So the Feds apparently have a database on all travelers

if they are ok with bush's former legal council claiming that bush has the authority to sexually torture children than i dont think there is anything the bush admin could do that they wouldnt like.

they do have those new x-ray machines than basically look at your naked body.

 

One more thought on the definition of "terrorist"

I think I can agree with Hayes that the term "terrorist" is perjorative but I don't think that should prevent coming up with a consistent definition that acknowledges the act with the actor. Terror is used quite often by all sorts of groups as a tool for change yet I think that all of us can agree that terror isn't a good thing and shouldn't be used widely. So even if there are groups and causes that we support and who feel their use of terror is justified overall we can all agree that it would be better if terror didn't have to be used. So an objective definition of "terrorist" could still be used even while acknowledging its perjorative nature. All that means is that the actors and their motivations are different and we can debate whether those are just or not but recognizing that use of such tactics isn't a good thing even if we feel it is justified.

For instance the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is plenty of validity that those bombings might've saved many more lives than the alternative of invading the home islands of Japan. That doesn't mean that those bombings weren't terrible and that the bombings was meant to deliberately terrorize the Imperial Japanese government into surrendering. Everyone can acknowledge that the bombings were all about terror but dance around calling it an act of "terrorism" or the ones who ordered it and carried it out "terrorists". Why not just acknowledge the nature of what that action was, terrorism, and the actors terrorists instead of going into all sorts of euphemistic descriptions to avoid the obvious and logical semantic progression? That doesn't mean that Truman and the pilots of the Enola Gay weren't justified in dropping the bombs but acknowledging the nature of the act and also acknowledging that though it might've been justified they were horrible.

 

Sure. But that isn't the state committing terrorism, that is the state supporting terrorism.

The hijackers are terrorists and commit terrorism in your scenario.

If one state removes the elected leader of another state that is an act of war. States conduct war against each other, not terrorism.

Yep. Suprising how much easier it is to track down criminals with all those cameras. Of course, they've still got democracy over there, not a police state.

The Yoo Doctrine. That's a sweet name. Although more graphic, which was the professor's purpose, it is still the same issue. Was there legislation at that time that barred the Executive Branch from sponsoring or conducting torture? Like I said I am not sure but it doesn't seem so.

 

Cute. I only am pointing out they would both fit under that definition. Not advocating equating the two.

Civil disobedience probably falls outside the realm but if someone at a rally does damage (which happens frequently) then they would be a terrorist under your definition. Paint throwing certainly falls under violence, as would hacking and some graffiti:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
vi·o·lence (v-lns) Pronunciation Key
n.
Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Good point. I agree that the current subjectivity dilutes the power of the term. But casting the loop wider dilutes as well, just in a different way. With my definition Hezbollah is an internal resistance group except when they reach outside Lebanon, as in the TWA hijacking or the shelling of Israeli towns - then they are committing terrorism.

My point is that international Conventions on War address internal resistance groups, just as they do states, and their actions are governed by those Conventions. I understand your wanting to call the same action by two different parties the same thing but that is an intuitive emotion not a necessarily a rational one. The same action is not judged the same from a vigilante as a policeman, or in this case from a state (or resistance group) as another entity (terrorist group).

Fair enough. In the end I'm not sure which dilutes the meaning more, calling everyone a terrorist or only a small set of actors. Casting the loop wider has the same effect as casting it too narrow I guess. OTOH we have already based our system on the legitimacy of certain actors. The state is the guiding actor in our international system, and as such has more legitimacy to begin an action than a subnational group.

If consensus building is the goal then your definition is way to broad. Certainly nation states are not going to agree that they are terrorists, the UN wouldn't, and many states are already arguing for exceptions for internal resistance groups. You are right about some people's justification about AQ, but that is why I favor my definition: A supranational group (not composed of states) has no standing for these external action. In trying to build a consensus we need to recognize people feel internal struggle can be legitimate - we as Americans do from our own Revolution. By defining terrorism this way we reenforce that the State is the legitimate actor for international affairs, not sub or supranational groups.

I think the main reason people don't do that is that everything that creates terror isn't terrorism. War is horrible by its nature, and certainly involves a lot of terror - for the soldier, for the citizen, for those caught in the middle. Defining that as terrorism removes the focus from its current problem, which is to name/define these groups that are striking out on their own mainly against civilians - using terror to magnify their power out of proportion to their actual standing rather than as an expression of it. We don't have a problem defining war or need a new definition to say war is horrible or decide whether or not it is legitimate. We do with 'terrorism.' The whole reason to seek consensus on the definition is so states can cooperate and protect the general population from these groups.

 

And I'm curious....is there anything they could implement that wouldn't result in the usual sky is falling chorus???

Here we have a system that looks at seat selection, past history, method of payment and a variety of other factors. As far as 'profiling' systems go...this one looks to be the least 'racist.'

