Terror alert: Will it affect your attendance?

[Joe Vancil]

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Well - treason can be terrorizing and terrorism can be treason.

I don't see that they have  to be mutually exclusive.

Though I'm still bothered by the seeming 'legitimization' of evil in this discussion if it's in the form of a government.

We're not dealing with the "legitimizing" of the action, jem;  we're dealing with how it is defined, and therefore, controlled and punished.

We're dealing with the idea that if America's (or any other country's) citizens don't take control of their governement and make it run right, we're guilty as a society.  If we don't hold our leaders accountable, we're the ones responsible.  And we're dealing with the proper expression of the discontent with the job we're doing of that.

From that point, we expect our government to run our military according to the marching orders we gave the government - including what methods of war are and are not acceptable in accordance with the treaties that we've agreed to.  We're dealing with how other nations hold us to our responsibilities.

[Joe Vancil]

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Well - treason can be terrorizing and terrorism can be treason.

I don't see that they have  to be mutually exclusive.

Though I'm still bothered by the seeming 'legitimization' of evil in this discussion if it's in the form of a government.

Right and that what I was getting at.  I also assume that is what JoMal is getting at. 

Just because a person commits a 'war crime' doesn't mean it was not an act meant to terrorize.  The idea that it is not a terrorist act because a government sanctions it seems weird to me.  If Iran launches a nuke at Israel in the future what would that be?  Because it would be meant to destroy and terrorize  Israel.  Both a 'war crime' and a 'terrorist act'

It's not a terrorist act - although that's what the media would call it.

I do not believe that it is technically a war crime, unless the target is specifically non-military in nature.

If the governemnt of Iran did it (as opposed to a guy who broke into the missile silo and pushed the button), it would constitute an act of war by Iran.  The Iranian people as a whole are responsible.

[JoMal]

No.  Attack against your own GOVERNMENT isn't terrorism.  It's treason.

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

Your government did not agree with you.

McVeigh and Nichols were never charged with treason, and later federal statutes were changed to specifically address acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing. The term they applied?

Domestic terrorism.

[Joe Vancil]

No.  Attack against your own GOVERNMENT isn't terrorism.  It's treason.

Unless the act was meant to terrorize....

Like the Oklahoma City bombing.

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

Your government did not agree with you.

McVeigh and Nichols were never charged with treason, and later federal statutes were changed to specifically address acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing. The term they applied?

Domestic terrorism.

Makes sense that the government would do that.  Best not to incite the public that's already not too happy with you....

[Skandery]

Those who want to stay on the reservation and *DON'T* want to assimilate have done that - and have pretty much nothing.  Those who decided to assimilate, entered American schools, assumed jobs in the workplace, etc. - have ranged from doing as well and as poorly as any other mix of American citizen - and had their vote in how they're governed counted the same way everyone else's vote is.

An Indian might ask the question, why do I have to assimilate to succeed on my own homeland, I was living my way of life way before anyone else came along.  Although granted that the opportunity to join society, be educated, work a job, provide for your family, is much better than any Palestinian has it presently on the land that was taken from him.  That is if Indians do have the opportunities I outline.  I must claim almost complete ignorance with the particulars (especially legal issues) surrounding the Native American situation.  I also wondered by there is such rampant alcoholism amongst many tribes?  Anyway . . .   

[Skandery]

Here's the problem: we seem to be bound by international law to treat them the same way regardless of what we choose. I think that that's wrong. I believe for them to have the protection of the Geneva Convention, they have to pick choice 1 above, or, in my opinion, terrorism should become the default form of combat in any engagement, and the Geneva Convention is obsolete. Let's face it - in terms of combat, a terroristic style is advantageous.

First of all let me firmly plant my personal views on the issue of War Crimes and Terrorism closer to how JoMal, westkoast, and jemagee view them.  I still believe in the complicity for the mass media to conveniently sell the masses on a nice idea, neatly wrapped with a bow-tie, so as not to disturb anyone's sensibilites too greatly.  Arabs are terrorists---its convenient, it makes sense.  Nazi's/European despots are war criminals---that was convenient, it made sense.  Gaddafi and Bin Laden are terrorists; Milosevic and Ceausescu are war criminals.  The lines are blurred and, unfortunately, the world is very gray.  There are terroists who are guilty of war crimes; and war criminals that have committed unspeakable acts of terror.  Once again I'm going by the Webster Dictionary definition of Terrorism rather than the "Vancilian" Dictionary that asserts Terrorists are only people without a government. 

