<div>Andreas et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for your reply.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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."
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>An interesting in-depth analysis of this issue is at this link:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm">http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/define.htm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/12/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andreas Schou</b> <<a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">> Is someone crossing the Mexican/US border a "terrorist" if they smuggle<br>> large quantities of illegal drugs and kill their competitors and some of
<br>> their "innocent" family members in the USA in gang warfare?<br><br>The answer is "no." No, they are not a terrorist; no, they are nothing<br>like a terrorist; no, whaterver similarities their actions have to
<br>terrorism does not make them a terrorist. Terrorism has one specific<br>meaning: acts of politicized destruction intended to intimidate a<br>nation into changing its policy. Drug mules are not trying to do this.<br><br>
Once we start defining hacking as "cyberterrorism" and drug mules as<br>"narcoterrorism," the laws we have in place to fight actual<br>blow-up-some-buildings terrorism can be applied however the government
<br>pleases. We allow some of these laws, like FISA, so that intelligence<br>activities can be coordinated with law enforcement. This, as Frank<br>Church taught us, is a very, very bad idea except in very limited<br>circumstances.
<br><br>-- ACS<br></blockquote></div><br>