"Terrorism" Defined? Re: [Vision2020] {Longish] letter with facts of interest

[Ted Moffett]

Andreas et. al.

Thanks for your reply.

I understand that "terrorism" can be limited to "acts of politicised
destruction intended to intimidate a nation."  And I agree that extending
this concept to include many forms of violent crime is a dangerous approach,
as you mentioned in your Frank Church reference.

I should not have implied that those who actually carry the drugs across the
Mexican/US border as "mules" are the ones doing the "hits."  They sometimes
send "professionals," who may have nothing directly to do with transporting
drugs.

The definition you offered could include acts of war against a nation state
by another nation state, or acts by a liberation movement aimed overthrowing
an oppressive regime.  How do we differentiate between acts of war in a
formally declared war by recognized nations, or acts that are aimed at
overthrowing or stopping a dictatorship or invading army, acts often not
defined as "terrorism," and terrorism?  Isn't targeting non-combatant
"innocents" sometimes part of the definition of a "terrorist" act?  Yet
nations in war use this tactic to gain both military and political
advantage.  And the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks could definitely be
viewed as an act aimed at substantive economic disruption, rather than just
a "political" act.

Illegal drug business operatives are sometimes involved in "politicised
destruction intended to intimidate a nation."  In Columbia, Peru and
Afghanistan, the drug business is definitely involved in "acts of
politicised destruction intended to intimidate a nation."  In the US, law
enforcement, border guards, prosecutors, judges and juries, have had
violence carried out against them, and/or threats of violence made, to
influence how the US government is conducting its affairs, by illegal drug
business operatives, sometimes involving the Mexican/US border.   It can be
debated if this is an "economic" or "political" act, but sometimes the line
between the two is blurred.

And hacking into or disabling a critical computer system or network could
have more of an impact on the national security of a nation than blowing up
a building, depending on the building, of course.

I think that the concept of "terrorism" has a relativistic aspect that
renders the concept imprecise.  Depending on your bias, certain acts are
legitimate uses of force to defend the freedoms or rights of oppressed
people or nations, or are acts to advance a legitimate cause, while from
another bias, the acts of violence and/or destruction are "terrorism."

I find the notion of legally legitimized violence a very troubling concept,
resulting in the most hideous kind of "slippery slope," like justifying the
nuclear bomb attacks on Japan on mostly civilian targets, killing tens of
thousands of "innocent" civilians, as a legitimate act of "war," not
terrorism.

An interesting in-depth analysis of this issue is at this link:

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm

Ted Moffett






On 4/12/06, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Is someone crossing the Mexican/US border a "terrorist" if they smuggle
> > large quantities of illegal drugs and kill their competitors and some of
> > their "innocent" family members in the USA in gang warfare?
>
> The answer is "no." No, they are not a terrorist; no, they are nothing
> like a terrorist; no, whaterver similarities their actions have to
> terrorism does not make them a terrorist. Terrorism has one specific
> meaning: acts of politicized destruction intended to intimidate a
> nation into changing its policy. Drug mules are not trying to do this.
>
> Once we start defining hacking as "cyberterrorism" and drug mules as
> "narcoterrorism," the laws we have in place to fight actual
> blow-up-some-buildings terrorism can be applied however the government
> pleases. We allow some of these laws, like FISA, so that intelligence
> activities can be coordinated with law enforcement. This, as Frank
> Church taught us, is a very, very bad idea except in very limited
> circumstances.
>
> -- ACS
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060414/bf3389c7/attachment.htm