I think this is a good time to dig up the theory debate: Is terrorism crime or warfare?

[howard112211]

Or a third category?

I this question is worth rolling over once again as a topic in itsself, regardless of the recent reason that people have brought it up.

George W. Bush chose to engage terrorism within the premises of warfare, but not entirely since he denied those who were captured POW status. He was later criticized by many Democrats, who suggested that terrorism should rather be dealt with under the premise that it is a criminal act.

So, which is it? Or is it neither?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. It's a legitimate tactic of war....when we do it.

When our opponents do it..it is a horrible crime.

[socialist_n_TN]

2. I go with what Trotsky said..........

Terrorism is a failed strategy that doesn't do ANYTHING to change the SYSTEM. Even targeted assassinations don't do any good if you just get ANOTHER capitalist toady to step into his/her place. Much less indiscriminate terror involving innocents.

[poli_ticks]

6. I would agree with that, if qualified somewhat.

In general it's a self-defeating tactic.

Like John Boyd said, "the most powerful level of war is the moral level."

Which is why airpower advocates keep making @sses of themselves. See "Shock and Awe", "Cast Lead", etc.

But it was occasionally used to good effect by, e.g., the Mongols.

[Bandit]

9. I really don't believe war is moral at any level.

The world can do so damn much better..

[poli_ticks]

12. it's a question of relatives

What Boyd is saying is if you are the "good guys" in a conflict (i.e. you have just cause and you are behaving better than the other side, in the eyes of the majority) you have a powerful advantage.

Neither side may be acting wholly morally, but who would you go to and tell them to stop fighting first? The side in the wrong, of course.

And I'm not sure we can in fact do better. The species looks hopelessly fundamentally flawed to me, more and more every day.

[Capitalocracy]

17. Depends on what your objective is.

For example, if OBL wanted us to become a Muslim nation, OK, that's a fail. But if his plan was to bankrupt us like the CIA trained him to do to the Soviets, then he's done a pretty damn good job of it. And I think he's actually said that was part of his plan, but I can't confirm that or anything. Anyone have a link on that?

And if they "hate us for our freedoms", well, we've certainly been forthright in surrenduring those.

Also, to answer the OP's question, it kind of depends on who's doing it. If a non-governmental organization does it, then it's a crime. If a state does it, then it is also a crime. It can be part of a war, and is therefore a war crime, or it can be state terrorism.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. It is a form of asymetric warfare that is often treated as crime due to the nature of those doing it

A good example of that is the PIRA

[chowder66]

4. After reading a lot of articles this morning....

It really comes down to this. Smaller scale or domestic terrorism is normally treated as criminal act. I think it depends on which country we are talking about.
International and/or large scale terrorism is another matter and the laws and definitions are still evolving because of the complexities it proposes. There are tons of areas where you can argue that it is a crime or it is an act of war. It seems "act of aggression" is the term used more commonly.


"In 1945, the United Nations Charter banned the first use of force, putting an end to declarations of war. Article 2(4) of the Charter states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”

"The term “act of aggression” has to all intents and purposes subsumed the legal term “act of war” and made it irrelevant, although “act of war” is still used rhetorically by States that feel threatened."
http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/act-of-war.html


Thinking about the U.S. Embassy attacks, the attack on the Twin Towers, the plane over P.A. and the Pentagon attack it does seem like a mix of both criminal and aggressive/war acts. Pentagon, Embassies, USS Cole. Innocents enmasse lost their lives.

The other issue of treating this only as a criminal act is that law enforcement is not in a position to deter/prevent terrorists attacks. That is up to national security agencies and our military.

It seems that the UN, International courts, etc need to catch up with defining the parameters better. This was a new tactic (flying planes into buildings as opposed to hijacking which many laws were already based on) without a state.

There is some information here about some of the questions that are being asked in general;

http://www.duke.edu/~pfeaver/dunlapterrorism.pdf

[poli_ticks]

5. Terrorism is a tactic.

When non-state actors engage in it, they should be treated as criminal individuals.

