Blow it Up, Burn it Down, Kick it Till it Breaks - Because it is Not Terrorism

Teenagers smashing Starbucks windows are not terrorists, nor are groups of people who try to save monkeys from having their eyes sewn shut. Our government regularly calls groups and people terrorists. They do not hesitate to accuse other governments of supporting terrorists or of being a terrorist government themselves. What the government does not go out of their way to make public, is the egregious human rights[2] and rules of war violations committed by state and non-state actors everyday. The latter violations are more terrorizing to populations than many of the acts deemed 'terrorist' by our government. To this end, the current definition of terrorism is a false term and must be reworked to infuse meaning into what constitutes 'terror.'

The Central Intelligence Agency (and most other sources) defines terrorism as, "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Very few definitions of terrorism leave out the specification that terrorism cannot be carried out by governments.

Governments use the term terrorism to divert attention from the atrocity of other types of actions and to silence opposition. Using the term terrorism itself is a form of violent language that has politically motivated goals. When pundits and columnists spit out that people are terrorists they are avoiding the necessity of thoughtfully outlining opposing arguments. Labeling people or groups of people as terrorists allows for others to dismiss the claims of these groups as illegitimate.

If the 'terrorist' label is applied to groups such as the Earth Liberation Front, then it is only fair to look at the missed labeling of certain events as terrorist. The US bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki do not fit the definition, yet did more damage than anyone can comprehend. This comparison has often been made and it is often argued that the use of force to end the war was justified. Perhaps then we can ignore that example and move on to the fire bombing of the city of Dresden. If this too is controversial, it is possible to discuss sanctions as a form of terrorism because sanctions ultimately negatively affect civilian populations.

Critics will be very quick to point out the above examples are clearly not forms of terrorism and are therefore justified. Under the CIA definition of terrorism governments are exempt from having to stay away from civilian targets and politically motivated violence. If this logic continues, the American right must concede their position on Hamas, the newly elected government of Palestine. Hamas should be able to carry out suicide bombings in Israel and not be worried about the label of terrorist organization. Their status as a government entity is supposed to legitimate their tactics. This is where the most glaring problem with the current definition of terrorism comes into focus.

All of the incidents discussed above are human rights violations and/or violations of the Geneva Convention and the rules of war. The above situations are not all classified as terrorist actions because as it stands the language of human rights has not been infused into the definitions of what constitutes terror and terrorism. It is important to begin this debate as it will allow for the proper branding of what exactly is terrorism.

In 1986 Deputy Secretary of State Whitehead described terrorism as "a criminal act that no political cause can justify."[3] What then justifies war? Terrorists usually claim to be at war, and wars are not criminal activity so long as the specific rules of war are adhered to. The only separation between terrorism and war is the distinction of subnational actors and states, yet both groups commit human rights violations through their violence. Does being a state actor legitimate human rights violations? It is not supposed to, but currently violations are being ignored in order to deal with 'terrorism.' The problem is human rights discussions are not nearly prevalent enough in terrorism definitions.

While terrorists don't necessarily hurt people, the label often implies that gross violence against civilian populations has taken place. This difference must be made in order to clarify and properly label those deserving of the term 'terrorist.'

An example of this troubling distinction is seen in the labeling of the Weather Underground Organization. The Weather Underground Organization (WUO) was a small group of people whose ultimate goal was the overthrow of the United States Government and imperialism through armed struggle. WUO read an official declaration of war to the United States and proceeded to take credit for several bombings including: police vehicles, NYC police headquarters, the Presidio army base, the US Capitol, the Pentagon, prison offices, the California Attorney General's office, the Department of Public Health and Welfare, and the State Department.

This organization is commonly referred to as a terrorist organization and its former members, terrorists. An analysis of the groups actions however show that the group adhered to all of the criteria of just war and just conduct of war.

The Weather Underground Organization believed that they had just cause for war against the United States. Their cause was the widespread wrongdoing and violent nature of the United States towards oppressed peoples all over the globe. This also meets the criteria for right intention, as Weather was not seeking to gain any material benefit from waging their war. Although this may not seem like a just cause for a war, another debate can be spawned from this issue around who has the right to decide what is just and what is not just, as we are all vastly familiar with the discussion around the invasion of Iraq. In light of this debate, I will assume that the WUO had just cause.

Weather meets the criteria of comparative justice without much explanation. They could have easily proven that the injustice suffered by the United States government was significantly less than the injustice they (the United States) perpetrated.

