[WikiEN-l] Re: Definition of terrorism

[Ray Saintonge]

Daniel P.B.Smith wrote:

> 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. 

As you say the problem is with the word lawful. (The Massachusetts court 
is certainly to be commended for its recent enlightened position.)  It 
frequently happens that a law is passed and treated as lawful only to be 
struck down as unconstitutional (=unlawful) more than a century later. 
 A more important question can be, "_whose_ law applies?" 
 Extrapolations are always on dangerous ground, and exporting domestic 
law to an international situation is a fine example of that.  The US 
attack on Iraq may have been perfectly lawful under domestic law, but 
was just as unlawful under international law.

> 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. 

Not so fast.  It represented an escalation of weaponry.  Even the 
Germans showed restraint over the use of poison gas on the battlefield. 
 Their equipment was set up to use it in Crimea, but they didn't.

> 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. 

Speculative.  The Soviet Union was a non-combatant in the Pacific 
theatre until August 10, 1945, i.e. the day after the Nagasaki bomb. 
 With the end in sight it joined the war for a quick territorial grab.

> 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?

Looking back at that time, the Anthrax scare was a far more effective 
terrorist tactic despite the fact that very few lives were lost.  We 
still don't know who did it, and the "terrorists" apparantly lived to 
fight another day -- thus not only effective but also cost-effective.

Ec