Legitimate use of military force against state-sponsored - Air University

34. See “Terrorism’s Grim Upsurge: New Attacks Test Reagan’s Will to Deliver Threatened
Response,” U. S. News & World Report, 22 September 1986, 32.
35. On questioning standard of ample evidence, see Edward A. Lynch, “International
Terrorism: The Search for a Policy,” Terrorism: An International Journal 9, no. 1 (1986): 19.
36. For a discussion of the standard insisted upon by some US senators for establishing
Soviet complicity with terrorism, see Lynch, 4-6. James McCartney and Owen Ullmann note that
lack of’ ‘hard evidence” was the reason given by an administration official as to why further
action against Libya was not taken. McCartney and Ullmann, “U.S. Is Said to Brace for Libya
Crisis,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 26 August 1986, 4. Libya also demanded that the United States
show “hard evidence.” “Libya Wants U.S. to Show Some Proof,” Alabama Journal-Montgomery
Advertiser, 31 August 1986, 16(A). See also Louis G. Fields, Jr., “The Third Annual Waldemar
A. Solf Lecture in International Law: Contemporary Terrorism and the Rule of Law,” Military
Law Review, no. 113 (Summer 1986): 13. Fields notes that ‘hard evidence” is what the
incredulous and apprehensive world will demand.
37. Karen DeYoung points out that “conclusive evidence” of Syrian involvement was cited
as justification for the break in diplomatic relations. DeYoung, “Britain Cuts Tics with Syria
over El Al Bombing Links: Hindawi Guilty; Damascus Reacts,” Washington Post, 25 October
1986, 1(A). The US asserted “conclusive evidence” of Libyan involvement in terrorism to
support the Libyan raid of April 1986. See State Department, “International Terrorism,” 1. See
also Robert Grant, “Terrorism: What Should We Do?” in Terrorism, ed. Steven Anzovin, The
Reference Shelf, vol. 58, no. 3 (New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1986), 163.
38. Sec Senate, State-Sponsored Terrorism, 92.
39. See William J. Casey, ‘International Terrorism: Potent Challenge to American
Intelligence,” address to Fletcher School Of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford,
Mass., 17 April 1985, reprinted in Vital Speeches 51, no. 23 (15 September 1985): 716; and
Robert C. McFarlane, “Terrorism and the Future of Free Society,’’ in American Bar Association
Committee on Law and National Security, Intelligence Report 7, no. 5 (May 1985): 7.
40. See “Terrorism’s Grim Upsurge,’’ 32; see also State Department, “International
Terrorism,’’ 1.
41. See Brian Michael Jenkins, “Military Force May Not Be Ruled Out,” Rand, 7103, Rand
Corp., Santa Monica, Calif., June 1985, 3.
42. See Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, Digest of United States Practice in
International Law, 1977, ed. John A. Boyd (Washington, D.C.: 1979), 150-51, State Department,
8960.
43. Ibid.
44. See Brian Michael Jenkins, “Combatting Terrorism Becomes a War,” Rand, 6988, Rand
Corp., Santa Monica, Calif., May 1984, 6.
45. Some officials and writers seek “irrefutable proof’ that links the Soviet Union to
terrorism. For a discussion of this point see Claire Sterling, The Terror Network: The Secret War
of International Terrorism (New York: Reader’s Digest Press, 1981), 291.
46. Garcia-Mora, 63.
47. George P. Shultz, ‘‘Terrorism in the Modern World,” Terrorism: An International Journal
7, no. 4 (1985): 445.
48. Casey, “Terrorism: Potent Challenge,” Vital Speeches, 716.
49. See Fields, 13; arid Walter Laqueur, “Reflections on Terrorism,” Foreign Affairs 65, no.
1 (Fall 1986): 98.