Defining Terrorism
“It is important to bear in mind that the term "terrorism"
is commonly used as a term of abuse, not accurate description.
It is close to a historical universal that our terrorism against
them is right and just (whoever we happen to be), while their
terrorism against us is an outrage. As long as that practice is
adopted, discussion of terrorism is not serious. It is no more
than a form of propaganda and apologetics.” Noam Chomsky
“There has never been any consensus
definition of terrorism.” Richard Betts, director of the
Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University
“It is only worth entering into definitions
if something hangs on them. In this case, something does.”
Adam Roberts, Professor of International Relations, Oxford University
Barely a few years into it, the 21st century
already is clearly marked as the “Age of Terrorism.”
The 9/11 attacks marked a salient turning point in the history
of the U.S. and indeed of global geopolitics. The U.S. declared
its number one priority to be the “war on terrorism”
and its domestic, national, and international policies have changed
accordingly. In his address to the nation shortly after the 9/11
attacks, Bush used the terms terror, terrorism, and terrorist
thirty-two times without ever defining what he meant.
In the amorphous name of “terrorism,”
wars are being fought, geopolitical dynamics are shifting, the
U.S. is aggressively reasserting its traditional imperialist role
as it defies international law and world bodies, and the state
sacrifices liberties to “security.” One of the most
used words in the current vocabulary, "terrorism" also
is one of the most abused terms, applied to actions from flying
fully loaded passenger planes into buildings to rescuing pigs
and chickens from factory farms.
Semantic Chaos
Everyone uses the term, but who really understands
it? What precisely is terrorism? What causes it? Who engages in
it? Should terrorists be identified according to their intentions,
ideologies, tactics, or targets? Who wreaks the most violence?
When is violence justified so it is not “terrorism”?
How is terrorism different from assault, murder, and other violent
“criminal” acts? Were the world’s most deplorable
terrorist actions taken when the U.S. dropped two bombs on Japan
during World War II? Does terrorism involve violence toward one
person or many? How can one distinguish morally culpable terrorists
from legitimate guerillas, insurgents, or freedom fighters? Does
terrorism require a political motivation or can it also be a random
hateful attack? If so, how does one define “political motivation”?
Does terrorism include threats of violence as well as actual acts
of violence? How important to the concept is the intent to create
a psychological state of fear and intimidation, and thereby to
inhibit freedom of action and peace of mind? How broadly should
one define psychological terms like “fear” and “intimidation”?
What is it to be an “innocent” victim of terrorism?
Can there be terrorism against military targets or only against
“non-combatants”? How are the terms terrorism and
violence related to one another? What is a morally defensible
response to terrorism? Does terrorism involve a sudden, singular,
direct dramatic action such as a bomb strike, or can it also include
an economic or political policy that unfolds slowly, indirectly,
yet devastatingly (such as U.S. class-based decisions that lead
to poverty, hunger, homelessness, and sickness of millions of
its own citizens or the actions the World Bank takes to suppress
justice struggles and enforce economic austerity policies on the
underdeveloped world)? How does the new world of information and
computers require changing the definition of terrorism (e.g.,
“cyber-terrorism”)? Is it reasonable to speak of the
“human terrorism” against the animal world?
It seems that the meaning of the term terrorism
becomes clear in inverse relation to the frequency with which
it is used[1]. This is true in part because “terrorism”
is inherently a complex concept, but more so because it is a subjective,
highly loaded, emotionally and politically charged term whose
meaning is relative to one’s political ideology and agenda
and even one’s culture. Since no individual, group, or government
wants to accept the negative consequences of the term, “terrorism”
is always what someone else does.
There is no universal consensus definition of
terrorism. One recent survey of definitions by leading researchers
found 109 different definitions[2]. Beset by political differences,
the United Nations General Assembly was unable to pass a resolution
denouncing terrorism until 1985. A recent book discussing attempts
by the United Nations and other international bodies to define
terrorism is three volumes and 1,866 pages long, yet still reaches
no firm conclusion. As the UN puts it, "the question of a
definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among States for
decades." The European Union also has been unable to formulate
an adequate definition of terrorism acceptable to all member states.
Yet another illustration of the diffuse nature of the term lies
in the fact that the U.S. State Department, the Department of
Defense, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all employ different
definitions.
