Terror Experts, Are They?

"I'm often amazed at some of the people who turn up in the media calling themselves 'terrorist experts'," Anthony Glees, professor of intelligence and security services at West London's Brunel University, told the Guardian on Tuesday, May 13.

After 9/11 governments, think-tanks and even media outlets were hungry for anyone who claims an expert opinion on the much-talked-about issue of terrorism.

Universities in both the US and Europe either revived near-forgotten courses in political violence or set up new ones.

Hundreds of lecturers stepped up to lay claim to specialist knowledge and the term "terrorologists" first appeared in the US.

David Miller, professor of sociology at Strathclyde University, cites the example of Evan Kohlman, an American "International Terrorism Consultant."

"He appears to have risen almost without trace," fumes Miller.

"With no expertise beyond an undergraduate law degree and an internship at a dubious think-tank, he has become a consultant to the US department of defense, the department of justice, the FBI, the Crown Prosecution Service, and Scotland Yard's SO-15 Counter Terrorism Command."

Even research into terrorism has grown prolifically since 9/11.

According to the Social Science Citation Index,whose database covers the world's leading journals of social sciences, there were barely more than 100 articles on the issue in 2001.

The figure had almost trebled by the following year and more than 2,300 citations were registered last year.

Witnesses

Self-accredited terrorologists even made their way to courts as witnesses in terror trials.

Last year, Kohlman gave expert evidence in a British court that helped convict Mohammed Atif Siddique for internet-related terrorism offences.

Miller, the sociology professor, questions the credibility of such testimonies and the independence of such terror specialists.

"Many of the expert witnesses to have appeared for the prosecutions have been associated with rightwing or pro-Zionist organizations," insists Miller, who is currently compiling a database on terrorologists.

"Under these circumstances, how can the expertise not be in some way contaminated?"

More worrying is that such testimonies are usually seen as irrefutable and factually correct evidence.

Professor Glees, who has several studies on intelligence issues in the UK, says that even the most impartial of experts can get it wrong.

"By its very nature, terrorism is shrouded in secrecy," he explains.

"The only way academics can get inside information is if they have extremely close links either to the intelligence services or to terror groups.

"And even then there have to be doubts about its accuracy as intelligence reports are often sketchy and contradictory."