Defining Terrorism and Eco-Terror
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published May 25, 2007, 2:24 pm in Ethics, Morality, & Justice, Rhetoric.
Let's talk terrorism. It's not a pretty subject, and it generally comes down to that famous quote by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I know it when I see it." When we see the World Trade Center come tumbling down, we know that's terrorism. Before going any further, however, let's look at standard definitions of terrorism. If you Google the phrase "What is terrorism," you will get a bunch of definitions from all over the web, and I will briefly go through a few of these. What I want to get to here is that terrorism is not always clear-cut, and perhaps some things should not be labeled terrorism while other things we don't think of that way perhaps should be labeled terrorism.
According to the US Department of Defense, terrorism is "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives." A lot of other definitions focus on this same idea, some of them making it even broader: "The FBI defines terrorism as '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.'" Notice that these definitions state that terrorism is defined by its motive. Without the greater objective, the act cannot be labeled terrorism. This definition isn't always the case, however. In fact, according to the Wikipedia article on the subject, the only constant in definitions of terrorism is violence or the threat of violence. But then the British Terrorism Act 2000 blew that out of the water by claiming that a computer virus could be an act of terrorism, even though no violence was ever intended. Here, I guess it goes back to motive.
But even motive can't be understood so easily. What was the motive of the members of al Qaeda for blowing up the World Trade Center? What is the motive of all of the suicide bombers in Iraq? If a Shiite blows him or herself up in Baghdad, is the motive to make the U.S. leave or to make the Sunnis leave? Can we really tell? Does it really matter?
Other definitions state that violent acts against non-military or non-combat targets are terrorism. So a suicide bomber in a village, a market, or outside a U.S. base would all be a terrorist. Even if the person blew him or herself up inside a military base, they weren't operating as combat troops at that point; they weren't fighting, after all. So those would be terrorist activities.
Why is the definition of terrorism important? Because we have to know how to label people and actions. In fact, if I were a cynical man, I would say that the U.S. conveniently labels anyone it doesn't like a terrorist. How can I say that? Well, look at Iraq. Before the invasion, the U.S. had tried to get the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein. We would love it in Iran, for example. If people started rebelling against the Iranian government, we would probably cheer. Would we call them terrorists or freedom fighters? Rebels? If they had overthrown Saddam Hussein in a bloody guerilla war, would we have called them terrorists? I doubt it. But now we're in control. If they fight against the U.S. forces there, what do we call them?
So perhaps motive doesn't matter. Both of them want to change the government. Does fighting against non-military troops matter? Maybe, but when can someone be said to be in a military operation? If some rebels attack a U.S. Humvee full of U.S. troops, is that terrorism?
Me, I don't know. On the one hand, I want to say that it is NOT terrorism, but on the other, they're fighting against the U.S., so they're bad. If someone tried to blow up a military base in the U.S., it would certainly be terrorism.
But wait! Why does all of this matter? I still don't know why we should care about the definition of terrorism. Well, did you know that the U.S. didn't really have a legal definition of terrorism? Nope, just a hodgepodge of different organizations that define terrorism differently. So when it comes to a supposed eco-terrorist, like the one just sentenced in Oregon, can the judge define him as a terrorist? If we look at the Department of Defense's defintion--"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives"--then he's definitely a terrorist, because the focus is on motive. Did he kill anyone, though? No, not that I know of. But the motive fits. The guy was a part of the Earth Liberation Front, an organization to ecological and animal rights. The guy was convicted of arson against several types of targets, though, so does it matter if the target was private or government? It shouldn't, should it? The purpose behind blowing up a government building or an SUV/truck dealership is the same, so whether the act is terrorism or not should not be dependent on such a caveat.
But now the Federal Criminal Code says this:
"…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (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 by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"
Basically, it says that same thing, except that the activities are violent. The motive remains the same--changing the government or its policies.
Why does it matter? Well, it matters because the guy is labeled as a terrorist, and I tend to agree with the label. He goes to a harsher prison (for 12 years) because of it, even though he isn't a violent guy and probably doesn't pose any kind of danger. Still, he destroyed property in order to change the country, so he's a terrorist.
But does it really follow that this guy would be in the same category as bin Laden? Bin Laden will kill people in order to win. Lots of people, too. He wouldn't mind if the entire U.S. and everyone in it were suddenly destroyed. Would this eco-terrorist in Oregon feel the same way? I doubt it. These guys are NOT in the same category, and I don't even think we can possibly equate their crimes. Even if they both want to change the government, their crimes are not remotely similar. Just like a person who believes in anarchy who unleashes a virus against all Microsoft products should probably not be in the same category. These crimes are just too different.
And then what the heck do we do with freedom fighters? What about ETA and the Basques? The Chechnyans? The Palestinians or the Israelis, for that matter? They fight one another in ways that would both be considered terrorism, except that one is the government and one is not.
So what do we do? We move away from these pejorative terms because they're unhelpful. Terrorism basically means someone we don't like. Let's be more descriptive with the terms we use. Instead of eco-terrorist, let's call these guys members of the Earth Liberation Front. Why do we need a shorthand term like terrorist, anyway? Does it really help that we call them that. Nope, it just means we don't like 'em. And I don't like that.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 98 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment