[WikiEN-l] Re: Definition of terrorism

[Daniel P.B.Smith]

When I was a kid, I had a discussion with a family friend who happened 
to be a lawyer. I did not understand why the person who executes a 
death sentence is not committing premeditated murder.

He explained to me that murder is the _unlawful_ killing of a person. 
The execution of a death sentence is lawful, therefore it is not 
murder.

Regardless of one's position on the morality of capital punishment... 
and regardless of whether you _like_ the definition of the word 
"murder..." it _is_ the definition, and it is possible to understand it 
and to apply it in deciding what acts should be labelled murder.

Similarly, terrorism is "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." Definition 
AHD4, emphasis mine.

Now, deciding what is and is not lawful can be difficult enough in 
domestic matters (as I am well aware at the moment, living as I do in 
Massachusetts) and it is far more complicated in international affairs. 
So this doesn't really answer any questions. But it does _raise_ some 
questions.

If, for the sake of argument, you assume that the intention of the U. 
S. bombing of Nagasaki was not primarily to take out a military target, 
but to create "shock and awe" in the Japanese populace, military, and 
Emperor, in order to convince them to surrender--that is, to intimidate 
or coerce them--then it was terrorism if unlawful, and was not 
terrorism if lawful. On the whole, given that the U.S. was attacked and 
was in a state of declared war with Japan, I think most would label it 
as lawful.

On the other hand: would our characterization of the bombing of 
Nagasaki be affected if its purpose was neither military, nor a 
psychological message aimed at Japan, but a psychological message aimed 
_at Stalin and at the Soviet Union_--one saying "We have these weapons 
of mass destruction and we are willing to use them?" Perhaps that would 
make it a terrorist act after all--but one directed at the Soviet 
Union, not at Japan.

Something that I don't recall seeing recently in the arguments about 
whether or not 9/11 was terrorism is this. Since we in the United 
States were, in fact, terrorized, we are inclined to see it as a 
terrorist act. The question is, what specific actions was Osama bin 
Laden trying to intimidate or coerce us into taking? I'm not very clear 
on this. Now, suppose the psychological message was aimed _at Arabs_ 
and was "Al-Qaeda is big, strong, courageous, and capable of attacking 
the United States with impunity. Join us." If this was the nature of 
the act, then, by the dictionary definition, would it constitute 
terrorism?

--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith at world.std.com alternate: 
dpbsmith at alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/