The public declaration of their war was widely heard through the reading of Weather's first communiqué. It begins, "I am going to read a declaration of a state of war..." [4] Weather went on to structure their organization in the form of focos, which are small groups of fighters spread over large areas. While this may seem to violate the rule of war which states winning must be viable, when looked at through the eyes of the Weather Underground Organization one can see that current uprisings of the time in Africa, Latin America, and France caused them to believe that they were truly in the midst of world revolution. From their foco strategy "a certain tactical advantage results: [...] the foco cannot be captured or even located by the enemy who is thus thwarted in its efforts to encircle the guerilla force as a whole."[5] The importance of the foco strategy hinges on the ability of small groups of people to defeat a much larger enemy through spreading out over large areas.

Both the strategy and mindset of the WUO follow the rules of war. The Weather Underground disbanded in the mid to late seventies after the conditions for their war deteriorated, again showing the rationality of WUO's mindset. During the course of armed struggle carried out by Weather, not a single person was seriously injured or killed, with the exception of their own members, who were accidentally killed while making an explosive device. Nor did Weather seek to hurt any person (they phoned in and asked people to leave the building before the bomb went off), not even those involved in what they deemed to be oppressive violence.

This long description of the Weather Underground Organization serves two purposes. First and foremost to delineate how non-state actors can adhere to the rules of war despite their status as a group. The second purpose is to show that the applying the term terrorist to WUO doesn't fit. Terrorism carries with it certain political baggage and stigma. Terrorism conjures up images of blood and screaming, bodies in the streets. Although those images are true images of terror, rarely do these images describe the groups labeled as terrorist.

This is a problem because it calls into question every group that has been labeled a terrorist organization. One must attempt to discern why groups are labeled as terrorists after realizing that this term does not mean the group is harming anyone.

An important argument is often made that even though no one is hurt by some groups, the groups still inflict a sense of fear upon the population. Although fear certainly hinders some people's ways of living, fear is something that is encountered everyday and should not be the sole reason for labeling a group as a terrorist organization. People will always be afraid of something. Some are afraid of spiders, others of germs. Fear is not enough. A small story can prove this theory: If I am convinced my neighbor is going to kill me, does that mean he is a terrorist solely because I'm paranoid? Most people will say of course not. This situation can be applied to many of the groups which are on the list of terrorist organizations. Are we only afraid of what they might do or have they actually committed human rights abuses and/or violated the rules of war? When we can and are willing to answer this question the group will receive the proper label.

One of the more recent and most widespread abuses of the term 'terrorist' is evident in the treatment and labeling of the members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). In 2005 the FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms explained to a senate panel that "violent animal rights extremists and eco-terrorists now pose one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation." [6] Despite the fact that the ALF has not been blamed for a single death or conspiracy to commit deaths, over the past few months several said to be members of the ALF have been brought up on terrorism charges. The Animal Liberation Front considers any harm to animals or humans to be violent and is proud to be a non-violent organization.

True terror is the systematic killing of an entire race by one's own government. The Sudanese government is a terrorist organization but under the current definition that label would be an oxymoron, as governments cannot commit acts of terrorism. Once the language of human rights replaces the lines of which actors (states vs. non-states) can be terrorists, the Sudanese government can be called by their proper name.

Not only the government of Sudan, but several other governments around the world condone terrorism in its true form, violations of human rights and the rules of war. Citizens should be terrified of these governments, not terrified of Animal Rights activists who steal puppies from large corporate laboratories.

The definition and usage of the term terrorist/terrorism must be refined to include and exclude the proper language. Without including human rights into the terrorism dialogue the term is devoid of meaning. The next time the president calls an organization a 'terrorist' organization it would be wise to sit back and look at what the group actually does and who (if anyone) they are physically harming.

[1] I must give credit to the Angry Brigade, who's eighth communiqué inspired this title

[2] In my conception of rights I do not consider property to be a human right. If I were to address property as a human right it would be tangential to my argument. The goal of my paper is to dismantle the current definition of terrorism and rework it within the human rights paradigm, because I do not believe property rights to be human rights, it is not within the scope of this particular paper.

[3] John C. Whitehead, Terrorism: The Challenge and the Response,
Journal of Palestine Studies, University of California Press, 1987, page 220

[4] Ron Jacobs, The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground, London:Verso, 1997, page 106

[5] Regis Debray, Revolution in the Revolution?, Grove Press, Inc. New York 1967

[6] Terry Frieden, "FBI, ATF address domestic terrorism," CNN.com, 20 May 2005