"At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war."
Unfortunately, there is no end to the scope of terrorism or terrorists. Osama Bin Laden, who has been accused of arranging the death of 3,000 Americans, will find a violent death the instant he wanders between the cross hairs of any American military or alert American civilian. Slobodan Milošević, responsible for the death of 300,000 foreigners, was allowed a trial that persisted until he died of a heart attack.
My point is, terrorism is subjective. Generally, it's relegated to killing in the name of... whatever. As long as there is an unscheduled explosion, we can call it terrorism. Some might argue that the death of civilians constitutes terrorism, but try having that argument with anybody on Death Row. Government's monopoly on violence aside, non-terrorist civilian murder happens all the time; crimes of passion, organized crime, global genocide, serial killers, car accidents, what have you. None of these are pursued as acts of terrorism.
Should the United States deal with terrorism differently than we do any other form of murder or mass murder? I don't see why. Is there a particular action "terrorists" make that precludes them from the same rights we fight to protect for other murderers? The "terrorist" known as Timothy McVeigh was dead inside of six years. Charles Mason is still alive.
I don't know that the United States needs to wrap their heads around terrorism so much as crime in general, which is probably the most heady undertaking mankind has to face.
by Katzwinkel (69.41) on 2/15/10. | 2 | |  | 1 |