Here is one for you, Joe.  What's the difference between Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare?  You see back in the good 'ole Revolutionary times, there was a proper etiquette to warfare.  An etiquette that George Washington didn't and, pragmatically speaking, simply couldn't adhere to if he wanted his little colonial uprising to actually succeed.  When deadly conflict breaks out, the consequences for the loser are grave.  So when desperation sets in the silhouette of a Revolutionary Soldier, a Freedom Fighter, a Guerilla Soldier, or a Terrorist start to run uncomfortably, INCONVENIENTLY very close together.     

There's problem number 1 for your new world government model, Skander. Appropriately distinguish between terrorism and armed conflict, and provide an appropriate method for dealing with the former under new international law.

I'm serious about that challenge, by the way, if anyone wants to take it up. If a world government is ever going to succeed, these are the types of problems it has to effectively police. Personally, I don't think that anyone has currently come up with a good answer to terroristic-style attacks.

Challenge accepted!  Actually, theoretically speaking, its quite a lot simpler than anyone might think it to be.  First let me digress just a bit.  Legislation prohibiting the segregation of schools was passed during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.  Legislation to which some schools (like Ole Miss) responded to by saying, "Hell naw, we ain't mixin' our schools with them coloreds".  Question, why are Mississippi schools presently desegregated?  One very neat and concise word:  FORCE!  Johnson sent in the military to forcibly segregate schools that would not abide by the law of the land.  You see law really isn't much good without a good, strong, executive component to enforce said law.  The United Nations has the foundations of a Parliamentary Legislature, they even have a robust Judical arm that interprets many of the resolutions it promulgates, so what's missing?  That's right, the executive component of the United Nations is at best an irrevelant punchline and at worst a defacto arm of those in power far removed from representing the body politic.   
 
My solution for your challenge, Joe.  Make the United Nations the pre-eminent legislative and MILITARY power on the planet!  Beholden to no singular nation, equitable (not equal) membership for all nations (meaning Lichtenstein [Pop: 35,000] doesn't have the same number of votes as China [Pop: 1.3 billion]), equal representation at all levels and arms of International Government, and no special circumstances or permanent memberships on any committee's or councils.  At the rate of globabization, I don't doubt that this will probably happen at some far off time in the future of humanity.  Europe saw the writing on the wall and formed a Union. 

Of course, there is one issue that must be carefully and quickly ironed out and that is one of jurisdiction.  You see while I believe that the United Nations should be the most powerful governmental entity on the planet, I don't believe it should have the right to dictate the Healthcare system for the United States or any country X, dictate our Educational system, our Financial system, our Infrastructure, our Agriculture, our INTRA-national trade and commerce, our INTRA-national law enforcement (FBI, DEA, etc.), etc.  Much like you have States Rights here in the U.S; there would be Nations Rights with one huge difference--the International Government would solely have jurisdiction over affairs across International Borders.  War, Invasion, Conflict, Genocide, Exploitation, Environment, Exploration, etc.  For example while Washington D.C. could potentially affect how a 4th grader in California is tested on curriculum; the United Nations would not have that jurisdiction over its member nations.  The mandate to interfere with intra-national affairs would have to come under circumstance of extreme violence, genocide, opression, Multi-national Corporate malfeasance, etc.

Radical huh!  Who is on board? 

[jemagee]

What's the difference between Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare?

We used to term it 'what's the difference between a freedom fighter and a rebel' - the answer boiled down to their political view.

[Joe Vancil]

Here's the problem: we seem to be bound by international law to treat them the same way regardless of what we choose. I think that that's wrong. I believe for them to have the protection of the Geneva Convention, they have to pick choice 1 above, or, in my opinion, terrorism should become the default form of combat in any engagement, and the Geneva Convention is obsolete. Let's face it - in terms of combat, a terroristic style is advantageous.

First of all let me firmly plant my personal views on the issue of War Crimes and Terrorism closer to how JoMal, westkoast, and jemagee view them.  I still believe in the complicity for the mass media to conveniently sell the masses on a nice idea, neatly wrapped with a bow-tie, so as not to disturb anyone's sensibilites too greatly.  Arabs are terrorists---its convenient, it makes sense.  Nazi's/European despots are war criminals---that was convenient, it made sense.  Gaddafi and Bin Laden are terrorists; Milosevic and Ceausescu are war criminals.  The lines are blurred and, unfortunately, the world is very gray.  There are terroists who are guilty of war crimes; and war criminals that have committed unspeakable acts of terror.  Once again I'm going by the Webster Dictionary definition of Terrorism rather than the "Vancilian" Dictionary that asserts Terrorists are only people without a government. 

