Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here is the FBIs definition of "terrorism":

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-03 08:29 PM
Original message
Here is the FBIs definition of "terrorism":
Terrorism: As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Can someone please explain to me how the invasion of Iraq fails to fall under this very clear definition?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-03 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. It doesn't...
n/t

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-03 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I thought so.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-03 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Didn't you just describe the action taken at the *drug raid* in SC, too?
Shoe fits, kind of thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiCoup2K4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-03 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Not just Iraq, but this vague wording leaves much open......
...to subjective interpretation. For example, there are some on the right wing who would characterize an anti-war or anti-Bush protest, particularly one that involves public streets and stopping traffic as something that would ...intimidate or coerce... the civilian population...in furtherance of political or social objectives...

Or in other words, in the wrong hands, i.e. John Asscrotch, freedom of speech and assembly has just been redefined as "terrorism".



Sieg Oil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-03 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. Them thar Texas fishies were jen-yoo-whine terrorists!
That's why 5 police men were pulled from their duties of guarding the power plants and told to go fishing!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/990564.asp

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharonstone Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-08-03 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. Terrorism and "harboring" of terrorists by the U.S.
U.S. intervention in Nicaragua provides an astounding, but by no means extraordinary, example. First, some background: by 1934, when the authoritarian Somoza regime was established, the U.S. had already occupied the country militarily on at least four different occasions, established training schools for right-wing militia, dismantled two liberal governments, and helped to orchestrate fake elections. In 1981, the CIA began to organize the "Contras" ­ many of whom had already received training from the U.S. military as members of the Somozas' National Guardsmen ­ to overthrow the progressive Sandanista government. In other words: the CIA "harbored," recruited, armed and trained the Contras, in order to "coerce" and overthrow a government, and terrorize a people, through violent means ("in furtherance of political social objectives"). U.S. intervention went well beyond "harboring," however, in this case. In 1984, the CIA mined three Nicaraguan harbors. When Nicaragua took this action to the World Court, an $18 billion judgment was brought against the U.S. The U.S. response was to simply refuse to acknowledge the Court's jurisdiction.

Another striking example of U.S. terrorist activity was the bombing of a suburban Beirut neighborhood in March 1985. This attack ­ which killed 80 people and wounded 200 others, making it the single largest bombing attack against a civilian target in the modern history of the Middle East ­ was ordered by the director of the CIA (William Casey) and authorized by President Reagan. Another U.S. attack on civilians, the 1986 bombing of Libya, is listed by the UN's Committee on the Legal Definition of Terrorism as a "classic case" of terrorism ­ on a short list that includes the bombing of PAN AM 103, the first attempt made on the World Trade Center, and the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

Other instances of U.S. support for, or direct engagement in, terrorist acts include:

overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile in 1973--leading to widespread torture, rape, and murder by the military regime, and the termination of civil liberties



extensive support for a right-wing junta in El Salvador that ended up being responsible for 35,000 civilian deaths between 1978 and 1981


assassination attempts, exploded boats, industrial sabotage, and the burning of sugar fields in Cuba


the training of thousands of Latin American military personnel in torture methods at the School of the Americas


providing huge quantities of arms--far more than any other nation-- to various combatants in the Middle East and West Asia


and massive support, in funds and arms, for Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.
The rationale provided for many of these interventions ­ in those case where a rationale was in fact provided ­ was the "war on Communism." This often served as an alibi, however, for the protection of economic interests: unrestricted access to oil and other natural resources for U.S.-based (and other "First World") corporations.
Double standards

U.S. officials successfully pressured the UN to impose sanctions on Libya for its initial refusal to extradite Libyan agents implicated in the PAN AM 103 bombing; but they (U.S. officials) have consistently refused to extradite U.S. citizens ­ all of whom have ties to the CIA ­ charged with acts of terrorism in Costa Rica and Venezuela (including blowing up a Cuban airliner in 1976). We have provided no support for attempts to bring Augusto Pinochet (the Chilean military dictator responsible for the atrocities described above) to justice ­ probably not only because our own government was so heavily involved in his rise to power but also because the prosecution of such an obvious State-terrorist would open the door, legally, for the likes of Henry Kissinger and Oliver North to be tried for having ordered terrorist acts.

The double standards at play, the hypocrisy and bad faith involved, in calling for the world to decide whether it is "with us" or "with the terrorists" should by now be fairly evident. To use President Bush's terms, our nation has -- tragically -- in reality championed "Fear" and suppressed "Freedom" in a great many countries, for millions of people. We have been directly responsible for acts of terrorism, and for the "harboring" of terrorists, on an almost unimaginable scale in terms of human death and the creation of fear. When Green Berets trained the Guatemalan army in the 1960s ­ leading to a campaign of bombings, death squads, and "scorched earth" assaults that killed or "disappeared" 20O,000 -- U.S. Army Colonel John Webber called it "a technique of counter-terror." This comment can serve as a reminder and warning for us now--not that there are not real terrorist threats to our national security, but that we have to be incredibly careful about how we define terrorism, who defines it, and what tactics are used to uproot it. There is something truly chilling, as the Syrian Information Minister pointed out, in the apparent consensus within the United States that we stand for "Freedom" and all that is "Good" in the world, and that we are somehow entitled and equipped to mete out "infinite justice."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-09-03 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
7. Anti-GOP Convention in NYC
More to the point, the first time some agitator starts trouble in NYC next September, EVERYONE can be arrested under this rule.

Maybe you'd like to think that one over again? When the protestors break through the police lines at the "first amendment areas" they become illegal, and use force to do it. Etc., etc., etc.

Mass arrests will be commonplace and all of it will be presented as an attempt to derail the democratic process.

Demonstrators who "act out" at the WTC site in particular will no doubt wind up in plastic ties on Governor's Island, and some may well die.

This is serious business, folks, and fantasies about "days of rage" and all the rest of it are going to get lots of good people hurt.

They've spelled it all out as clearly as you could ask.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-09-03 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. Definition
Wouldn't the coercive system of taxation we have fall under that definition? Could we have the IRS added to the ever-growing list of terrorist organizations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC