Lone Wolf Terrorism in Legislation : A Legal Overview
that the FBI creates their term only further illustrates the issue . When the “ boots on the ground ” investigators try to work together , they often find that their policies with addressing lone wolf terrorism do not mesh , which ultimately causes confusion and possible investigative problems . Further exacerbating the situation , law enforcement must enforce law created by Congress and prosecuted by the DoJ , both organizations which also have different ideas of what lone wolf terrorism is .
These issues can be alleviated quickly by creating multi-agency groups who can meet to develop definitional standards which can be forwarded on to Congress and the larger DoJ to help guide them in their development of policies and laws . If society acknowledges that investigators from these organizations have the expertise and experience to help develop definitions , with input from academics and scholarly sources , then standardized definitions to be used in the development of legislation should not be that difficult to realize . These efforts do not imply separate meetings and conferences should be convened solely for this purpose but incorporating these issues into the regularly scheduled counter-terrorism conferences and multi-agency meetings already held regularly can start the process .
Conclusion
Currently , law enforcement at all levels is stretched thin . While conducting their daily patrol and enforcement duties , many officers and investigators are more and more on the “ front lines ” of Homeland Security . Communities expect officers to help federal agencies such as the FBI by reporting suspicions of terrorist behavior and working with federal agencies in terrorism investigations . Couple this with the current trend of prosecuting terrorists for lesser charges and the public can expect many of these individuals to return to society posing a threat ultimately doubling the potential burden on those very same officers who are already spread so thin .
This paper provides background on how policy and laws inadequately incorporated elements of lone wolf terrorism , creating problems for legislators , policymakers , and practitioners . The unfortunate conclusion , under current policy and methodologies , is that lone wolf terrorism will always be a reactive issue , not a proactive one . The present understanding of lone wolf terrorism cannot support the sense of urgency placed on practitioners by the public and policymakers to stop all threats . Future researchers need to be mindful of the limitations of past and current laws when conducting their investigations and analysis . Their research should focus on three main areas : Continuing to refine the definition of lone wolf terrorism , or working to eliminate this outdated description altogether , evaluating how current laws have been implemented with respect to lone wolf terrorism to determine their efficacy , and attempting to put lone wolf terrorism in context of other criminal and terrorism statutes .
19