| Chapter Thirteen of Pax Americana: The Military Industrial Complex and the War On Terror by Danny Quintana |
| Defining Terrorism “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” Author unknown |
Clearly there is not a common global consensus on who is a “freedom fighter”, whatever that might be, and who is a terrorist. To the Israeli
public, a desperate Palestinian with a stick of dynamite strapped to his belt is a “terrorist”. To some Palestinians, this misguided individual is a
“freedom fighter”. The definition of a terrorist by the United States is set forth by statute as follows:
public, a desperate Palestinian with a stick of dynamite strapped to his belt is a “terrorist”. To some Palestinians, this misguided individual is a
“freedom fighter”. The definition of a terrorist by the United States is set forth by statute as follows:
Before the 1860’s and Jean Henri Dunant, governments killed their citizens with impunity. Prior to World War II, terrorism usually referred to
the killing of political leaders. In fact, one small band of Russian revolutionaries, ‘Narodnaya Volya’ (the people’s will), proudly used the word
“terrorist” to describe their political killings of the Tsarist government. 3 State terrorism, is controversial and escapes the United States
definition. Part of the reason for the narrow American definition is the use of torture by American allies. With military dictatorships that have
been supported by the United States around the planet, our foreign policy requires that terrorism be limited to acts by individuals, not nation
states. 4
the killing of political leaders. In fact, one small band of Russian revolutionaries, ‘Narodnaya Volya’ (the people’s will), proudly used the word
“terrorist” to describe their political killings of the Tsarist government. 3 State terrorism, is controversial and escapes the United States
definition. Part of the reason for the narrow American definition is the use of torture by American allies. With military dictatorships that have
been supported by the United States around the planet, our foreign policy requires that terrorism be limited to acts by individuals, not nation
states. 4
An expanded definition of “terrorism” would have subjected acts of many current and now deceased heads of state supported by the US to
violations of international law. General Noriega in Panama, General Suharto in Indonesia, President Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah
Mohammed Reza Phlevi of Iran, the Guatemalan military junta, and numerous other, not to mention our own actions in Vietnam could have
been considered acts of sheer terrorism to the victims on the receiving end of our foreign policy.
The United States government has trained and funded some of the most brutal terrorists on earth. Fort Benning, Georgia runs the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation or Whisc, also known as School of the Americas. Since 1946, SOA has trained more then
60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Some of the graduates are many of the continent’s most notorious torturers, mass murders,
dictators and state terrorists.5
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people have been murdered, tortured or just disappeared as a result of the actions of dictators
aligned with the United States. History may never know the number of people who were murdered by the Shah’s secret police, the
Guatemalan military, the Argentine generals, the Chilean junta, American supported dictatorships in Africa, Shuarto’s campaign against
political dissidents and numerous other misfortunes of history. The reality is most of the 20th century’s warfare could be classified as
terrorism. “If applied to states' behaviour towards the citizens of other states, most of 20th century warfare, from aerial bombing of cities and
"scorched Earth" policies to "ethnic cleansing" would qualify, and many states would be "terrorist" by definition. Since no state wants to define
itself as terroristic, the term "terrorist" is more often applied to non-state actors in asymmetric warfare.”6
The word terrorist is a political label. Without a political agenda, a person who engages in acts of violence for the purpose of instilling fear, is
a mere criminal. As the Chinese proverb states: “Kill one frighten ten thousand”. What distinguishes a terrorist from a simple killer is the
“terrorist” seeks to cause fear with his or her crime. Without media attention centered on the “reasons” for the violence, the person or person
committing these crimes would be denied a political agenda. What the person or persons seeks in committing these horrendously violent
crimes is media attention to their cause. This is exactly why news reports of the violent acts is so important for the participants in this violence.
Defining acts of violence as crimes instead of as acts of terrorism is a better approach. Judge Baxter expressed his frustration thus:
violations of international law. General Noriega in Panama, General Suharto in Indonesia, President Marcos in the Philippines, the Shah
Mohammed Reza Phlevi of Iran, the Guatemalan military junta, and numerous other, not to mention our own actions in Vietnam could have
been considered acts of sheer terrorism to the victims on the receiving end of our foreign policy.
