The Patriot Act is a bad piece of legislation
for a lot of reasons. Although some versions
seem more encouraging than others, nearly every version
of the Patriot Act contains provisions that permit the administration
to spy on ordinary Americans who have done nothing wrong. Depending on the
circumstances, the administration can seize bank and library records, tap
phones, and search through personal belongings with little or no justification
beyond suppressing dissent.
Attempts to modify the Patriot Act were made in 2005, but the Patriot
Act still contains language that could result in the abuse of Americans.
This is especially true of the definition of "terrorism" (here,
"domestic terrorism") used in the Act, particularly when combined
with the undefined act of "aiding a terrorist." "Aiding
a terrorist" still wasn't defined in the secret
"Patriot II" draft of 2003, or in any of the
drafts to modify the act in 2005. According to the Patriot Act: |
The
term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; [and]
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination,
or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States (USA-PATRIOT Sec. 802).
[T]he intelligence community of the Federal Government... should make
every effort... in lawful... acquisition of information on the identity,
location, finances, affiliations, capabilities, plans, or intentions
of... any... person... engaged in harboring, comforting, financing,
aiding, or assisting a terrorist or terrorist organization (USA-PATRIOT
Sec. 903). |
|
Since
"aiding a terrorist" is not defined, the original definition of
terrorism contained in the Patriot Act could
permit spying on Americans who did nothing more than criticize the administration
while drinking in a bar or shopping at a mall. A similar definition of "terrorism"
was used in the Homeland Security Act.
Although it may seem "obvious" to many people that the American
government would never abuse people's freedom by going after dissenters,
the words and actions of the Bush administration are cause for serious doubts
about the Patriot Act. |
| "...to
those who scare ...people with phantoms of lost liberty, ...[y]our
tactics only aid terrorists ...[and] erode our national unity..."
(John Ashcroft qtd. (1) 12/07/2001). |
|
Even
though the threat of suppressing dissent seems to be exacerbated by the
definition of terrorism used in the Patriot Act
and Homeland Security Act, few seem
to be willing to seriously discuss the definition. But why? One reason could
be that there is no widely accepted definition of terrorism. Within the
U.S. government, different agencies and departments use different definitions
of terrorism. In fact, even the people that do the spying use different
definitions. In some cases, searching to try and figure out the definition
used by a particular agency or department yields more than one definition
for that agency or department. The U.N. has also tried to reach a definition,
but all members did not accept it. |
| Definitions
of Terrorism |
| CIA |
The
term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence
an audience (CIA FAQ, (4)). |
| Department
of Defense |
The
calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate
fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies
in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious,
or ideological (General Military Training, Terrorism (2)).
The calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended
to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in pursuit
of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological
(Burgess, Center for Defense Information).
The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to
attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in
nature. This can be done through intimidation, coercion, or
instilling fear. Terrorism includes a criminal act against persons
or property that is intended to influence an audience beyond
the immediate victims (Joint Pub 1-02 DoD Dictionary of Terms;
SSC/OOTW Dictionary of Terms (3)). |
| FBI |
The
unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property
to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population,
or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social
objectives (Burgess, Center for Defense Information; General
Military Training, Terrorism (2)). |
| Homeland
Security (Act) |
The
term 'terrorism' means any activity that--
(A) involves an act that--
(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of
critical infrastructure or key resources; and
(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States
or of any State or other subdivision of the United States; and
(B) appears to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping (HSA Sec. 2). |
| Patriot
Act(s) |
The
term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; [and]
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States (USA-PATRIOT Sec. 802).
The term 'terrorist offense' means--
(A) an act which constitutes an offense within the scope of
a treaty... which has been implemented by the United States;
(B) any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily
injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active
part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when
the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate
a population, or to compel a government or an international
organization to do or to abstain from doing any act (H.R. 3199
RDS Sec. 124) [This definition is restricted to Section
124 of H.R. 3199 RDS]. |
| State
Department |
The
term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence
an audience. For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant"
is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military
personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not
on duty... (Patterns of Global Terrorism, Office of the Coordinator
for Counterterrorism, State Department (5)).
An activity, directed against persons involving violent acts
or acts dangerous to human life which would be a criminal violation
if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S.; and is intended
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence
the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to
affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping...
to include the use of weapons of mass destruction (General Military
Training, Terrorism (2)).
Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,
usually intended to influence an audience (Burgess, Center for
Defense Information). |
| United
Nations |
1.
Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism
as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke
a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons
or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances
unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that
may be invoked to justify them (United Nations, GA Res. 51/210,
Measures to eliminate international terrorism, (6)). |
| U.S.
Code, Title 22, Section 2656(d) |
The
term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated
violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational
groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence
an audience (CIA FAQ, (4)). |
|
|
|
Interestingly, the existence of different definitions has produced what
seems to be a positive outcome. Many definitions of terrorism used or
put forward by the U.S. government or international organizations seem
to be somehow linked to a kind of informal "disclaimer," either
accompanying the definition or found elsewhere, stating that a "universal"
or "agreed upon" definition of terrorism is not yet available.
|
The
question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among
states for decades [...] The lack of agreement on a definition of
terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures
(United Nations, GA Res. 51/210, Measures to eliminate international
terrorism, par. 1 (6)).
No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance ((Patterns
of Global Terrorism, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism,
State Department (5)).
Often, a uniform definition of terrorism will not even exist across
the various concerned agencies of a given country. Such is the case
with the United States, where [a] range of definitions... is currently
applied (Burgess, Center for Defense Information, par. 3).
There is no single or universal accepted definition [of terrorism]
(General Military Training, Terrorism (2)).
DISCLAIMER: The SSC/OOTW Dictionary of Terms... does not represent
official DoD or U.S. government policy (Joint Pub 1-02 DoD Dictionary
of Terms; SSC/OOTW Dictionary of Terms (3)).
The conference arrived at no agreed definition of terrorism... (State
Department Conference on Terrorism, December 29, 1972, p. 1, Terrorism
and U.S. Policy 1968-2002, Digital National Security Archive (7)).
[N]either the United States nor the United Nations has adopted official
definitions on terrorism. [...] Terrorism is a phenomenon that is
easier to describe than define. (Office of the Vice President, Memorandum,
October 20, 1986, p. 1, Terrorism and U.S. Policy 1968-2002, Digital
National Security Archive (7)). |
|
The presence of such "disclaimers" may indicate that an overly
precise definition could potentially be abused, while efforts to define
terrorism in some way may indicate that an overly vague definition
(or none at all) could also potentially be abused, as seems to be the case
with the lack of a definition for "aiding a terrorist." So it
would seem that a "good definition" of terrorism should also have
a "good disclaimer." I have argued – repeatedly –
that a specific kind of information should be somehow included with any
definition of terrorism (such as, for example, "dissenters are not
terrorists, and dissent does not aid terrorists"). |
| In the
absence of an agreed meaning, making laws against terrorism is especially
difficult. The latest British anti-terrorism law gets round the problem
by listing 21 international terrorist organizations by name. Membership
of these is illegal in the UK (Whitaker par. 25). |
|
What
the nature of such a disclaimer is, or should be, is still unclear. But
it does seem appropriate for spies, along with other divisions of government,
to mention that there does not appear to be an accepted definition of terrorism. |
| To admit
that defining the term "terrorism" is difficult is obligatory
in almost any work that mentions terrorism (Taylor; Crotty 507). |
|
The recognition
that terrorism is difficult to define is an important part of a much larger
dialogue about "defining terrorism" taking place among intellectuals
both in and out of government. |
U.N.
"Academic Consensus Definition" (Schmid, 1988): Terrorism
is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed
by (semi-) clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic,
criminal, or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination
– the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The
immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly
(targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic
targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators.
Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist
(organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to
manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target
of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending
on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought
((United Nations, GA Res. 51/210, Measures to eliminate international
terrorism, (6))
Terrorism can be defined as extralegal acts of violence directed against
civilian (primarily), official, or military targets in an effort to
induce fear and disorder into a society in advancing ideological,
religious, ethnic, or other agenda (Crotty 6).
Terrorism is the international generation of massive fear by human
beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over other
human beings (Cooper; Kushner ed. 3). |
|
Although
these definitions can appear very different, there is general consensus
that no definition has been agreed upon. |
One
of the most troubling aspects of terrorism is its definition. There
is currently no agreed-upon international definition of terrorism
and few international treaties on the subject (Cox; Crotty 256).
It can be stated with [almost] absolute certainty that there has never
been, since the topic began to command serious attention, some golden
age in which terrorism was easy to define or, for that matter, to
coprehend. And, as we plunge gaily into the brave new world of the
21st century, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that the
problem of definition, or as it was once described, the problem of
the problem of definition (Cooper 1978), will come any closer to sensible
resolution. With that solemn caveat in place, let us proceed to consider
how, variously, we may come to define terrorism or at least know it
when we see it in the coming decades (Cooper; Kushner ed. 3).
After thirty years of hard labor [prior to 2003] there is still no
generally agreed definition of terrorism (Laqueur 232).
