Defining Terrorism

[Art]

It seems every protaganist in a conflict invariably labels their foe as terrorists with the intention of convincing their audience that their enemy has no legal or moral legitimacy.

The perjorative label "Terrorist" is undoubtedly one of the most overused words in the english language. A study by the US army in 1988 found there were 100 different definitions of terrorism in use at that time. Interestingly as these definitions were formulated by governments none of them included acts of violence perpetrated by states. The idea of state terrorism came later to demonise america's enemies on the world stage.

Eventually the US decided on a definition that says

"..activities that involve violent... <or life-threatening acts>... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ...<if domestic>...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States...<if international>...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..."

As Edward Peck the former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania who worked on definitions of terrorism under Reagan points out

After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says -- one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” [. . .] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.”

So interestingly by it's own definition the US is a terrorist state.

My own personal opinion is that the term terrorist is subjective to the point of meaningless and thus it is deceptive to label organisations or states as terrorists but that states and sub-states can be guilty of what can be loosely called terrorist acts. As such acts are already clearly defined by the the Geneva conventions and other state and international laws as crimes it is confusing and indeed counter productive to have a separate 'crime' of terrorism as this takes the focus away from the main body of 'laws of war' such as the Geneva conventions, leads to states committing terrorist acts themselves in so called reprisals and leads to an erosion of human rights across the spectrum from state to individual level thus fueling the very cause it is intended to tackle.

Any thoughts anyone?

[The Statutory Ape]

I believe that the legal definition for 'Terrorist'/'Terrorism' came about so that laws and the prosecution of cases can adequately reflect the nature of such a crime not perpetrated by a 'State' but by 'rogue' groups or indivuals.  So the idea of 'State Terrorism' is kinda silly since I believe all the acts are already covered and defined.

[Art]

I believe that the legal definition for 'Terrorist'/'Terrorism' came about so that laws and the prosecution of cases can adequately reflect the nature of such a crime not perpetrated by a 'State' but by 'rogue' groups or indivuals.  So the idea of 'State Terrorism' is kinda silly since I believe all the acts are already covered and defined.

Can you think of a single terroristic act an individual or group could commit that is not already covered by existing laws?

[The Smoking Man]

LOL ... then there were that group of individuals who dressed as Indians and boarded a ship in Boston Harbour one night that dumped Tea.

Then you might read about the 'Green Mountain Boys' who the USA refers to as 'freedom figters' or Guerilla Fighters.

Then there is the CIA and if not committing direct acts of terrorism associate with terrorists and despots. (Marcos/Saddam).

Their whole history is riddled with terrorists.

[The Statutory Ape]

Can you think of a single terroristic act an individual or group could commit that is not already covered by existing laws?

The difference is motive.  There are laws here against taking a child across state or national borders with out consent of a legal guardian.  There are other laws if the purpose of doing so is for sexual congress with the child and still more if for the purpose of prostituting the child ect.
So for the same reason there would be a law against arson, laws against arson for the purpose of insurance fraud, and laws against arson done out of political motivation(terrorism).

LOL ... then there were that group of individuals who dressed as Indians and boarded a ship in Boston Harbour one night that dumped Tea.

Then you might read about the 'Green Mountain Boys' who the USA refers to as 'freedom figters' or Guerilla Fighters.

Then there is the CIA and if not committing direct acts of terrorism associate with terrorists and despots. (Marcos/Saddam).

Their whole history is riddled with terrorists.

I myself have refered to the Sons of Liberty as terrorists.  Ofcourse anyone has the right to believe that their 'freedom fighters' are the good guys but they shouldn't expect their targets to consider them so.  It's like saying that you are in the right and your enemies and their allies are wrong when they refer to you as the enemy.

[Art]

I myself have refered to the Sons of Liberty as terrorists.  Ofcourse anyone has the right to believe that their 'freedom fighters' are the good guys but they shouldn't expect their targets to consider them so.  It's like saying that you are in the right and your enemies and their allies are wrong when they refer to you as the enemy.

And therein lies the problem. The term terrorist is entirely subjective depending on whether you are 'with em or agin em'

At the moment Israel is committing war crimes but as this has led to some groups denouncing them as a terrorist state the debate ends up revolving around definitions of terrorism with individual crimes covered up by the general blanket of confusion this creates whereas the focus should be narrower. Take Qama for example. This should be investigated by the UN as a possible war crime in breach of international law and followed up with prosecution in the Hague of those found responsible. The same goes for Israeli targetting of Lebanese infrastructure - again clear violations of international law.

The ultimate way to make leaders behave responsibiliy is if they know for a certainty that when the dust settles they will be held personally responsible by the international community for any war crimes committed. This is the fundamental principle at the heart of international 'laws of war'.

There should be no room for the US or anyone else for that matter to decide who is right and who is wrong thus who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. It should be a matter for the courts of international justice and their prosecuting officers to decide.

Separation of powers is a basic ingredient of all successful governments and it is essential that the same structure is apllied on a global scale if the international rule of law is to have any meaning at all. Unfortunately after the high hopes expressed after WW2 we have now returned to the 'might is right' philosophy of international diplomacy with the main culprit being the US.

[Polly]

[The Smoking Man]

I myself have refered to the Sons of Liberty as terrorists.  Ofcourse anyone has the right to believe that their 'freedom fighters' are the good guys but they shouldn't expect their targets to consider them so.  It's like saying that you are in the right and your enemies and their allies are wrong when they refer to you as the enemy.