The Exploitation of Language
But far from a problem, U.S. industries and the
state capitalize on the vagueness of the term to apply it in any
way they see fit to suit their purposes. In post-9/11 America,
the term is used so broadly and promiscuously by state and industry
interests that a “terrorist” – or “eco-terrorist”
if an action challenges the interests of those exploiting animals
or natural resources -- is simply anyone who disagrees, challenges,
or inhibits their profit-driven agendas. We could not put it better
than Dan Berry on the Clearinghouse for Environmental Advocacy
and Research, who said: “If environmental groups cost business
money, then they’re eco-terrorists.” Within the Reich
of Bush, protesters, demonstrators, and government critics are
denied their constitutional rights; surveilled, harassed, beaten,
and jailed; and defamed as treacherous conspirators and terrorists.
The political relativity of the concept is manifest
in the trite-yet-true phrase, “One man’s terrorist
is another man’s freedom fighter.” Depending on the
interpreter, violence against an enemy can be seen as terrorism
or counter-terrorism, as aggressive offense or legitimate defense.
To Israel and the U.S. government, Palestinian organizations are
terrorists but to Palestinian people they are freedom fighters
opposing the occupation of their homeland. The Indian government
considers groups working to liberate Kashmir from Indian oppression
to be terrorists while many Pakistanis embrace them as liberators.
The U.S. calls its violent allies friends and impugns its foes
as terrorists. The Reagan administration championed the contras
as freedom fighters, whereas the Nicaraguan people who endured
their bombs and bullets viewed them – more accurately –
as terrorists. In November 2001, Bush publicly referred to the
Northern Afghanistan alliance as “our friends,” ignoring
the fact that “Since 1992, the various Alliance factions
have killed tens of thousands of civilians every bit as innocent
as America’s 9-11 victims; their rap sheets includes rape,
torture, summary executions and “disappearances[3].”
The U.S. hailed Osama bin Laden and his comrades as freedom fighters
in the 1980s, while many government officials denounced Nelson
Mandela as a terrorist. The Western world reviled the 9/11 attacks
as a paradigm of evil, but Al Qaeda and other enemies of the U.S.
upheld it as a legitimate strike in their jihad, while decrying
U.S. bombings of Afghanistan as terrorism. The U.S. corporate-state
complex censures the ALF as terrorists, while many activists champion
them as freedom fighters.
The problem raised by pluralistic perspectives
on terrorism is how to establish some kind of non-arbitrary foundation
by which to condemn heinous terrorist acts. Yonah Alexander (see
below) proposes the norms of international law as the way to distinguish
terrorism from a “lawful war.” Others find the critical
issue to be whether or not the immediate target is civilian. Still
others uphold the indeterminacy of meaning.
One important point of clarification is that
while the terms violence and terrorism are used interchangeably,
they are two different concepts. All terrorism involves violence,
but not all violence is terrorism. When used in cases of self-defense
or against legitimate targets – “combatants”
rather than “non-combatants” -- in conditions of war.
Quite conveniently, however, the U.S. military says: "We
also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations
or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities
does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases[4]."
Thus, the U.S. military can only be the target or object of a
terrorist, and never a terrorist itself.
The U.S. Patriot Act shrewdly exploits semantic
vagueness. It defines terrorism so broadly that virtually all
political struggle falls under the rubric of “intimidation”
and coercion.” The inclusion of attacks on property (see
the FBI definition below) means that groups like the ALF and ELF
can be considered terrorists by those who accept this definition.
The reliance on the term “harboring” terrorists throws
out into the political arena a vast net of guilt-by-association.
Clearly, “terrorism” is not just
a word, it is a weapon. The definition is politically motivated
by the user in order to target certain individuals or groups[5].
Speakers routinely brand their adversaries as terrorists to malign
their cause and demonize them while, conversely, legitimating
their own cause and any means necessary to secure it. Regarding
the politically motivated use of terrorist accusation, Tomis Kapitan
acutely observes:
“There is a definite political purpose
… Because of its negative connotation, the “terrorist”
label discredits any individuals or groups to which it is affixed.
It dehumanizes them, places them outside the norms of acceptable
social and political behavior, and portrays them as people who
cannot be reasoned with. By delegitimating any individuals or
groups described as “terrorist,” the rhetoric:
• Erases an incentive an audience might
have to understand their point of view so that questions about
the nature and origins of their grievances and the possibility
[of] legitimacy of their demand will not even be raised.
• Deflects attention away from the policies that might have
contributed to their grievances.
• Repudiates any calls to negotiate with them.
