Domestic political violence (USA)

[jmm99]

of Title 18 U.S. Code, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, is concerned, you have to read the whole thing, together with some of its seemingly odd exceptions.

E.g., in 18 USC 2331, Definitions:

(4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of - (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

and 18 USC 2332f, Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities:

(d) Exemptions to Jurisdiction. - This section does not apply to - (1) the activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under the law of war, which are governed by that law, (2) activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties; ....
.....
(10) "military forces of a state" means the armed forces of a state which are organized, trained, and equipped under its internal law for the primary purpose of national defense or security, and persons acting in support of those armed forces who are under their formal command, control, and responsibility; (11) "armed conflict" does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature; and (12) "state" has the same meaning as that term has under international law, and includes all political subdivisions thereof.

Do those provisions exclude AQ, if that group is considered a military force (waging unconventional warfare vs the US and others?), from prosecution under the Terrorist Act in a civilian court for say 9/11 or its other bombings ?

Of course that does not mean that AQ members cannot be detained (and yes prosecuted for war crimes) under Military Law.

And, yes, you probably could fit the suicide pilot into the domestic terrorist category; but for what purpose ? The guy is dead; and there seems so far no larger conspiracy.

Regards

Mike

[zenpundit]

This is really an argument regarding parameters. I think Ken is taking a far too narrow view of what constitutes "terrorism", historically speaking.

Certainly, well-organized, highly ideological, methodical and frequently state-sponsored groups that engage in assassinations, hijackings, bombings and murder of civilians to further political objectives should be considered terrorists. The Marxist and Left-revolutionary nationalist groups of the 1960's-1980's from the Baader-Meihoff Gang, FALN, IRA and the PLO factions fit this model but they are not the only kind of org that can engage in terrorism.

While terrorism as a tactic has a very long pedigree - ancient Athens celebrated Harmodius and Aristogeiton as democratic martyrs for assasinating the tyrant Hipparchus - the term's meaning has evolved. The first modern terrorists were Jacobin agents of the Committee of Public Safety like Joseph Fouche enforcing a revolutionary terror against hapless clergy and other "enemies".

Later 19th century terrorists were primarily anarchists, acting in small cells like the Russian People's Will or as solitary assassins and bombmakers. Their ideology was ill-defined, their strategy virtually absent as they advocated "the propaganda of the deed". This tradition continued well into the 20th century with the Left S.R's trying to kill Lenin and itinerant anarchists attempting to kill Mussolini, A. Mitchell Palmer and FDR. Ethnic criminal organizations such as the Sicilian Black Hand and the Irish Molly Maguires also made liberal use of terrorism to buttress their efforts at extortion and influence in their communities.

Using a narrow organizational definition of terrorism pretty much eliminates most of the historical examples on which the concept of terrorism itself is based. More often than not, terrorism reprsents an inarticulate but violent political gesture that is not connected to a methodical, sequential, plan to tople the state.

[Ken White]

Using a narrow organizational definition of terrorism pretty much eliminates most of the historical examples on which the concept of terrorism itself is based. More often than not, terrorism reprsents an inarticulate but violent political gesture that is not connected to a methodical, sequential, plan to tople the state.

I agree with the last clause but disagree with the first. 'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.

More precisely, the intended effect of what was done (Terror, like other things can fail to achieve a goal) is the defining factor. If the effort by a single actor or a group, organized or not, is intended to provoke a mass or target group reaction then it's terror. If it is a violent act or series of them intended to make a statement, political or otherwise it may or may not be a terroristic act but if it does not provoke a sense of terror or fear in a target population, then it rarely will really be an act of terror.

If it is an action by a deranged individual or collection of them and achieves no significant effect or fearful reaction by a targeted population other than locally, it's a nut or a few doing something stupid and usually wasteful.

I agree with Rifleman. What you call something is important due to human perception triggering reaction. Overuse of the 'terror' tag has sorta cheapened it. As we can see...

[Armed Liberal]

Joining the debate late, but led here from Zenpundit's link. I'll apologetically take a moment to disagree with much of what ZP says; the Committee on Public Safety was an organization of the State - chartered by the National Assembly. If their actions were terrorism, then so are the actions of every brutal dictatorship in the world - so, in fact, are the actions of every state that uses deadly force to enforce state policy.

I'll suggest that there are two phenomena here - one is what I've been calling the phenomenon of "muckers" (after John Brunner) - people who because of some anomic defect simply decide that killing people - sometimes lots of people - is the only way to scratch some psychic itch. We're rich in them in the West, for philosophical reasons that are interesting to explore, but a sidebar.