When state actors engage in it, the responsible authorities should be prosecuted under international law and the laws of war.

This is assuming, of course, that your legal system/framework/governing authority is legitimate in the first place. If it is not, then the question of criminality becomes rather moot. Would you consider a Jewish "terrorist" resisting the NAZIs in German occupied Europe during WWII a "criminal"? How about an American colonist resorting to terror tactics to resist British occupiers during the American revolution? So if we are an Evil Fascist Empire immorally occupying big chunks of the world, why would you consider people who violently oppose us any differently?

[TheKentuckian]

13. Correct

[14thColony]

27. I am impressed

You cite John Boyd, and go on to (quite rightly) define terrorism as merely a tactic when so many seem to want to treat it as some sort of ideology in its own right.

Groups which opt to employ the tactic of terrorism of course consider it a tactic of warfare, and it is in terms of asymmetries. Where I think their opponents stumble is basically agreeing with the groups by also using the terminology of war (e.g., "the War on Terror(ism)"), thus in effect legitimizing that group's use of terrorism as a form of warfare. Whether it is or it isn't legitimate, it seems an "own goal" to cede even a little legitimacy to the other side in the conflict, no matter who they are.

On the hypotheticals you pose in the final paragraph though, it depends on how you define terrorism or acts of terrorism. I know, I know, THAT depends on who you ask and whether they are on the getting side or the giving side of the equation. I tend to go with the three basic elements most definitions have in common: a) violence or the threat of violence b) which is carried out in pursuit of a political outcome, c) where the intended victims are noncombatants (NOT "civilians" since civilians CAN be legitimate combatants under the Law of Armed Conflict in certain circumstances).

Based on those three elements, which are common to almost all definitions of terrorism, Jewish resistance fighters knifing German soldiers in occupied Europe are not committing acts of terrorism, Yugoslav partisans blowing up a cafe full of Ustashi in Zagreb aren't terrorists, and nor are the Taliban or pro-Taliban Afghans who initially resisted the U.S. invasion by attacking U.S. troops, even though many were arrested as "terrorists" for doing so. The intended victims in all cases were lawful combatants who had no reason to believe that had any sort of protected status, regardless of where they were in the combat zone.

Combatants are legitimate targets, period. Noncombatants are never legitimate targets, period. To me this is what distinguishes "terrorists" as criminals as opposed to insurgents or guerrillas as lawful combatants (and in fact is the difference under international law as well).

[poli_ticks]

30. Thanks. I'm impressed you know who John Boyd is.

Not too many people do.

I'm not sure if I agree that declaring a "War on Terrorism" legitimizes its definition as a tactic of war. Maybe this is too much an America-centric view, but over the years we've declared war on so many ridiculous things (War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Christmas) that to me the words "War on" have lost any emotional impact they might have had. I take it as just another sign of how ridiculously militarized our society and mentality has become.

I agree with your definition of terrorism. But I think you have to add another factor to the discussion to understand the West's (at least, the more chauvinistic part of the West's) reaction to "terrorism" - the idea that State actors ought to have a monopoly on violence. You can think of the State as an organization widely agreed to have a monopoly in the use of violence on behalf of, and in the name of the residents of its territory. And in such terms, the West is pretty solidly Statist - we tend to view governments as having the legal right to wield violence, whereas individuals, do not. So when we encounter adversaries that are not State-sanctioned and authorized we react to it as if they are an especially heinous sort of enemy. Hence a German's reactions to Jewish "terrorists" during WWII would have been very similar to American's reactions to Iraqi "terrorists" resisting US occupation.

So in my opinion that's what's really got the chauvinist right riled up about "terrorism." It's not so much that the target is civilians (i.e. terrorism according to your - and mine, since I agree with yours - definition, since according to it, the US military engages in plenty of terrorism itself) or that the violence is aimed at obtaining political results (actually, the point of war is pretty much always a political effect) it's that it's resistance being offered by non-state sanctioned individuals, who therefore automatically have no legitimacy.

