Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,084 posts)
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:01 PM Sep 2012

Trouble from the US ‘Terrorism List’


from Consortium News:


Trouble from the US ‘Terrorism List’
September 4, 2012

Over the years, the U.S. “terrorism list” has become less an objective assessment of groups that use violence against civilians than an ideological battlefield littered with blatant hypocrisies and outdated hatreds. The list has even complicated strategies for reducing political violence, writes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar


The common American tendency to view the outside world in starkly divided Manichean terms between friends, allies and good guys on one side and adversaries and evil-doers on the other side arises in many circumstances but seems especially marked in discussions of terrorism.

The tendency is most visible in how the lists that have become mainstays of counterterrorist policy are widely perceived. The U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations had an almost mundane purpose when it was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

One of the principal features of that legislation was to criminalize the provision of material support to any foreign terrorist organization. This made necessary clear definitions not only of material support but also of foreign terrorist organizations. Hence the creation of the list, entries on which are determined by the secretary of state with the participation of other executive departments and according to criteria specified in the statute.

Notwithstanding this purpose — support to the enforcement of a criminal law — the list of foreign terrorist organizations gets regarded as if it were a more general act of condemnation that embodies what overall U.S. policy toward a given group is or ought to be. It is taken as a declaration of who is in the bad guys’ camp and who is not. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2012/09/04/trouble-from-the-us-terrorism-list/



2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trouble from the US ‘Terrorism List’ (Original Post) marmar Sep 2012 OP
So, by the definition of our own laws RC Sep 2012 #1
The word "terrorist" itself has no objective meaning. bemildred Sep 2012 #2
 

RC

(25,592 posts)
1. So, by the definition of our own laws
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:18 PM
Sep 2012

if you support the United States, you are by definition a terrorist?

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
2. The word "terrorist" itself has no objective meaning.
Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:00 PM
Sep 2012

In the sense that there is no agreement over who is or is not a "terrorist", it is used for its implication of illegitimate violence, as opposed to legitimate, state-sponsored violence, and not in any sense that tells you anything about the person it is applied to. What with "cyber-terrorists" and the like you can't even be sure the "terrorist" is trying to harm any real persons.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Trouble from the US ‘Terr...