The US definition of terrorism: a cause we don't like

Post Reply New Topic

The U.S., as part of the War of Terror, has used this concept of Terrorism to pass laws restricting freedom of speech and association, of legalising death squad activities led by the President himself, of torture, secret prisons and other such things, all done in the name of fighting Terrorism. The question needs to be asked, what exactly do they mean by Terrorism? I always figured it wasn't so much the physical acts considered to be terrorism, but rather the cause being one not accepted by the U.S. government. The case of Holder vs the Humanitarian Law Project proves this. The Washington Post opened an article on this with the following:

If the problem was the carrying out of physical terrorism, then number three would not count, but all the Supreme Court was saying was that in fact it is a question of the cause, and anything that furthers the group's cause, no matter how, is illegal.

There is of course a list of banned groups. There are many groups that carry out terrorism not on the list, so it's all right to support these groups and even to fight and plant bombs for them if so desired without any fear of reprisals by the American government. This is because the American government supports these causes, or at the very least does not oppose them, and so it's all right to actively be involved in physical terrorism for a cause supported by the American government.

Thus, as far as the American government's legal definition of Terrorism is concerned, Terrorism is a question of causes it opposes, not of violent attacks or the physical manifestation of what we call terrorism and the psychological goals also that such have.

Does that mean all the American presidents, senators and diplomats who urged the IRA to lay down its arms will be prosecuted as terrorists? Or is Northern Irish Republicanism a cause endorsed by US governments? How about the loyalists, like the UVF? They must have talked to that lot, too.

This here is about what is now declared legal once you are accused of terrorism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

Does this apply only to US citizens, or everyone within the US, or is it being applied globally?

Last edited by Gromit on 06 Feb 2013, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Both murderous scum. The world is better off without people like that in it.

We never referred to the doings of the late (an unlamented) Soviet Union as terrorism, nor did we refer to the Soviet State as a terrorist organization.

Most of the parties we call terrorist are (1) Muslim and (2) not governments, but parties of people organized along religious lines and operating for religious purposes.

ruveyn

There are plenty of Christian, Jewish and nationalist terrorist organisations, but most terrorism is carried out in the name of Islam.

What non-Muslim non-governmental entity has been designated as terrorist by our State Department? The only one I can think of off hand are the Basques who are fighting with Spain. The Basques do not bother us and we do not bother them.

ruveyn

Terrorism is simply the tactic of targeting non-combatants. It's a very effective tactic, which is why every country uses it when they can get away with it.

The "War on Terror" is actually the "War On Muslims That We Want To Attack For Various Strategic Reasons".

List: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
Aum Shinrikiyo: Japanese cult
ETA: Basque nationalists
Kahane Chai: Jewish
PKK: Kurdish nationalists
Tamil Tigers: Tamil nationalists
ELN: Communists
FARC: Communists
Shining Path: Maoists
Real IRA: Irish nationalists
AUC: Right-wing paramilitary
Communist Party of the Philippines
Revolutionary Struggle: Anarchists

Now taken off the list:
Khmer Rouge: Maoists
Manuel Modriguez Patriotic Front Dissidents: Communists
Japanese Red Army: Communists
Tupac Amaru Revolution Movement: Marxists
Revolutionary Nuclei: Greek far left group

That enough for you?

That is a good thorough list. But most of our "anti-terrorist" efforts including UAVs that blow people to smithereens is directed against Muslims which is sensible because Muslims are the main source of danger to the U.S. and to U.S interests.

ruveyn

These lot don't really exist any more. They have been militarily wiped out in Sri Lanka. The Kahanists are only a problem - if anywhere - in Judea and Samaria.

The RIRA, CIRA, ONH and others are still a nuisance on the island of Ireland, but not really anywhere else.

So I know people are terrorists by the fact that a drone operator is shooting at them? Do have a look at that article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo Do you trust Obama that much, or any other president?


It's the State Department's list, not mine. And I noticed it took the Khmer Rouge a long time to get onto the list, but they left it quite quickly. How many people you kill seems to be a minor factor. I didn't see the Interahamwe on the list.

depends how you define terrorism. If you define terrorism as the use of violence to satisfy political interests, then most terrorism is carried out in the name of capitalism.

also, yes, The USA does determine any conflicting activism as 'terrorism'.

Then Israel should be defined as a terrorist nation, their raison d'etre was simply because they used violence to acquire land that was not and is not theirs, but does the US view Israel as terrorist?

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.

There's also the case of Rudolf Giuliani who openly supports the MEK that's on the terrorism list! That one is on the list but they choose not to enforce the law here. The ANC was on the list until the mid-00s so anyone who talks to Mandela must go to prison. The US did after all support Apartheid for most of that regime's existence.