Of course there are all sorts of civil liberty implications (totally unrelated to race or religion) that should concern us.

But as far as systems to identify potential threats, this seems to be one of the more objective ones out there?

 

Well put!

 

The Jews?

 

There is a question of intent there. If someone at a rally tramples some grass was the intent there to trample the grass to intimidate someone into making a change? I will agree with you though that someone at a rally who intentionally uses violence against people and property is a terrorist. The anti-globalization protestors who deliberate smash up Starbucks are terrorists. A point can be made about the severity of what they are doing though.

It doesn't dilute it because it recognizes that one who uses "terror" is logically a "terrorist" by putting all sorts of disclaimers to it dilutes the issue of what constitutes a terrorists. I would say Hezbollah assasinating a civillian political leader in Lebanon to force the downfall of the government is as much terrorism as them shelling a kibutz in Israel.

Its not an intuitive emotion at all but an objective definition. The intuitive emotion is trying to carve out more and more exceptions to suit a particular political viewpoint. If I say that one who bombs civillians is a terrorist no matter what side how is that an intuitive emotion? Its calling the action objectively what it is.

The problem is that you are looking at it for a legal definition treating the label "terrorist" as a crime. Legitimacy isn't a matter I'm debating except to point out that you're using an argument of legitimacy to make a subjective definition of terrorism. As my A-bomb example shows I recognize there is a valid argument to using terrorism that said its still terrorism and terrorists just as warriors are still "warriors" whether they fight in a national military or as part of an irregular militia.

First off I will agree that consensus is difficult if not impossible since the term is used exclusively perjoratively. Understandable but I'm not making a political argument. I'm making an objective argument that provides an objective definition for the sake of clarity of language.

A couple of problems with your response supranational groups will assert standing for external action and often States and others will agree to that action. Doctors Without Borders is a supranational group, although one that doesn't engage in violence but still engages in the sorts of external actions that are often undertaken by states. Corporations engage in actions that are state like all the time such as trade, labor and environmental policies that many times are different or counter than the countries they operate in.

Also since you cite the US Revolutionaries as being an internal struggle so therefore legitimate actually they also acted as a supra-national group since the US wasn't a country and they engaged in actions outside of what would become US territory.

But even legitimate groups as you define them use terror to magnify their standing. Have you heard the term "force multiplier"? That term by definition means to use all sorts of things including terror (which is what Shock and Awe is) to magnify ones strategic standing. Since you argue that internal resistance groups are legitimite how else would an internal resistance goup increase its standing if not for using terror to bring down the military superior group in power? Your definiton of "terrorist" has no meaning as it is totally dependent on who you feel is legitimate and even contradicts itself. This isn't a consensus definiton at all as it is totally subjective.

 

Why isn't that an act of war rather than terrorism? Why is it terrorism at all? That action isn't designed to create terror but to destabilize the government so Hezbollah can fill the vacuum.

Since terrorism is pejorative it isn't objective, SC but subjective. You're mistaken something being more simplistic with being objective AND you're ignoring that our world revolves around making these very assessments. A vigilante is not the same as the criminal justice system, yet both might apprehend or punish a criminal. Their action might be exactly the same. So are they the same to you? Failing to factor in the legitimacy of the actor leads to equating Al Qaeda with the United Nations, a vigilante to a policeman, or someone who commits suicide to someone who commits homocide. Even IF, you are right, and the broadest possible application is more objective simply because it makes no acceptions - that definition is unworkable precisely because it does not make the aforementioned judgements.

OK. But you end up with a disfunction for clarity. A bully in a school is a terrorist. You exponentially expand the defined group in order to avoid distinguishing one from another but the resulting language is functionally useless. For the sake of clarity let's call every living being on the Earth 'Earthlings.' Yes, that is more objective and clear but what is the point?

Each of these examples operates within the nation-state system with the approval and oversight of the nation-state system. A corporation cannot do business in the US without the consent of the government, nor can Doctors Without Borders set up clinics in a country without the consent of the host state. None of these entities can create or enforce International Conventions nor can they make decisions that nation-states currently make.

Not sure what supra-national efforts you are talking about - you'll have to be more specific. If it is similar to Hezbollah attacking Israel then similar determinations would apply.

They could only attack military targets. History is filled with cases of internal groups making occupation by an external group so costly that they withdrew. Again, however, you are missing the point. Internal resistance groups have standing in the Conventions of War - their actions are, like states, either acceptable wartime acts or war crimes. Not so with terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or when these groups act outside their internal conflict ie Hezbollah has no standing to attack Israel.

There is no contradiction. My definition is very close to what has been proposed in many versions of the 100+ already in statutes and conventions so it is closer to a consensus than your overly broad attempt. It starts with the clarification of who are legitimate actors that already have rules set out for determination of what is and is not acceptable.