One is the growing acceptance, in the face of new standards of behavior in warfare that explicitly attempt to restrain military behavior, of non-state violence.

Some of the non-state actors are political participants within a state (Sri Lanka, the Taliban) some are transnational movements (currently the one that is active and attention getting is based on a modern interpretation of fundamentalist Islam - Islam crossbred with modern European philosophy).

I'll suggest a kind of "occam's razor" in distinguishing muckers from terrorists; if there are policy issues at stake - even irrational ones, we are probably talking about terrorists, even if they are lone wolf or self-initiated terrorists.

Muckers have no addressable complaints - as the Austin pilot didn't, the Washington state trooper murderer didn't. And they had no social network supporting and encouraging this kind of violence.

The Aryan Nation bank robbers in the 1980's? terrorists. Random cranks who go off and spout inchoate rage against the government and the system? Not so much, I'll argue.

So it seems dangerous to define terrorism down to the level of someone like this...


Marc

[zenpundit]

"Joining the debate late, but led here from Zenpundit's link. I'll apologetically take a moment to disagree with much of what ZP says; the Committee on Public Safety was an organization of the State - chartered by the National Assembly. If their actions were terrorism, then so are the actions of every brutal dictatorship in the world - so, in fact, are the actions of every state that uses deadly force to enforce state policy"

Yes, that however was the point of origin for the concept of terrorism and "Terrorists", as a state agency, propagators of "the Terror" during the French Revolution, though the tactic is ancient (see LaQueur, Voices of Terror). The Jacobins and the Paris Commune were the heavy historical influence on Lenin's ideas of revolutionary violence ( along with the theories of Sergei Nechaev). Terrorism later became associated with groups and individuals which is how we use it today but "state terrorism" has never disappeared, we just call it something else.

[Ken White]

I'm sure some will think so. Seems like not a terrorist, simply yet another nutter...

[slapout9]

SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...e-on-the-right

[Schmedlap]

SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009


http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...e-on-the-right

I heard an equally credible report from an equally credible group (though on the other side of the political spectrum) claiming that left-wing politicians want to destroy our way of life. Panic! If someone reports it, it must be objectively true!

[Ken White]

SPLC special report on the rise of hate groups. Up 244% for 2009

Only way to keep those grants and donations coming in...

[Rifleman]

I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.

[Bob's World]

Under current definitions, which I believe have been heavily shaped to define the current threat, no, it is not terrorism.

A quick google takes one to ABOUT with several definitions. In 1937 it was terrorism according to the League of Nations:

"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."

And it may meet the current FBI definition:

"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."

And certainly it is under the Arab Conventions of 1998; which ironically have about the lowest standard for what qualifies as terrorism. The cynic in me would say it is because it really flies in the face of Arab culture to have to work too hard at anything...:

"Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources."

[slapout9]

I believe violent acts should be considered either criminal acts or acts of war regardless of motivation and aims. I don't see "terrorism" as a useful classification for violent acts either foreign or domestic. I see terrorism as a tactic, not a useful legal definition.

I don't think the US or our allies should be engaged in a so called "Global War on Terror." I think we should be engaged in a war on militant Islamic organizations.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the US declared war on the nation of Japan. We didn't declare war on tactics and techniques like Japanese Naval Aviation or Japanese air raids.

Rifleman, your right to a point...........he was a Revolutionary and he was willing to pay any price to make his point. Bob Dylan recently played at the White House singing some of his songs but I bet he didn't play this one. The Tea Party was an act of Revolution.............most people seem to forget that. H. Rap Brown said "Revolution is as American As Apple Pie." The 70's are coming back and most ain't old enough to remember the Revolutionary groups that existed then or they have forgotten them. The New Breed will be a lot tougher and smarter. So much for my weekend analysis have to go do my "honey do list"

album: Band of the Hand Soundtrack

lyrics

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Down these streets the fools rule
There's no freedom or self respect,
A knife's point or a trip to the joint
Is about all you can expect.

They kill people here who stand up for their rights, The system's just too damned corrupt
It's always the same, the name of the game
Is who do you know higher up well.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

The blacks and the whites,
The idiotic, the exotic,
Wealth is a filthy rag
So erotic so unpatriotic
So wrapped up in the American flag.