The United States government has trained and funded some of the most brutal terrorists on earth. Fort Benning, Georgia runs the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation or Whisc, also known as School of the Americas. Since 1946, SOA has trained more then
60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Some of the graduates are many of the continent’s most notorious torturers, mass murders,
dictators and state terrorists.5
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people have been murdered, tortured or just disappeared as a result of the actions of dictators
aligned with the United States. History may never know the number of people who were murdered by the Shah’s secret police, the
Guatemalan military, the Argentine generals, the Chilean junta, American supported dictatorships in Africa, Shuarto’s campaign against
political dissidents and numerous other misfortunes of history. The reality is most of the 20th century’s warfare could be classified as
terrorism. “If applied to states' behaviour towards the citizens of other states, most of 20th century warfare, from aerial bombing of cities and
"scorched Earth" policies to "ethnic cleansing" would qualify, and many states would be "terrorist" by definition. Since no state wants to define
itself as terroristic, the term "terrorist" is more often applied to non-state actors in asymmetric warfare.”6
The word terrorist is a political label. Without a political agenda, a person who engages in acts of violence for the purpose of instilling fear, is
a mere criminal. As the Chinese proverb states: “Kill one frighten ten thousand”. What distinguishes a terrorist from a simple killer is the
“terrorist” seeks to cause fear with his or her crime. Without media attention centered on the “reasons” for the violence, the person or person
committing these crimes would be denied a political agenda. What the person or persons seeks in committing these horrendously violent
crimes is media attention to their cause. This is exactly why news reports of the violent acts is so important for the participants in this violence.
Defining acts of violence as crimes instead of as acts of terrorism is a better approach. Judge Baxter expressed his frustration thus:
Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
—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 the
territory or the citizens of more than one country.
—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice,
international terrorism. 1
—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 the
territory or the citizens of more than one country.
—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice,
international terrorism. 1
"The word 'terrorism' entered into European languages in the wake of the
French revolution of 1789. In the early revolutionary years, it was largely
by violence that governments in Paris tried to impose their radical new order
on a reluctant citizenry. As a result, the first meaning of the word 'terrorism',
as recorded by the Académie Française in 1798, was 'system or rule of terror'.
This serves as a healthy reminder that terror is often at its bloodiest when
used by dictatorial governments against their own citizens." 2
French revolution of 1789. In the early revolutionary years, it was largely
by violence that governments in Paris tried to impose their radical new order
on a reluctant citizenry. As a result, the first meaning of the word 'terrorism',
as recorded by the Académie Française in 1798, was 'system or rule of terror'.
This serves as a healthy reminder that terror is often at its bloodiest when
used by dictatorial governments against their own citizens." 2
As long as humans have organized into societies, there have been individuals who have violated the laws and harmed others. These criminal
acts have required law enforcement to investigate and find the culprits. After a full and fair trial, where the criminals like Timothy McVeigh and
various others, got a right their victims did not have, the right to be heard, with proper evidence, they were convicted. Criminals engaged in
political violence always leave a trail of evidence to show the world how proud they are of the harm they caused. Unlike drug dealers, criminal
terrorists always want attention brought to their cause. Regardless of one’s views of the death penalty, the criminals are tracked down
and locked into a prison, thereby removing them from society. In some nations, criminals are executed.
Today, we live in a global society. We drive Japanese and German automobiles, fueled by Venezuelan gas on our way to a Vietnamese
restaurant. In the evenings as we sit on our furniture made in China, drinking our French wine watching televisions made in Taiwan, while the
reporters talk about who was killed and injured as if somehow this is “news”. Our computers might have chips made in Costa Rica.
Our fruits and vegetables might be from Mexico. This is a new century. We might lose our telecommunications job to someone in India but sell
products to a company in Saudi Arabia. Most families have had members travel to other countries, whether it is to Canada, Mexico or Europe.
Some of our families have members in Africa and the Middle East. Regardless of what justification or spin is put on the act of killing an
innocent human, some law somewhere was violated. When the evidence is there for an indictment, after they are apprehended, they must be
tried before a jury. If a jury finds that the individual involved is guilty, individual punishment should be applied. The big policy mistake we make
in calling individuals who engage in violent crime, “terrorists” is we empower them and elevate their scumbag status.
America’s legal system has two stars which shine brighter than any other in our judicial constellation, the presumption of innocence and proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. These two legal principles protect the public from irrational government and individual abuses of power. We may
disagree with our neighbor’s green spiked hair or our relative’s politics and religion. But if we harm one hair on their heads, we have
committed a violent criminal act and the law is there to protect them. Despite all of it’s flaws, our legal system works and works well 95 percent
of the time. Where there are flawed verdicts, it is usually through poor lawyering rather than a widespread failure of our legal system. If we
simply prosecute individuals for their criminal acts in conjunction with other nations, we will deprive the killers that are a part of our global
society of their political agenda.