So it boils down to legitimacy. If you believe the US to be a legitimate planetary hegemon, motivated by the desire to do good and an instrument through which the inherent goodness, altruism, generosity, peaceful nature, and sense of justice of the American people is expressed, then you're likely to feel the resistance being offered is not legitimate at all. If you think the US government is a completely illegitimate entity that is in reality completely controlled by greedy plutocrats and control-freak imperialist bureaucrats and politicians, then you acknowlege that the other side's resistance is very much legitimate.

[14thColony]

28. Impressive

You cite John Boyd, and go on to (quite rightly) define terrorism as merely a tactic when so many seem to want to treat it as some sort of ideology in its own right.

On the hypotheticals you pose in the final paragraph though, it depends on how you define terrorism or acts of terrorism. I know, I know, THAT depends on who you ask and whether they are on the getting side or the giving side of the equation. I tend to go with the three basic elements most definitions have in common: a) violence or the threat of violence b) which is carried out in pursuit of a political outcome, c) where the intended victims are noncombatants (NOT "civilians" since civilians CAN be legitimate combatants under the Law of Armed Conflict in certain circumstances).

Based on those three elements, which are common to almost all definitions of terrorism, Jewish resistance fighters knifing German soldiers in occupied Europe are not committing acts of terrorism, Yugoslav partisans blowing up a cafe full of Ustashi in Zagreb aren't terrorists, and nor are the Taliban or pro-Taliban Afghans who initially resisted the U.S. invasion by attacking U.S. troops, even though many were arrested as "terrorists" for doing so. The intended victims in all cases were lawful combatants who had no reason to believe that had any sort of protected status, regardless of where they were in the combat zone. Of course that didn't stop the Gestapo from executing plenty of partisans anyway...

Combatants are legitimate targets, period. Noncombatants are never legitimate targets, period. To me this is what distinguishes "terrorists" as criminals as opposed to insurgents or guerrillas as lawful combatants (and in fact is the difference under international law as well).

[14thColony]

29. Sorry for the dupe

The stupid server told me the first attempt had failed to post and I had to do it again.

[tekisui]

7. A crime, mass murder.

[Solly Mack]

8. Criminal act.

and you're 100% correct about Bush....he ah..overlooked (broke)...the law(s)...and his administration applied a warped (and criminal) co-mingling of different rules and laws (criminal law verses rules/laws governing warfare) to pursue his agenda. The Bush administration intentionally confused people about this...and it worked.


One's military...one isn't. It's an important difference to remember. And it matters...because both are carried out differently with different regulations/laws governing them.


Knowing that isn't as obvious as I would have thought...

[BOG PERSON]

10. n/m

[bemildred]

11. Let's say that several trillion dollars, over ten years, to get one guy seems a bit inefficient. nt

[Kaleva]

14. It depends on who wins in the end.

[Cleita]

15. I would call it crime unless it's backed or funded

by a sovereign nation then it could be thought of as a form of warfare.

[NavyDem]

16. I'm torn on which it is

On one hand, we have the USS Cole incident, where clearly a military target was attacked. On the other hand, we have 9/11 which was carried out against civilian targets. I think terrorism could be considered both.

[Canuckistanian]

18. Excellent question

Terrorism is a tactic. A method of operation.

And all the armies in the world can't fight an idea.

All you can do is deligitimize groups that use it.

[The Magistrate]

19. The Acts Generally Meant By That Term, Sir

Are instances where private individuals claim for themselves the generally conceded rights of a state to employ violence for a political end. The great distaste for such action expressed by states is, at bottom, a trade guild matter, quite analogous to the reaction of a union carpenter to the sight of someone constructing a new back-porch and steps on a three-flat, without being in possession of a union card.