• Paves the way for the use of force and violence in dealing
with them and, in particular, gives a government `freedom of action’
by exploiting the fears of its own citizens and stifling any objections
to the manner in which it deals with them.
• Fails to distinguish between national liberation movements
and fringe lunatics[6].”
Those who monopolize power and the means of communication
monopolize meaning; they can advance fraudulent definitions of
terrorism that become widely accepted and internalized as common
sense.
Definitional Exclusion #1: The U.S. and
State-Sponsored Terrorism
For self-serving purposes, the prevailing definitions
of terrorism leave out two key facets of violence: state/state-sponsored
terrorism and species terrorism.
First, they define terrorists as lone individuals
like Ted Kaczynski or sub-state groups like the Red Brigade. They
thereby exclude state or state-sponsored violence, such as involve
longstanding U.S. policies that financed and directed coups and
political violence against civilian populations in Guatemala (1954),
Lebanon (1958), the Dominican Republic (1965), Vietnam (1954-75),
Laos (1964-1975), Cambodia (1969-1975), Nicaragua (1980-1990),
Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), and Iraq (1990-1991, 2003-) to
name just some rogue interventions[7].
Terrorism is something that can be directed against
a government, but not directed by a government[8]. U.S. definitions
of terrorism include the actions of insurgency movements –
social justice movements always demeaned as “communist”
in the past – but never the horrors perpetuated by U.S.
clients like Somoza in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, and sundry
dictators and right-wing death squads[9]. The chemical warfare
the U.S. unleashed against the people of Vietnam was far greater
in scope and casualties than anything perpetuated by Saddam Hussein
(using chemicals and weapons given to him by the U.S.). In its
imperialist war against Vietnam alone, the U.S. killed over four
million people[10].
Official U.S. state definitions of terrorism
always deploy Manichean Good vs. Evil dramas. This strategy allows
a double standard whereby the forces of Good ignore or downplay
their own violence and legal violations, while hysterically denouncing
comparable or lesser infractions by the harbingers of Evil. But
as Noam Chomsky observes, the U.S. itself would be the textbook
case of any reasonable definition of terrorism. In the United
States Code and army manuals, terrorism is defined as “the
calculated use of violence against civilians to intimidate, induce
fear, often to kill, for some political, religious, or other end."
The problem with the official definition, however, is that it
“turns out to be almost the same as the definition of official
U.S. policy,” masked as “counter-insurgency”
or “low-intensity conflict.” The official definition,
Chomsky claims, makes the U.S. “a leading terrorist state
because it engages in these practices all the time….It’s
the only state, in fact, which has been condemned by the World
Court and the Security Council for terrorism, in this sense[11].”
Similarly, if one adheres to the official FBI
definition of violence, it is clear that in country after country,
as systematic and deliberate policy, the U.S. government has used
deliberate “force or violence” “unlawfully,”
“to intimidate or coerce a government, [a] civilian population,
or [a] segment thereof,” in order to achieve “political
or social objectives”. In Philip Cryan’s deconstruction,
the U.S. has been “directly responsible for acts of terrorism,
and for the `harboring’ of terrorists, on an almost unimaginable
scale in terms of human death and the creation of fear. When Green
Berets trained the Guatemalan army in the 1960s leading to a campaign
of bombings, death squads, and `scorched earth’ assaults
that killed or disappeared’ 200,000 -- U.S. Army Colonel
John Webber called it `a technique of counter-terror[12].’"
The U.S. coup against the democratically-elected
Socialist leader Salvador Allende led to tens of thousands of
civilian deaths and torture on a mass scale. The U.S. backing
of the infamous contras fomented massacres and bloodshed in Nicaragua
in the early 1980s, and its backing of the fascist government
of El Salvador resulted in 70,000 civilian deaths. The U.S. “harbors”
terrorists and rogue states on a global scale. Bin Laden’s
main line of support stems from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two
major U.S. allies, and the CIA trained and funded the Afghan resistance
movement that became the epicenter of terrorist training camps.
Speaking of terrorist training camps, let us not forget that at
the infamous School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia,
the U.S. instructed thousands of Latin American military personnel,
humanitarian soldiers like Manuel Noriega who went on to become
some of the best dictators, torturers, and mass murders money
can buy[13].
Definitional Exclusion #2: Species Terrorism
Virtually all definitions of terrorism, even
by “progressive” human rights champions, outright
banish from consideration the most excessive violence of all --
that which the human species unleashes against all nonhuman species.