On the other hand, if we label a criminal as a “terrorist”, the political agenda gets priority over the deaths of the innocent people. By trying
each case, those who are found not guilty will go back to their communities with a higher opinion of the United States. When we take away
someone’s political agenda, we get the upper hand. But if we stoop to the level of the killers among our global society, we lose the very free
society we are trying to protect. America is the concept of freedom of thought and liberty of expression. These ideas can only be defeated by
better ideas in the free marketplace of thought. These ideas cannot be defeated by killers whose sole motive is their love of violence and
their political agenda. But they can be harmed by our own reactions to global crime. If we empower scumbags who kill innocent people, then
they no longer are mere killers and murderers. Then they become terrorists or even “freedom fighters”. Our best solution in defining
“terrorism” is to specifically define the individual acts as crimes. And not be afraid. Treat the violent act as crimes and prosecute them. If we
can prosecute millions of people for smoking marijuana, we can certainly hunt down the handful of killers in our global society. When
individuals engaged in crimes against the United States have been captured, it follows that they have to be interrogated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Central Intelligence Agency, How Do You Define Terrorism? At:www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html
2. The Changing Face of Terrorism, by Adam Roberts at: September 11th in Context:
www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/sept_11/changing_faces_01.shtml
3. Ibid.
4. Martian Peace, Why We Must Explore The Oceans and Space, Chapter Nine, “OK, So We
Supported A Few Dictators” pp. 76-82 Beckham Publishers December, 2003 ISBN 0-931761-80-8
5. ibId. At page 81.
6. Wikipedia. Terrorism, Problems with Definition at:www.fact-index.com/t/te/terrorism.html#Problems%20with%20the%20definition
7. cite 2 supra. See also, R. Baxter, " A Skeptical Look at the Concept of Terrorism" 7 Arkon Law Review (1974) 380 also at: Defining
International Terrorism online at:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/parchive/2001/Z2001-Feb-26/www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n1/obote-odora61.html
acts have required law enforcement to investigate and find the culprits. After a full and fair trial, where the criminals like Timothy McVeigh and
various others, got a right their victims did not have, the right to be heard, with proper evidence, they were convicted. Criminals engaged in
political violence always leave a trail of evidence to show the world how proud they are of the harm they caused. Unlike drug dealers, criminal
terrorists always want attention brought to their cause. Regardless of one’s views of the death penalty, the criminals are tracked down
and locked into a prison, thereby removing them from society. In some nations, criminals are executed.
Today, we live in a global society. We drive Japanese and German automobiles, fueled by Venezuelan gas on our way to a Vietnamese
restaurant. In the evenings as we sit on our furniture made in China, drinking our French wine watching televisions made in Taiwan, while the
reporters talk about who was killed and injured as if somehow this is “news”. Our computers might have chips made in Costa Rica.
Our fruits and vegetables might be from Mexico. This is a new century. We might lose our telecommunications job to someone in India but sell
products to a company in Saudi Arabia. Most families have had members travel to other countries, whether it is to Canada, Mexico or Europe.
Some of our families have members in Africa and the Middle East. Regardless of what justification or spin is put on the act of killing an
innocent human, some law somewhere was violated. When the evidence is there for an indictment, after they are apprehended, they must be
tried before a jury. If a jury finds that the individual involved is guilty, individual punishment should be applied. The big policy mistake we make
in calling individuals who engage in violent crime, “terrorists” is we empower them and elevate their scumbag status.
America’s legal system has two stars which shine brighter than any other in our judicial constellation, the presumption of innocence and proof
beyond a reasonable doubt. These two legal principles protect the public from irrational government and individual abuses of power. We may
disagree with our neighbor’s green spiked hair or our relative’s politics and religion. But if we harm one hair on their heads, we have
committed a violent criminal act and the law is there to protect them. Despite all of it’s flaws, our legal system works and works well 95 percent
of the time. Where there are flawed verdicts, it is usually through poor lawyering rather than a widespread failure of our legal system. If we
simply prosecute individuals for their criminal acts in conjunction with other nations, we will deprive the killers that are a part of our global
society of their political agenda.
On the other hand, if we label a criminal as a “terrorist”, the political agenda gets priority over the deaths of the innocent people. By trying
each case, those who are found not guilty will go back to their communities with a higher opinion of the United States. When we take away
someone’s political agenda, we get the upper hand. But if we stoop to the level of the killers among our global society, we lose the very free
society we are trying to protect. America is the concept of freedom of thought and liberty of expression. These ideas can only be defeated by
better ideas in the free marketplace of thought. These ideas cannot be defeated by killers whose sole motive is their love of violence and
their political agenda. But they can be harmed by our own reactions to global crime. If we empower scumbags who kill innocent people, then
they no longer are mere killers and murderers. Then they become terrorists or even “freedom fighters”. Our best solution in defining
“terrorism” is to specifically define the individual acts as crimes. And not be afraid. Treat the violent act as crimes and prosecute them. If we
can prosecute millions of people for smoking marijuana, we can certainly hunt down the handful of killers in our global society. When
individuals engaged in crimes against the United States have been captured, it follows that they have to be interrogated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. Central Intelligence Agency, How Do You Define Terrorism? At:www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html
2. The Changing Face of Terrorism, by Adam Roberts at: September 11th in Context:
www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/sept_11/changing_faces_01.shtml
3. Ibid.
4. Martian Peace, Why We Must Explore The Oceans and Space, Chapter Nine, “OK, So We
Supported A Few Dictators” pp. 76-82 Beckham Publishers December, 2003 ISBN 0-931761-80-8
5. ibId. At page 81.