States generally proceed against such actions using the vocabulary of criminality, and treat them as violations of the state's criminal law, out of a view that this is a superior course politically, because it stigmatizes the persons who have set themselves up as the state's enemies as ,mere felons, and obviates any acknowledgement of their actual political ends and aims. The persons who thus challenge a state frequently insist on being accorded the status of combatants, describing themselves, when under arrest, as prisoners of war, and declaring criminal charges against them have no validity, and criminal courts no jurisdiction over them or their actions, because of their combatant status.

It is certainly possible for a state to make the calculation that its interests are better served by regarding such persons as being just what they themselves claim to be, namely combatants engaged in war with the state. At the price of perhaps according a certain political legitimacy to such persons, the state might greatly simplify the task of dealing with them in some ways. There would be no need for arrest, for instance; no one tries to arrest enemy combatants, they try to kill, maim, or capture them. Incarceration of a prisoner of war is not based on a finding of guilt at a trial, where evidence is presented and cases argued; an enemy combatant if captured is simply held prisoner, until exchanged, or until repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities.

[howard112211]

24. Interesting. So by dealing with Al Qaede within the premises of warfare

the US is recognizing them as a poltical body?

But not entirely since those who are captured are not granted Geneva Convention protection.

[jp11]

20. Neither, it is a tactic, but war is a crime.

[guruoo]

21. Warfare. (unless it's carried out by RWers, of course)....

Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting
Location Knoxville, Tennessee, United States
Date July 27, 2008 (EDT)
Attack type Shooting, political violence, hate crime <1>
Weapon(s) 12-gauge shotgun
Death(s) 2
Injured 7
Perpetrator Jim David Adkisson

Adkisson, a former private in the United States Army from 1974 to 1977, says that he was motivated by hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals.<2><9><10> According to a sworn affidavit by one of the officers who interviewed Adkisson on July 27, 2008:<3>
“ During the interview Adkisson stated that he had targeted the church because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets. Adkisson made statements that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them into office. Adkisson stated that he had held these beliefs for about the last ten years.

His manifesto stated that he intended to keep shooting until police arrived and expected to be killed by police. Adkisson had a waist satchel with more ammunition, totaling 76 shells of #4 shot.

In his manifesto, Adkisson also included the Democratic members of the House and Senate,<12> and the 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America <12> of Bernard Goldberg in his list of wished-for targets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

[Warren DeMontague]

22. It's wimefare.

Crarfarme?

[coalition_unwilling]

23. "Terrorism," like "beauty," rests in the eye of the beholder. Here

are three examples from recent history:

Reagan or one of his spokespeople called Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress 'terrorists.'
Someone in Eisenhower's administration called the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam 'terrorists'
Someone in the British Cabinet called the Irgun Zvai Lum in British-occupied Palestine, ca. 1946, 'terrorists'

Each of the above 3 is recognized now as a resistance force against colonialism (or, in the case of the ANC, the legacy of colonialism).

Hell, for all I know, the British in the reign of King George III may have referred to George Washington and his forces as 'terrorists.'

[Capitalocracy]

26. They didn't.

But only because the term hadn't been invented yet. I'm sure they had their equivalent for the period... something along the lines of "scallywags" or "impetuous rogues".

[intaglio]

25. There is a problem with the word "Terrorism"

because it is often conflated with guerrilla warfare. Performing acts to inspire terror a population not acting against the military/police forces of a state, ie inspiring terror in non-military groups; should always be illegal war acts no matter what forces carry them out.

When the French Maquis acted against the Germans it would seem that theirs was not terrorism but guerrilla warefare; on the other hand the bombing of civilian centres throughout the period from Guernica to Nagasaki was even then described as terror tactics (if you were on the receiving end). In my view the IRA stopped being a legitimate guerrilla force when they moved from the hard targets of the British army to the soft targets of the British and Protestant populations.


/edit for clarity