Friday, December 01, 2006
Personal Terrorism
(4)
The Stalker enjoys the advantage. Only the Stalker knows what plans are being hatched versus the stalkee. The stalkee, on the other hand, must speculate. The situation very much resembles the relationship between the terrorist and the his victim: America must prepare for an almost infinite number of possible terrorist attacks, while the terrorist has only to pursue his defined objective. It follows that the victim is at a serious economic disadvantage in this case. To make the matter clearer, Bin Laden and his associates are so effective because they need only focus on a specific course of (certain) action, whereas Bin Laden's 'targets' must pay diffuse attention to an infinite number of possible attacks. It amounts to an economic nightmare for the defender, not to mention a practical nightmare. In other words the terrorist enjoys the advantage because he can focus rescources, whereas the victim must deploy rescources to cover a diffuse multitude of possibilities. The analogy is that of the relationship between a stilleto and human skin.
Stalkers resemble terrorists in that regard. Indeed, stalkers are terrorists. Stalkers are not generally recognized as terrorists because the 'victim' is only an individual and 'terrorism' is a relatively new idea. Stalkers are personal terrorists (tap). But 'personal terrorism' is not a recognized category in American Jurisprudence. Yet.
Not yet. I intend to change that.
The Stalker enjoys the advantage. Only the Stalker knows what plans are being hatched versus the stalkee. The stalkee, on the other hand, must speculate. The situation very much resembles the relationship between the terrorist and the his victim: America must prepare for an almost infinite number of possible terrorist attacks, while the terrorist has only to pursue his defined objective. It follows that the victim is at a serious economic disadvantage in this case. To make the matter clearer, Bin Laden and his associates are so effective because they need only focus on a specific course of (certain) action, whereas Bin Laden's 'targets' must pay diffuse attention to an infinite number of possible attacks. It amounts to an economic nightmare for the defender, not to mention a practical nightmare. In other words the terrorist enjoys the advantage because he can focus rescources, whereas the victim must deploy rescources to cover a diffuse multitude of possibilities. The analogy is that of the relationship between a stilleto and human skin.
Stalkers resemble terrorists in that regard. Indeed, stalkers are terrorists. Stalkers are not generally recognized as terrorists because the 'victim' is only an individual and 'terrorism' is a relatively new idea. Stalkers are personal terrorists (tap). But 'personal terrorism' is not a recognized category in American Jurisprudence. Yet.
Not yet. I intend to change that.