Here is one for you, Joe.  What's the difference between Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare?  You see back in the good 'ole Revolutionary times, there was a proper etiquette to warfare.  An etiquette that George Washington didn't and, pragmatically speaking, simply couldn't adhere to if he wanted his little colonial uprising to actually succeed.  When deadly conflict breaks out, the consequences for the loser are grave.  So when desperation sets in the silhouette of a Revolutionary Soldier, a Freedom Fighter, a Guerilla Soldier, or a Terrorist start to run uncomfortably, INCONVENIENTLY very close together.     

There's problem number 1 for your new world government model, Skander. Appropriately distinguish between terrorism and armed conflict, and provide an appropriate method for dealing with the former under new international law.

I'm serious about that challenge, by the way, if anyone wants to take it up. If a world government is ever going to succeed, these are the types of problems it has to effectively police. Personally, I don't think that anyone has currently come up with a good answer to terroristic-style attacks.

Challenge accepted!  Actually, theoretically speaking, its quite a lot simpler than anyone might think it to be.  First let me digress just a bit.  Legislation prohibiting the segregation of schools was passed during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.  Legislation to which some schools (like Ole Miss) responded to by saying, "Hell naw, we ain't mixin' our schools with them coloreds".  Question, why are Mississippi schools presently desegregated?  One very neat and concise word:  FORCE!  Johnson sent in the military to forcibly segregate schools that would not abide by the law of the land.  You see law really isn't much good without a good, strong, executive component to enforce said law.  The United Nations has the foundations of a Parliamentary Legislature, they even have a robust Judical arm that interprets many of the resolutions it promulgates, so what's missing?  That's right, the executive component of the United Nations is at best an irrevelant punchline and at worst a defacto arm of those in power far removed from representing the body politic.   
 
My solution for your challenge, Joe.  Make the United Nations the pre-eminent legislative and MILITARY power on the planet!  Beholden to no singular nation, equitable (not equal) membership for all nations (meaning Lichtenstein [Pop: 35,000] doesn't have the same number of votes as China [Pop: 1.3 billion]), equal representation at all levels and arms of International Government, and no special circumstances or permanent memberships on any committee's or councils.  At the rate of globabization, I don't doubt that this will probably happen at some far off time in the future of humanity.  Europe saw the writing on the wall and formed a Union. 

Of course, there is one issue that must be carefully and quickly ironed out and that is one of jurisdiction.  You see while I believe that the United Nations should be the most powerful governmental entity on the planet, I don't believe it should have the right to dictate the Healthcare system for the United States or any country X, dictate our Educational system, our Financial system, our Infrastructure, our Agriculture, our INTRA-national trade and commerce, our INTRA-national law enforcement (FBI, DEA, etc.), etc.  Much like you have States Rights here in the U.S; there would be Nations Rights with one huge difference--the International Government would solely have jurisdiction over affairs across International Borders.  War, Invasion, Conflict, Genocide, Exploitation, Environment, Exploration, etc.  For example while Washington D.C. could potentially affect how a 4th grader in California is tested on curriculum; the United Nations would not have that jurisdiction over its member nations.  The mandate to interfere with intra-national affairs would have to come under circumstance of extreme violence, genocide, opression, Multi-national Corporate malfeasance, etc.

Radical huh!  Who is on board? 

Did I just wake up in Bizzarro world?  Or did Skander say that his idea of dealing with terrorists was with FORCE?

Terrorists disobey the "rules of war", Skander.  They're holed up next to schools, hospitals, churches - civillian structures.  They blend in to civillian surroundings.  How do you stop that?  FORCE DOESN'T WORK - unless you're willing to accept "collateral damage" - in other words, dead innocents.  Terrorists know that.  They try to paint the picture of "our enemy is at fault - look what they did to the innocents" but leave out the words at the end "that we put in their way toward us."

I could also point out the flaw in "internal affairs" of a nation, when there is a huge discrepancy of wealth and living conditions.  Part of the reason the United States works is that even if you go from a rich area to a poor area, there are still basic services available.  (I'm not about to claim that they're equal, and especially not about to claim that with regard to schools.)  But pretty much any where you go in the U.S., you've got electricity, water, hospitals, even fire stations.

Can't say the same thing about Somalia.

So therefore, the first task this new government would have to tackle is IMMIGRATION between the member states.  It is, by definition, an interstate issue.  Country Y's citizens want out.  They want to go to Country X.  Country X's citizens don't want them.  Country Z doesn't want them, either, and therefore, would support them going to Country X.  Country W doesn't want Country X to get them, so he supports Country Y, who doesn't want them to leave.

You've often gone on about the failures of the Articles of Confederation, Skander - yet you've just proposed we try them again.

[Joe Vancil]

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

Why can't it be both is the point people are trying to make...why is there no 'grey' in your world?