 

I think you're aggregating all public institutions as "the goverment". While there is beauracracy at many levels...thinks like this aren't necessarily in line with government incompetence. Poping on a multivariate analysis as being 20% more likely to be someone connected to unlawful groups isn't enough to define you as an "enemey combantant". But it might be enough to spur further investigation and help intelligence focus their efforts on the right people.

This is an efficiency tool - not a judgement one. My comparison to marketers was to demonstrate that point. When you have millions of people flying - and you can't possibly follow each and every one - you have to employ statistics and concentrate your efforts. That's all this is. Let's not confused this with the general gov't incompetence you are quoting...

 

Oops. Somebody has some splainin' to do!

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72250-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

 

You know I was just thinking about this system. It's interesting I remember reading a book after the '93 WTC bombings talking about how if the government didn't find a way to unify their data and develop new ways to make cross connections, there would inevitably be another (and probably worse) terrorist attack. Yossef Bodanski was the author. Pretty right on with his analysis. Now the government is doing this (too late to stop 9/11 unfortunately) and we're seeing a lot of backlash. I'm just not sure what to think about this program.

 

Yeah - how can they have passed a 2007 bill when it's still 2006???

 

Oh ok....

but here's a question, is the National Targeting Center funded by homeland security? I don't see that as being established in the article...

 

There is this amazing thing called google...

First hit.

 

I'll take a grain of salt with your sarcasm.

So it appears there's a problem with the NTC and the funding bill. I wonder why it's been overlooked?

 

So terrorism can never be committed under a state of war? In that case then there are no terrorists in Iraq. This is another example of how attempts to carve exceptions to the language lead to absurdities.

I will agree with you that it is used perjoratively but that's my point is that it shouldn't be used solely perjoratively but descriptively. The problem with comparing it to the terms "vigilante" and "policeman" is that those terms have a greater amount of precision involved with them. "Terrorist" describes someone who uses "terror" to achieve an end so logically one who uses "terror" is a "terrorist." but that's not the case and if you ask enough people that will never be the case since there will always be people who justify such action. Its like if I say someone who "bakes" is a "baker" so a person baking a cake is a baker just like a person baking a bread is a baker and then you come back and say "no a cake isn't the same as bread so the person making the cake isn't a baker." Yes cakes aren't bread but the action is the same and in both cases the person is a "baker."

At the same time though language allows to describe and rate the extent and severity of action. Do you consider the Animal Liberation Front to be "terrorists?" They don't kill people just release animals yet they are considered officially a "terrorist" organization.

While they do argue in the nation-state structure though several NGO groups operate outside of that structure. Cuban exiles groups drop leaflets on Cuba without the approval of the Cuban government. Tibetan exile groups send information and people into and out of the PRC. Corporations while needing to operate with the consensus of states still often engage on their own trade negotiations with nation states on an equal footing and in some cases stronger footing than the states they are doing business with.

The small Continental Revolutionary attacked and British ships outside US waters while other Revolutionaries attacked and sabotaged British and monarchists sympathizers in territory that was outside the original colonies.

Accept this problem also raises problems. Hamas although almost completely internal to Israel and the occupied territories and an internal resistance group are considered terrorists. The IRA’s attacks within Northern Ireland were considered terrorist attacks just the same as their attacks in London. Depending on what part of this definition you emphasize then many American Revolutionaries like Benjamin Martin of The Patriot were also terrorists since they attacked civilian who were Monarchists.

I will agree that many people are trying to define the terms “terrorism” and “terrorists” based upon legitimacy that though doesn’t mean that this is a consensus definition or definitive definition as even you point recognize. Depending on who you ask there are so many qualifiers to it that practically anyone can engages in actions like bombing civilians but not be a “terrorist”. The qualifiers and subjectivity divorce the action from the actor.

I understand why people are doing this and specifically why this is something you are interested in doing. Because it gives people an out with the manipulation of language to provide a positive or negative spin on an action. Its part of a double speak that allows obfuscation for calling something what it is.

 

The problem is that the data entered and judgement to act on that information is still made by people. As regard to general government incompetence this is still the same government. For instance many people rail about government waste and bureacracy in HUD. Many of those same people will also argue for greater spending inthe military yet the military is as wasteful and likely more than HUD. The US Fed. government overall has shown a great propensity for bureaucratic waste and incompetence that has applied to all sectors. Just because they have better tools you are still looking at the same bureaucratic structure trying to run those tools.

 

Ok - so you are arguing that all tools should be taken away in order to create more effieciency? No Computers. No intel. No pens or paper.

All of these things depend on how humans use them, and the gov't is wasteful, thus all tool create waste.

This is the weakest argument I've ever seen you make.