Speciesism is so ingrained and entrenched in the human mind that
the human pogrom against animals does not even appear on the conceptual
radar screen. Any attempt to perceive nonhuman animals as innocent
victims of violence and human animals as planetary terrorists
is met with befuddlement and derision.
But if terrorism is linked to intentional violence
inflicted on innocent persons for ideological, political, or economic
motivations, and nonhuman animals also are “persons”
– subjects of a life – then the human war against
animals is terrorism. Every individual who terrifies, injures,
tortures, and/or kills an animal is a terrorist; fur farms, factory
farms, foie gras, vivisection, and other exploitative operations
are terrorist industries; and governments that support these industries
are terrorist states. The true weapons of mass destruction are
the gases, rifles, stun guns, cutting blades, and forks and knifes
used to experiment on, kill, dismember, and consume animal bodies.
The numbers of animals slaughtered by human beings
is staggering. Each year, in the U.S. alone:
• Over 10 billion farmed animals are killed
for food consumption
• 17-70 million animals are killed for testing and experimentation
• Over 100 million are killed for hunting
• 7-8 million animals are trapped or raised in confinement
for their fur[14]
These figures do not include the millions of
animals killed by The Wildlife Services division of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (formerly known as Animal Damage Control) to protect
livestock industry cattle; the 55,000 horses killed in the United
States and processed for human consumption; the countless numbers
of animals exploited and killed by various facets of the animal
“entertainment” industry; and other forms of killing
by human predators.
For the animals, every second is a 9/11 attack.
The FBI concept of terrorism defines terrorism
as attacks on property, but not on life. Thus, by definitional
fait accompli, the ALF is a terrorist group but not the animal
exploitation industries that murder billions of animals every
year. The corporate-state complex coined the neologism “eco-terrorism”
to bring acts of sabotage against property by groups like the
ALF and ELF into the conventional parameters of heinous and despicable
forms of violence and evil. Whether directed against people or
property, those flexing the term “eco-terrorism” proclaim
that violence is violence and terrorism is terrorism. Despite
the fact that laws against property destruction already exist
throughout the land, the destroyers of animals and the Earth are
intent to reframe sabotage as “terrorist” actions,
and thereby maximize their ability to vilify and punish material
strikes against exploitation industries.
What is Terrorism?
As suggested by the German philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein, one cannot always precisely specify the necessary
and sufficient elements of a definition, but one can provide of
cluster of related concepts. There is no single, universally accepted
definition of terrorism, nor is there ever likely to be. Key aspects
of terrorism – such as political or ideological motives,
violence, targeting noncombatants, the aim of terrorizing, the
goal to modify behavior – are relatively clear, but formulating
them in a clear, compact, quasi-objective definition has proven
to be an enormous challenge. As terrorism expert Walter Laqueur
writes, “Even if there were an objective, value-free definition
of terrorism, covering all its important aspects and features,
it would still be rejected by some for ideological reasons[15].”
Any broad, abstract definition of “terrorism”
always is open to attack by counter-example, will leave out some
important element, will be vague to the point of meaninglessness,
and may lend itself to political repression. The State Department
definition focuses on subnational groups and leaves out nation
states. Government definitions exclude from their definitions
of terrorism political and economic policies that slowly but surely
kill thousands of millions of innocent people. No definitions
of terrorism, even those advanced by “progressives”
like Chomsky, ever take into consideration the human war against
animals.
Our own definition below does not incorporate
a psychological aspect involving attempts to create “fear”
or “intimidation” as we find these terms lend themselves
to overly broad interpretations that legitimate political repression
of activist groups and we prefer to focus on physical violence
against all forms of life. Despite the root word of “terror,”
the primary intent of terrorism is to kill not frighten (and so
we find it a bit of a stretch to call groups like SHAC terrorists).
We also exclude from our definition of terrorism acts of property
destruction against industries as: (1) these acts are defensible
in principle; (2) such illegal actions already have names and
penalties that do not merited being upgraded from sabotage, vandalism,
or arson to terrorism; (3) the real terrorism involves the crimes
that corporations and governments commit against human beings,
animals, and the Earth.
Capturing a diversity of definitions of terrorism
is a way to begin building a fair and just working definition.
Although co-opted by and for the interests of U.S. industries
and elites, the meaning of the term “terrorism” is
worth struggling over because in this obscenely violent world
there are real terrorists whose actions need to be defined, condemned,
and deterred. The task of shaping an accurate definition of terrorism
is of enormous consequence today and nothing less than democracy
and the right to dissent is at stake. Vague definitions of terrorism
give government greater latitude in persecuting dissent. Rather
than be standing targets for the terrorism of “terrorism,”
activists and voice of opposition need to provide sounds definitions
and expose the real terrorists for whom and what they are.
