ceding the civil liberties of suspected terrorists specifically – which is also referred to as the 'punitive' policy throughout the research. Overall, respondents were more likely to support the policy requiring ceding civil liberties in general, than the punitive policy that would take away the civil liberties of suspected terrorist. When factoring in survey type, respondents in general were more likely to support the punitive policy when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey and were also the most likely to support the policy requiring the public to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. The willingness to cede civil liberties increased for Black and Asian respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey, while willingness to cede civil liberties decreased for White respondents taking the same survey. In general, conservatives were more likely to cede their civil liberties than liberals, and liberals were more likely to view counterterrorism policies as ineffective. When accounting for the effects of survey type on ideology, the results show that conservatives were the least likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey, while liberals were the most likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. / Master of Arts / This thesis explores the role of issue framing, and threat perception on terrorism and its effects on public perception of the liberty vs. security paradigm by way of support for counterterrorism policies. Specifically, this research aims to assess whether support for counterterrorism policies by social group (focusing on race and ideology) varies when the race/ethnicity and ideological motivations of the perpetrators are manipulated in a hypothetical terrorist attack scenario. In order to test this effect, a survey experiment was conducted to gather public opinion data on counterterrorism policies which emulated the liberty/security trade-offs within the Patriot Act. The survey was distributed through the online platform Amazon MTurk which garnered 314 responses. Regression analyses were conducted to evaluate support amongst various social groups for the counterterrorism policies and whether or not this support was affected by the presence of either American-born, White, men motivated by the teachings of far-right extremism or American-born, men of Middle Eastern descent motivated by the teachings of Islamic extremism. Using the theoretical approach of "othering" and the minority threat perception that contributes to desires for increased social controls and levels of punitiveness among the public, this research evaluates respondents' willingness to cede their own civil liberties as well as their support for punitive policies that take away the civil liberties of the perpetrators based on the survey/stimuli respondents received. Overall, respondents were more likely to support the policy requiring ceding civil liberties, than support the punitive policy that would take away the civil liberties of the perpetrators. When factoring in survey type, respondents in general were more likely to support the punitive policy when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey and were also the most likely to support the policy requiring the public to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. The willingness to cede civil liberties increased for Black and Asian respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey, while the willingness to cede civil liberties decreased for White respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey. In general, conservatives were more likely to cede their civil liberties than liberals, and liberals were more likely to view counterterrorism policies as ineffective. When accounting for the effects of survey type on ideology, the results show that conservatives were the least likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey, while liberals were the most likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey.

The threat from homegrown terrorism in the United States is called a new face of the threat from terrorism. The aim of this study is to empirically examine how the new threat from homegrown terrorism has been constructed in the American discourse. Furthermore it is interesting to examine how the construction relates to the American counterterrorism policy and possible consequences. This is done by using the theoretical framework of Copenhagen’s school of securitization. By using a discourse analysis, documents and speeches from the U.S. government are analysed to see how the threat from homegrown terrorism are constructed by using the securitization theory. This study concludes that the threat from homegrown terrorism is constructed by portraying it as an existential threat to the United States, it’s people and it’s collective identity. The construction has made it possible to undertake exceptional actions that may reduce the American citizens’ freedom in benefit for security.