Author Topic: Subject: Terrorism and Freedom of Speech. (Read 220 times)

weazel · « **on:** March 10, 2003, 04:38:01 PM »

In the best case, Bush is surrounding Iraq in an attempt to get Saddam Hussein to abdicate.

Would I be correct in saying this is an application of force, or the threat of force, intended to intimidate a government in the pursuit of a political goal?

I ask because of this definition of "terrorism," downloaded from the Department of Defense website:

Quote

Terrorism:

The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.

So the DOD says Bush is an international terrorist?

Then why can't we wear that on our T-shirts?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2003, 04:43:10 PM »

shut up

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2003, 05:00:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
shut up

Wow - I had figured out that my response was going to be EXACTLY that before I clicked on the thread.

Thats weird.

Vulcan · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2003, 05:01:57 PM »

Sounds like Lawyer-speak to me.

Lynch mob anyone?

Sabre · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2003, 05:12:25 PM »

The various departments of the US Government have used different wordings for the definition of "terrorism," which are colored by their particular missions. They are required to be not incompatible with the official US Govt's definition:

Quote

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears 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 assassination or kidnapping."

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])

While the DoD definition does not explicitly include the word "unlawful" when referring to "violent acts," it is implicit in the definition. As you can see, the above quote is a bit old, and there may be an updated one. Terrorist acts are against the law, and hence it is implicit in any definition that terrorism involved unlawful acts. As all the actions of President Bush in the deployment of troops to Middle East have been in compliance with US laws and the constitution authority of the Executive, it is not considered terrorism...at least not here in the US. How other countries feel about it is of course a matter of viewpoint.

Sabre