Witchcraft scum exploiting the dumb,
Turning children into punks and slaves
Whose heroes and healers are rich drug dealers Who should be put in their graves.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

Listen to me Mr. Pussyman
This might be your last night in a bed so soft. We're not pimps on the make, politicians on the take, You can't pay us off.

We're gonna blow up your home of Voodoo
And watch it burn without any regret
We got the power we're the new government,
You just don't know it yet.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man

For all of my brothers from Vietnam
And my uncles from World War II,
I'd like to say that it's countdown time now
And we're gonna do what the law should do.

And for you pretty baby,
I know you've seen it all.
I know your story is too painful to share.
One day though you'll be talking in your sleep.And when you do, I wanna be there yeaahhh.

It's Hell Time Man
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man
Band of The Hand
It's Hell Time Man

The Studio Version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JLoO1S3-QE

[zenpundit]

Ken wrote:

"If it is a violent act or series of them intended to make a statement, political or otherwise it may or may not be a terroristic act but if it does not provoke a sense of terror or fear in a target population, then it rarely will really be an act of terror."

So, if a bomb explodes in the marketplace, and the media of a regime suppresses the information ( and thus, the spread of fear) the bombing isn't an act of terrorism?

[Ken White]

So, if a bomb explodes in the marketplace, and the media of a regime suppresses the information ( and thus, the spread of fear) the bombing isn't an act of terrorism?

Tell me who made and who exploded the bomb and for what purpose, then describe the actual damage done and I might be able to answer that...

It would also be helpful to know if the news of the bombing, though suppressed, leaked out and instilled a sense of terror resulting in behavior modification of the masses or elements thereof. That will not affect the determination of intent to commit a terroristic act it will merely indicate its success as an action...

[zenpundit]

Ken wrote:

'Whodunnit' isn't the issue, what was done is the determinant.

Ken also wrote:

Tell me who made and who exploded the bomb and for what purpose, then describe the actual damage done and I might be able to answer that...

and also:

Seems to me that is true and thus we're describing abberant actions that do not reach a threshold of inspiring terror

Now, I do not disagree that these different and conflicting standards of determining whether an act was terrorism could be useful yardsticks. To me, there's more than one kind of terrorism in the world and multiple causation acting as catalyst for that behavior with terrorists aiming for different objectives.

Pre-9/11, few counterterrorism experts would have counseled airline passengers and crew to resist hijackers because the idea that hijackers would suicidally fly the plane into buildings was not considered to be probable behavior, as the experts were working from the Western and Third World Marxist revolutionary group model to which al Qaida does not fit.

I see terrorism as more of a spectrum phenomena than a neat categorical box.

[Bob's World]

Terrorism is in the intent, not the effect.

A man places a charge in a fuel truck, drives it to Dodger stadium to blow up a World Series crowd to make a statement for his cause, but accidentally self-detonates on a remote road and no one is aware of his true intent nor is impacted by the blast.

Another man is merely driving his fuel truck through LA to make is scheduled deliveries, and a freak electrical shortage initiates a blast killing him, and 30 bystanders, causing millions of dollars in damage and impacting the populace of S. California for months.

Which one is a terrorist? The one who terrorized or the one who intended to terrorize?

I think our current definitions are overly politicized.

President Bush left office on the one proud metric that post-9/11 "we have not been attacked." This is a record that Politicians want to keep intact; if not in fact, then by simply defining what are clearly terrorist acts, like the last two Texas events, out of that realm.

To imply that one is only a terrorist if they are linked to AQ or some similar foreign organization that regularly employs terrorist tactics to seek its political goals is as obscene as it is absurd.

[Ken White]

Pre-9/11, few counterterrorism experts would have counseled airline passengers and crew to resist hijackers because the idea that hijackers would suicidally fly the plane into buildings was not considered to be probable behavior, as the experts were working from the Western and Third World Marxist revolutionary group model to which al Qaida does not fit.

You have neatly encapsulated why I'm deeply suspicious of experts. An ex is a has-been, etc.

I see terrorism as more of a spectrum phenomena than a neat categorical box.

Totally agree, thus my agreement with Entropy that it's an eye of the beholder thing and with Bob's World that our current definitions are overly politicized. I also agree with Bob on this:

To imply that one is only a terrorist if they are linked to AQ or some similar foreign organization that regularly employs terrorist tactics to seek its political goals is as obscene as it is absurd.

therefor I'm glad I implied no such thing...

Nor do I think anyone here did that though I acknowledge others on all facets of the political spectrum have. That's why I believe the term to be over used and urge caution in its application.