Thunder at Wolfesblog reports on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s definition and description of terrorists: http://www.clairewolfe.com/wolfesblog/00001977.html.
Among the folks who are officially designated as potential terrorists are “property rights activists”, the “anti-government…movement”, “religious extremists”, and “street gangs”. (Street gangs? Since when do street gangs engage in “politically motivated” violence?)
Among the things to look out for when identifying whether someone might be a terrorist in “research mode” are the following items of terrorist equipment: cameras, tape recorders, binoculars, maps or charts, sketch pads or notebooks, SCUBA gear, and disguises. Good lord, they’re onto me. I have almost all these things in my home (except SCUBA and disguises, although I could probably change my appearance with stuff in my house if I wanted to, eg a hobo costume is fun and easy to make with old clothes and make-up).
Virginia cites a federal definition of terrorism, the main elements of which are:
Premeditation
Political motivation
Violence
Against non-combatants
By “sub-national groups” or “clandestine agents”.
I am not sure whether this definition is useful for anything except to exempt military personnel from being considered terrorists while they are killing non-combatants. I doubt that the non-combatant victims of deadly attacks by military forces take much consolation from knowing that they are not being “terrorized” in the process.
Also, the definition sets up political activity such as speech and assembly and association as legitimate objects of surveillance and control rather than inviolable aspects of fundamental civil liberties. From a law enforcement standpoint, that a crime is politically motivated is immaterial except to the extent that such a fact might provide guidance in investigations of particular crimes. Creating a class of “political crimes”, not unlike “hate crimes”, will lead to undue government interference in political activities and expression.
Virginia’s statement of the goals of terrorists sounds like the apparent goals of the Department of Homeland Security: to create an atmosphere of anxiety (this they do with their incessant warnings), to undermine confidence in government (this they do with their willful ineptitude and insistence that they cannot prevent attacks), and to influence government or social policy (they exist to secure more government power and erode personal freedom).
Over twenty years ago, I studied “Political Crime and Terrorism” in law school and concluded that there was probably nothing that a terrorist could do that would not already be covered by existing criminal statutes and that law enforcement had all the tools necessary to investigate and prosecute crimes of terror. Only in crises of legitimacy did governments require more. Countries with special anti-terror laws at that time included South Africa and Israel, and these were wanted in those places solely to maintain the structures of repression on which those governments depended. In American history, we had the example of the War for Southern Independence in which the United States government abrogated every Constitutional principle in the interests of preserving the existing power structure and regime.
Do our rulers perceive a crisis of legitimacy that warrants special anti-terror legislation and programs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
yes, but why do we perceive our rulers as rulers? Isn't sovereignty about being responsible for ourselves? Right now, you can accept responsibility by saying i'll take responsibility and not be held accountable at all, yet anyone can be the low person on the totem pole who gets blamed for the failure, if they don't have their cover set and a specific fall-guy preannointed. I reference Brown and Libby in the political arena - but it is a universal concept. blame and fault are vastly different arenas, responsibility lies somewhere closer to fault than blame, but on a sliding scale from scapegoat to actual terrorist.
So we are left with the question of who is a terrorist, and both Vache and Lenny have professional interests that have them hit on all cylinders (i store gas as a chemist). As V from Vendettaville has made the concept palatable this week, i suppose that being open here today makes sense for visible speakers of the bloggosphere. But who is to say that people continuing in the lemming mind-frame will not use these statements in trials to stifle dissent later.
I have talked to both my state rep and my federal rep to know that they are both driven people who think for themselves, but realize that the only means to pursue their agendas are to be part of the team until the point of incidence - where the affect of the vote makes a difference to the agenda. Since these people are in different parties, but both in the minority - i consider it brave when they do not march in line with party statues quo.
But other than the key constituent issues from southwest oregon, they both vote regular party line. the state rep made a bold move to get the legislature out of session, term before last and caught major retribution from her party.
As long as the system stands intact, any congressional district that sends hom a veteran legislator in favor of a novice loses out on the spoils big time. It is the reward system of divvying up the commons that needs to be addressed, and we are now classified as terrorists and prevented from bringing it up.
Paging Dr. Orwell, Paging Dr. Soltzenitzen, Paging Dr. Thoreau
This is exactly the point.
And this is why it's particularly incensing to me when people try to defend the actions of the government by saying "well, there's a war on terror". No there's not. Not by any reasonable intuitive standard of who's a terrorist.
The government LOVES the radical violent islamists. They give them an excuse to crack down domestically.
Post a Comment