Because legal definitions are not meant to be gray.  A person is guilty or not guilty;  there's no "kind of guilty" or "a little bit guilty."  Offer a shade of gray, and every action can be justified, and with that justification comes a willingness to excuse the conduct.

[Joe Vancil]

What's the difference between Terrorism and Guerilla Warfare?

We used to term it 'what's the difference between a freedom fighter and a rebel' - the answer boiled down to their political view.

Uh, no, jem;  if you look back and see my answer, you'll see that I defined the two as the same thing, and referred to each action as TREASON, when arms are taken up against their own government.  It's the MEDIA - who have no business interpreting anything in term of legal principle - who define the difference.

Skander's question is a bit more interesting:  What is the difference between guerrilla warfare and terrorism?  And it's a simple answer.  Guerrilla warfare refers (usually) autonomous attackers to attacking a military force.  Terrorism refers to autonomous attackers attacking a non-military target.

Technically, Iraqi insurgents (insurgents = supporting insurrection against the government = rebels/freedom fighters = GUILTY OF TREASON) attacking Iraqi and U.S. forces are *NOT* committing acts of terrorism.  When they attack mosques, police stations (unless the state is a police state), markets, hotels, etc., they *ARE* committing acts of terrorism.  The former is guerrilla warfare - the latter, terrorism.

[jemagee]

Because legal definitions are not meant to be gray.  A person is guilty or not guilty;  there's no "kind of guilty" or "a little bit guilty."  Offer a shade of gray, and every action can be justified, and with that justification comes a willingness to excuse the conduct.

And legal definitions are just that - legal definitions - like insanity - it's a legal term...so you don't care about the real world, you just care about the legal definitions of things?

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to lawyers, shakespeare had it right

[westkoast]

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

Why can't it be both is the point people are trying to make...why is there no 'grey' in your world?

Because legal definitions are not meant to be gray.  A person is guilty or not guilty;  there's no "kind of guilty" or "a little bit guilty."  Offer a shade of gray, and every action can be justified, and with that justification comes a willingness to excuse the conduct.

A person's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  If it was just black and white there would be no reason for the words 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to be throw in the mix at all.  To me that is acknowledgement there is some grey area.  I get what you mean, a person is either 'guilty' or 'not guilty' when it comes down to the actual verdict but that doesn't mean there is no grey area in law.  I believe there is a grey area in law and it stems from how one reads and interprets the words of said law.

[Skandery]

Did I just wake up in Bizzarro world? Or did Skander say that his idea of dealing with terrorists was with FORCE?

Right, the type of FORCE that a police officer would use when he gives you a lawful order to step outside of your car.  You see Joe, the police don't invade your family property, kill your brother, and detain your mother because you committed a moving violation.  And I'm not only looking at the very narrow aspect of what one country calls Terrorism and another country calls Self Defense.  I'm looking at the bigger picture--there is a reason you don't see Red State Iowa and Blue State Minnesota slugging it out in open warfare across their borders.  Laws dictating the appropiate methods of action and mediation when a disagreement arises--and the power to enforce that principle if the sides don't want to listen. 

Terrorists disobey the "rules of war", Skander. They're holed up next to schools, hospitals, churches - civillian structures. They blend in to civillian surroundings. How do you stop that? FORCE DOESN'T WORK - unless you're willing to accept "collateral damage" - in other words, dead innocents. Terrorists know that. They try to paint the picture of "our enemy is at fault - look what they did to the innocents" but leave out the words at the end "that we put in their way toward us."

So give the general mass of people in these destitute countries from which Terrorists recruit from an ample and meaningful platform to air their grievances.  Give them equal footing in negotiations; enfranchise them in the new world government; make sure they know they are protected equally and justly under International Law (MEANINGFULLY ENFORCED) whether they wave a Red-White-and-Blue flag or a Red-Black-and-Yellow flag.  Do that and see how many 16 year old boys would strap a bomb to their chest for a murderous thug like Bin-Laden.   

I could also point out the flaw in "internal affairs" of a nation, when there is a huge discrepancy of wealth and living conditions. Part of the reason the United States works is that even if you go from a rich area to a poor area, there are still basic services available. (I'm not about to claim that they're equal, and especially not about to claim that with regard to schools.) But pretty much any where you go in the U.S., you've got electricity, water, hospitals, even fire stations.

The United States works because it is a union founded on fundament principles that are dutifully enforced and re-assessed (interpreted) as force of history moves forward.

Can't say the same thing about Somalia.