The following definitions are examples of attempts
to define terrorism, and include general statements and U.S. government
definitions. The repetition of terms and meanings is unavoidable,
but it points to key elements that may be necessary or part of
a future consensual definition. Save for our own, no definition
below directly includes the violence a human being, industry,
state, or human species directs against animals.
That is a key philosophical and political task
of the present era.
I. General Definitions
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person
or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for
ideological or political reasons.--The American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Terrorism is the intentional use of physical
violence directed against innocent persons – human and/or
nonhuman animals – to advance the religious, ideological,
political, or economic purposes of an individual, organization,
corporation, or state government.-- Steven Best and Anthony J.
Nocella
Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence
against civilians in order to attain political, ideological, or
religious aims.-- Boaz Ganor, Executive Director of the Institute
for Counter Terrorism
Terrorism is the threat and use of both psychological
and physical force in violation of international law by state
and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals.-- Yonah
Alexander, Director of the Institute for Studies in International
Terrorism, State University of New York
Terrorism is the use or threatened use of
force designed to bring about political change.—Brian Jenkins
founder of the RAND Corporation's terrorism research program
Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use
of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people
are targeted.—Walter Laqueur, Chairman of the International
Research Council at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, author of works such as The Age of Terrorism
Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate,
systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to
create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical
advantage, usually to influence an audience.—James M. Poland,
Emeritus Professor, Criminal Justice, California State University,
Sacramento
Terrorism is the use of force or the threat
of force by an individual, group, or nation-state against a civilian
population to achieve a political end.—Robert Jensen, Professor
in the School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin
Terrorism is the systematic use of coercive
intimidation against civilians for political goals ... The goals
of terrorism are always political … Terrorism as a political
act is a primary means of expression and not a last resort…
The targets of terrorist coercion are the civilian population.--Pippa
Norris, Montague Kern, and Marlon-Just, authors of Framing Terrorism:
The News Media, the Government and the Public (2003)
Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence,
or the threat of such, directed upon civilians in order to achieve
political objectives.--Tomis Kapitan, Philosophy professor, Northern
Illinois University
Intrinsically, terrorism is a state of mind.
Political terrorism, presumably, is the state of mind of political
actors who are paralyzed by the threat of unpredictable attack.
By default the concept has come to be employed to characterize
the kinds of actions that are assumed to induce "terrorism."
The circularity of this definition is obvious.-- Ted Robert Gurr,
founder and director of Maryland’s Center for International
Development and Conflict Management
Terrorism is the calculated use of violence
or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious,
or ideological in nature through intimidation, coercion, or instilling
fear.--Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology
Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve
an inhuman and corrupt objective and involving threat to security
of any kind, and in violation of the rights acknowledged by religion
and mankind. -- Iranian religious scholar, Ayatulla Taskhiri
Terrorism is the half-thinking man’s
conditioned reflex to sustained oppression and lack of personal
empowerment. -- Shaukat Qadir, retired Pakistani soldier and political
analyst
Terrorism has become an invective that opposing
sides hurl at each other for propaganda. The word means those
who deliberately harm innocent life for the purpose of forcing
behavioral change.—Mark Somma, Chair of the Political Science
Department, Fresno State University
“Terrorism" is a word people use
to refer to armed struggles they don't like.—John Burdick,
Associate Professor, Syracuse University
II. State and Political Definitions
All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated
to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons
or a group of persons or the general public.-- League of Nations
(1937)
Any act intended to cause death or serious
bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking
an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict,
when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to
intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international
organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. --United
Nations
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method
of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual,
group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political
reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets
of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims
of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity)
or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target
population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based
communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled)
victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target
(audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of
demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation,
coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought. --UN Office of Drugs
and Crime, Academic Consensus Definition (Schmid, 1988)
Regardless of the differences between governments
on the definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can
all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless
of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of
terrorism.—United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of
violence against persons or property to further political or social
objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government,
individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics.—Vice-President’s
Task Force, 1986
1. It is premeditated—planned in advance,
rather than an impulsive act of rage.
2. It is political—not criminal, like the violence that
groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change
the existing political order.
3. It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready
troops.