6. Wikipedia. Terrorism, Problems with Definition at:www.fact-index.com/t/te/terrorism.html#Problems%20with%20the%20definition
7. cite 2 supra. See also, R. Baxter, " A Skeptical Look at the Concept of Terrorism" 7 Arkon Law Review (1974) 380 also at: Defining
International Terrorism online at:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/parchive/2001/Z2001-Feb-26/www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v6n1/obote-odora61.html
If we quit calling criminal acts against Americans, “terrorism” and focus on the
individual, then the political agenda goes away. Nobody cares why Timothy
McViegh bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building. His political views are
irrelevant. Being unable to succeed in other areas of life, unhappy disgruntled
individuals will commit crimes to get attention. Defining McViegh and his
accomplice Terry Nichols as “terrorists” does not assist in a criminal prosecution.
The mistake we have made with definitions is we have politicized criminals. What
is required is individual, case by case prosecution of people who have committed
crimes of violence against Americans. With a prison and jail population of two
million, we clearly can afford to try the detainees presently being held.
individual, then the political agenda goes away. Nobody cares why Timothy
McViegh bombed the Oklahoma Federal Building. His political views are
irrelevant. Being unable to succeed in other areas of life, unhappy disgruntled
individuals will commit crimes to get attention. Defining McViegh and his
accomplice Terry Nichols as “terrorists” does not assist in a criminal prosecution.
The mistake we have made with definitions is we have politicized criminals. What
is required is individual, case by case prosecution of people who have committed
crimes of violence against Americans. With a prison and jail population of two
million, we clearly can afford to try the detainees presently being held.
 | |  | |  |
In reality, a terrorist is someone with a political agenda that wants and unfortunately receives media attention to further their political cause,
however insane their cause might be. The history of terrorism and terror is quite different. Usually, it was government sponsored violence that
caused the populace to live in fear. After all, that was the goal, control over the populace through the use of fear. As Professor Adam Roberts
observes:
however insane their cause might be. The history of terrorism and terror is quite different. Usually, it was government sponsored violence that
caused the populace to live in fear. After all, that was the goal, control over the populace through the use of fear. As Professor Adam Roberts
observes:
"[W]e have cause to regret that a legal concept of terrorism was ever
it serves no operative legal purpose. 7
it serves no operative legal purpose. 7
The first law of human behavior is whatever behavior we feed grows. The more media attention we give to violent individuals, the more acts of
violence we are going to generate. There will never be a global consensus on what is a terrorist or what violent acts constitute terrorism for
several reasons. Many nations are still very unstable. As groups fight for power, they will view their actions as just and the opposition to their
political agenda as unjust. Whether it is the drug dealers in Columbia, rebels in small African nations, Chenyia or Kashmire, or Haiti, the
individuals involved in their various political causes will see themselves as “freedom fighters”.
Acts of violence by non-state actors, is a problem in this century only because there is a lack of international law and enforcement in dealing
with these criminals. The fact that there is global poverty and oppression is not relevant for our purposes. What is relevant is the violence
itself. The 19 young men that hijacked the four planes on September 11, 2001 committed crimes of murder. Their associates and
accomplices can be tried criminally to the extent they had knowledge and complicity in these crimes. The reasons for their violent acts are not
relevent to the families of the victims who died. Their political agenda only becomes relevant if we give media attention to their political,
religious or environmental or whatever “cause” they are advocating.
violence we are going to generate. There will never be a global consensus on what is a terrorist or what violent acts constitute terrorism for
several reasons. Many nations are still very unstable. As groups fight for power, they will view their actions as just and the opposition to their
political agenda as unjust. Whether it is the drug dealers in Columbia, rebels in small African nations, Chenyia or Kashmire, or Haiti, the
individuals involved in their various political causes will see themselves as “freedom fighters”.
Acts of violence by non-state actors, is a problem in this century only because there is a lack of international law and enforcement in dealing
with these criminals. The fact that there is global poverty and oppression is not relevant for our purposes. What is relevant is the violence
itself. The 19 young men that hijacked the four planes on September 11, 2001 committed crimes of murder. Their associates and
accomplices can be tried criminally to the extent they had knowledge and complicity in these crimes. The reasons for their violent acts are not
relevent to the families of the victims who died. Their political agenda only becomes relevant if we give media attention to their political,
religious or environmental or whatever “cause” they are advocating.