So therefore, the first task this new government would have to tackle is IMMIGRATION between the member states. It is, by definition, an interstate issue. Country Y's citizens want out. They want to go to Country X. Country X's citizens don't want them. Country Z doesn't want them, either, and therefore, would support them going to Country X. Country W doesn't want Country X to get them, so he supports Country Y, who doesn't want them to leave.

Immigration.  Fair enough and its very good question to ask.  In my view, immigration is at the jurisdiction of each member nation.  They would know better than the International body how many people they could provide services for and how many they could take on year to year.  I don't think it falls to the International government to force immigration or EMIGRATION upon any nation.  People can file for immigration to any country they wish and be subject to that nations' immigration policy and procedure. 
Now then lets talk about Somalia.  In my previous post, I talked about International forces having some circumstance in which they could interfere with intranational affairs:  like extreme violence, genocide, murder, warfare, etc.  Somalia is a country with a non-centralized government ran essentially by warlords, drug traffickers, even those who traffic in human children.  There is rampant corruption, no security, violence, and practically no economy.  Seems to me like the sort of exception an International Law Enforcement body (comprised of and representing Somali's) would use to go in and make sure that people had a secure and free environment in order to establish a government that will work for them rather than rob and kill them.  In the end; all people want is food, water, security, and the freedom to pursue their livelihood.  Give the population of Somalia those basic human rights and see if it continues to be the hotbead of terrorism, violence, and piracy that it is presently synonymous with. 

You've often gone on about the failures of the Articles of Confederation, Skander - yet you've just proposed we try them again.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure because the centralized government had very little power to legislate and enforce.  The United Nations presently is the "Articles of Confederation" to the 9th power.  Exceedingly weak, unbelievably powerless, inept, meaningless, and insignificant.  I'm proposing a Union of Nations, an International government comprised of the pre-eminent enforcement arm on the planet.  An entity to enforce the laws, regulations, and resolutions that are carefully drawn up, debated, and legislated by all member nations of Planet Earth.
 
No longer could the United States brush aside the U.N. like a mosquito while it unilateraly invades a sovereign nation under false pretense.  No longer could Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia) continue to ignore the U.N. as they covertly support guerilla units across borders or terrorist cells on different continents.  No longer could Russia defy the U.N. as it chose to invade border nations like Georgia.  Or could Turkey continue the onslaught of violence against the Kurds on their southeastern border. Or the Myanmar military junta as it continues its policy of violence.  Or China's treatment of Tibetan nationalists.  Or . . .     

[Joe Vancil]

Because legal definitions are not meant to be gray.  A person is guilty or not guilty;  there's no "kind of guilty" or "a little bit guilty."  Offer a shade of gray, and every action can be justified, and with that justification comes a willingness to excuse the conduct.

And legal definitions are just that - legal definitions - like insanity - it's a legal term...so you don't care about the real world, you just care about the legal definitions of things?

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to lawyers, shakespeare had it right

jem,

The moment you can completely and accurately determine intent, then I'll be glad to switch to using moral law in place of legal law.  Until that time, the complexities of the legal system are necessary if we are to appropriately define, control, punish, and rehabilitate - and even define - inappropriate actions.

The "real world" that I live in has problems with warfare and terrorism.  Through various treaties and organizations, we've come to agreements over what is and isn't appropriate.  My problem is that those agreements are being obscured by media-speak, and as a result, are not being appropriately enforced.

[Joe Vancil]

Mark me down as a person who does not consider the Oklahoma City bombing "terrorism," but "treason."

Why can't it be both is the point people are trying to make...why is there no 'grey' in your world?

Because legal definitions are not meant to be gray.  A person is guilty or not guilty;  there's no "kind of guilty" or "a little bit guilty."  Offer a shade of gray, and every action can be justified, and with that justification comes a willingness to excuse the conduct.

A person's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  If it was just black and white there would be no reason for the words 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to be throw in the mix at all.  To me that is acknowledgement there is some grey area.  I get what you mean, a person is either 'guilty' or 'not guilty' when it comes down to the actual verdict but that doesn't mean there is no grey area in law.  I believe there is a grey area in law and it stems from how one reads and interprets the words of said law.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" refers not to the black and white, but the question of whether the action committed was actually the action committed.  The "grey area" to which you are referring isn't a gray area of the law, but a gray area of whether or not the person committed said action.

On "how one reads and interprets the words of said law" is the gray area that is being created mostly by the media, by corrupting the language so that we get to the point of questioning what "'is' is."  That's the reason we need to be very careful as to the appropriate terms we use when describing something.  "Iraqi insurgents" are different than "Iraqi terrorists."  How you deal with them is different.  What they're trying to do is different.  Who should be dealing with them is different.

It is important to say what you mean, lest someone else not understand you mean what you say.