And therein lies the problem. The term terrorist is entirely subjective depending on whether you are 'with em or agin em'

At the moment Israel is committing war crimes but as this has led to some groups denouncing them as a terrorist state the debate ends up revolving around definitions of terrorism with individual crimes covered up by the general blanket of confusion this creates whereas the focus should be narrower. Take Qama for example. This should be investigated by the UN as a possible war crime in breach of international law and followed up with prosecution in the Hague of those found responsible. The same goes for Israeli targetting of Lebanese infrastructure - again clear violations of international law.

Short investigation.

Look at the pictures of teh ambulances with holes through the dead center of the red cross on the roof.

They announced last week the target was the Hizbolla Hospital.

They targetted cars on a highway waving white flags.

Wham bam thank you mam. Investigation done and dusted.

[The Statutory Ape]

I myself have refered to the Sons of Liberty as terrorists.  Ofcourse anyone has the right to believe that their 'freedom fighters' are the good guys but they shouldn't expect their targets to consider them so.  It's like saying that you are in the right and your enemies and their allies are wrong when they refer to you as the enemy.

And therein lies the problem. The term terrorist is entirely subjective depending on whether you are 'with em or agin em'

At the moment Israel is committing war crimes but as this has led to some groups denouncing them as a terrorist state the debate ends up revolving around definitions of terrorism with individual crimes covered up by the general blanket of confusion this creates whereas the focus should be narrower. Take Qama for example. This should be investigated by the UN as a possible war crime in breach of international law and followed up with prosecution in the Hague of those found responsible. The same goes for Israeli targetting of Lebanese infrastructure - again clear violations of international law.

The ultimate way to make leaders behave responsibiliy is if they know for a certainty that when the dust settles they will be held personally responsible by the international community for any war crimes committed. This is the fundamental principle at the heart of international 'laws of war'.

There should be no room for the US or anyone else for that matter to decide who is right and who is wrong thus who gets prosecuted and who doesn't. It should be a matter for the courts of international justice and their prosecuting officers to decide.

Separation of powers is a basic ingredient of all successful governments and it is essential that the same structure is apllied on a global scale if the international rule of law is to have any meaning at all. Unfortunately after the high hopes expressed after WW2 we have now returned to the 'might is right' philosophy of international diplomacy with the main culprit being the US.

I was actually meaning that it isn't subjective but people try to make it subjective.

The problem comes with the enforcement of these laws.  The enforcers need to be willing to do their job.  Historical tradition has been that the 'victors' become judge and jury and are never the accused.  During WWII how many Americans, British, or Russians were tried for war crimes?  Were any of them for anything aside from maybe desertion or treason?  Any for crimes against the enemy?

[The Smoking Man]

Well, the US and Canada did get nailed by their own government for the treatment of Japanese and there was the Tuskegee airmen scandle.

But no ... no crimes against humanity ... even though you may have expected to hear something regarding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Art]

The US gov't is at the momentt trying desperately to have congress amend the 'War Crimes Act' as under it's current provisions Bush and co could (and should) be indicted in the US for war crimes.

[The Smoking Man]

The US gov't is at the momentt trying desperately to have congress amend the 'War Crimes Act' as under it's current provisions Bush and co could (and should) be indicted in the US for war crimes.

Yeah ... all thanks to the Vietnam Vet who got the laws of America changed in 1994, I believe.

Problem is, when you change a law, is it retroactive?

When they repealed Prohibition were all the moonshiners set free because their actions were no longer illegal???

Naaah ... It was the breaking of law itself which is the crime and not the action itself.

[Polly]

I have been thinking along a very different line.

Let's analysis in a cold, calm, logical way, unperturbed by the loss of human lives first.

What is a terrorist organisation and what is a territorist?

A terrorist organisation is, stripped down to barebone essential, an organisation of people who use force against the state to acheive their political goals, and a terrorist is a member of such an organisation.

Now if this group of people, usually a very very small minority, use force to get their way over what is usually irreconciliable difference with the state, is it possibly that they be required to attack or fight only the regimental forces of the state, even if they wanted to?

Can anyone imagine the outcome if they were only to attack the police, the army, the navy - the armed forces?  Their chances of success will be very dismal and they are likely to be hunted down and locked away in no time at all.

Such a small group of people, to have any chance of success at all against the state, have to resort to a heavy element of surprise and attack where it is most vulnerable - usually the civilians.

Therefore subject to their relative strength vis a vise the state, it is a corollary imperative that "terrorists" do attack civilians.

Labelling them as "territorists" is no more than telling a scorpion that it is wrong to sting and therefore it must be punished for it when the sting is the only offence and defence mechanism it has. 

The labelling also shows how our language has been clobbered and raped to satisfy the goals of the authority.  For to criminalise the sting is merely (and this relates to Art's point) adding more draconian penalties to the charges of which a "terrorist" will have been charged anyway under the legal system, such as manslaughter, murder, destruction of property etc. 

Such criminalisation also deflects from our consideration the demands of the "terrorists" and whether there is any merits in their  demands.  Another testimony to the fact that the state has the monopoly of force. 

[The Smoking Man]

Here's one for you then:

What do you call a state who is democratic and hosts the leaders of other states in a fortified central area and attacks citizens of their own country when they voice protest?

Like what happens with the G8 summits, WTO and stuff like that where they block roads leading to towns.

[Polly]

Exactly under my definition they could potentially  be called "terrorists" as well as they certainly have a "terrifying" effect on the public , when they under the law are only guilty of disruption of public order.