4. It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army
of a country.--Paul Pillar, former deputy chief of the CIA’s
Counterterrorist Center
Terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful
violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended
to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit
of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.--
Department of Defense
The term "terrorism" means premeditated,
politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant
targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually
intended to influence an audience. The term "international
terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory
of more than one country. The term "terrorist group"
means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups
that practice, international terrorism--State Department
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or
violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives.—FBI Definition
(revised July 2001)
III. Definitions of “Domestic Terrorism” and
“Animal Rights and Ecological Terrorism”
Domestic terrorism involve[s] acts dangerous to human life
that (A) are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States
or of any State; and (B) appear to be intended (or to have the
effect): (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 (or any function
thereof) by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or
threat thereof); or (C) occur primarily within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.--USA Patriot Act (Section 802)
Animal rights or ecological terrorist organization
means two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting
any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter
any person from participating in an activity involving animals
or an activity involving natural resources.--Texas House Bill
433, “Animal Rights and Ecological Terrorism[16]”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 For an excellent historical and political analysis of the complexity
of terrorism, see The Criminology of Terrorism: History, Law,
Definitions, and Typologies,” http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/429/429lect01.htm
2 Ray Takeyh, “Two Cheers from the Islamic
World,” Foreign Policy, 2002, 128, Jan-Feb, pp. 70-71.
3 Cited in “Bush’s Definition of
Terrorism Fits Northern Alliance Like a Glove; TV Interviewers
Don’t Notice,” http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1123-05.htm
4 “Terrorist Group Profiles,” http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpmain.htm
5 For an analysis of the self-interested nature
of the definition of terrorism, see “The Definition of Terrorism,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,487098,00.html
6 Thomas Kapitan, “The Terrorism of `Terrorism,”
in James Sterba (ed.) Terrorism and International Justice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 47-66. Kapitan’s essay
is enormously important for the task of creating a credible definition
of terrorism that does not render invisible the bulk of violence
today and does not demonize peace and justice movements. Kapitan
also describes various ways in which sloppy and politically-motivated
“terrorist” rhetoric increases terrorism, such as
by encouraging a cycle of violence and revenge (p. 53).
7 For a dated but still valuable account of U.S.
state-sponsored terrorism, see Edward S. Herman, The Real Terror
Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda. Boston: MA: South End
Press.
8 A 1937 League of Nations Convention, for instance,
defines terrorism this way: "All criminal acts directed against
a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror
in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the
general public." Title 22 of the U.S. Code defines terrorism
as "premeditated, politically motivated violence" against
"noncombatant targets by subnational groups" usually
with the goal to influence an audience.
9 These fascist dictatorships created and financed
by the U.S. were euphemistically called (right-wing) “authoritarian”
governments to distinguish them from the allegedly far more evil
(left-wing) “totalitarian: governments. See Herman’s
The Real Terror Network on this distinction.
10 Edward S. Herman, “Global Rogue State,”
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb98herman.htm
11 Stephan Marshall interview with Noam Chomsky,
http://www.guerrillanews.com/counter_intelligence/207.html
12 Philip Cryan, “Defining Terrorism,”
http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html
13 See School of the Americas Watch at http://www.soaw.org/new/.
Their site notes that “SOA graduates have included many
of the most notorious human rights abusers from Latin America.
SOA graduates have led military coups and are responsible for
massacres of hundreds of people. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000
graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos
of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan
Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and
Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. SOA graduates were responsible
for the Uraba massacre in Colombia, the El Mozote massacre of
900 civilians in El Salvador, the assassination of Archbishop
Oscar Romero, and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador, the La Cantuta
massacre in Peru, the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile,
and hundreds of other human rights abuses. In September 1996,
under intense pressure from religious and grassroots groups, the
Pentagon released seven Spanish-language training manuals used
at the SOA until 1991. The New York Times reported, "Americans
can now read for themselves some of the noxious lessons the United
States Army taught thousands of Latin Americans... [The SOA manuals]
recommended interrogation techniques like torture, execution,
blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned."
http://www.soaw.org/new/faq.php
14 The number is from the years 1999-2000; fur
figures vary greatly according to consumer demands. Hunting numbers
have been steadily dropping as factory farmed animal deaths continues
to rise.
15 Walter Laqueur, The Age of Terrorism. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, 1987, pp. 149-150.
16 http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=78&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=
B&BILLSUFFIX=00433&VERSION=1&TYPE=B
Back to Essays page
|