"The term" –we read in a communication of the American
State Department on "global terrorism" dating back to 1992–
"does not have a unanimous definition because ...[n]o definition
has been unanimously accepted" (Nuzzo 129). |
|
The attempt
to define terrorism has received a great deal of attention since September
11th, 2001, but it has also received attention during earlier encounters
with "terrorism." A State Department conference on terrorism held
after the terrorist attack that occurred during the 1972 Olympic games in
Munich, Germany (Naftali 54) brought together a broad group of academics
and officials to discuss, among other things, the definition of terrorism. |
| The
conference arrived at no agreed definition of terrorism or of the
point at which it shades into other forms of violence (such as guerilla
action). Generally, however, the participants used the term terrorism
to refer to any campaign of civil violence for political objectives
carried out by an establishment or opposition group. [...] Only one
of five major participants... offered a formal definition, and it
seemed to include only acts of violence committed outside the contested
area (State Department Conference on Terrorism, December 29, 1972,
p. 1, Terrorism and U.S. Policy 1968-2002, Digital National Security
Archive (7)). |
|
Comparing
the statements in the 1972 State Department report, produced during the
Nixon administration, with the rhetoric currently coming out of the Bush
administration makes it easier to understand why so much criticism has been
directed toward the Bush administration regarding the Patriot
Act and other policies, rhetoric, and
legislation. |
We will
...wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism
[...] to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism
do not find fertile ground in any nation (NSS
6). [These ideologies include opposition to] pro-growth legal and
regulatory policies to encourage business investment, innovation,
and entrepreneurial activity; tax policies - particularly lower marginal
tax rates - that improve incentives for work and investment; [...]
[and] sound fiscal policies to support business activity (NSS
17).
"Be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary
suggestions" (Dick Cheney qtd. (8) 5/24/2002). |
|
The definition used in the Patriot Act just
makes a bad piece of legislation worse. But worst of all, legislation like
the Homeland Security Act, along
with the rhetoric and policies of the Bush administration, abuse the term
"terrorism" for political gain. |
George
W. Bush's rhetoric of the war on terrorism (a rhetoric employed already
by Ronald Reagan) requires a fundamental clarification of the meaning
of the term terrorism. It is all too well known that this
is one of the most difficult terms to define (Nuzzo 129).
Problems... occur with regard to the application of the term "terrorism."
Even when there is common agreement regarding what does not constitute
a terrorist act, political considerations often allow politicians
to define acts that are clearly not terrorist as such (Cox; Crotty
257).
A great deal of mischief has been caused by trying to define terrorism
in the light of current events or events in only one country. Terrorism
at the present time is mainly religious Islamic in character, but
thirty years [before 2003] it was preponderantly left-wing and at
other times it emanated from the extreme right (Laqueur 235).
Groups can be labeled "terrorists" at the will of governments,
but not all "terrorist groups" are terrorist. Such labeling
is a convenient way of stigmatizing what under other conditions would
be a legitimate opposition to a regime, its leadership, or its policies.
The definition of terrorism depends on political power. Governments
can increase their power when they label opponents as "terrorists"
[or dissenters as "aiding terrorists"]. Citizens seem more
willing to accept more abuses of government power when a counterterrorist
campaign is in progress. "Terrorists" do not enjoy the same
humanitarian privileges as "people" (Crotty 8). |
|
The Patriot Act is terrifying for a lot of
reasons. It may have given a tyrannical administration the authority to
suppress dissent through wiretaps, seizure of library and bank records,
and illegal searches. The Patriot Act needs
more than a disclaimer for its definition of terrorism. It still needs to
"sunset." And it should be further restricted to protect Americans
from the destruction of freedom being carried out by a government that seems
to have been corrupted by the Bush administration. |
Various drafts, versions, or related legislation for the Patriot
Act (~chronological, by no means all-inclusive):
United States. (2001). Cong. House of Representatives. Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism (USA-PATRIOT) Act of 2001. 107th Congress,
H.R. 3162. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
---. (2003). Department of Justice. The Domestic
Security Enhancement Act of 2003 (a.k.a. "Patriot
II"). http://bolles.ire.org/Story_01_020703_Doc_1.pdf
(Archived copy HERE), February 11, 2003.
---. (2005). Cong. Senate."A
Bill to Reauthorize Certain Provisions of the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001."
109th Congress. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
---. (2005). Cong. Senate."Summary
of a Bill to Reauthorize Certain Provisions of the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001."
109th Congress. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
---. (2005). Cong. Senate. USA PATRIOT Improvement
and Reauthorization Act of 2005. 109th Congress, S. 1389. Washington:
http://thomas.loc.gov.
---. (2005). Cong. House of Representatives. USA
PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthoriztion Act of 2005. 109th
Congress, H.R. 3199 (RDS). Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
---. (2005). Cong. Senate. Amendment to An
Act to Extend and Modify Authorities Needed to Combat Terrorism....
109th Congress, H.R. 3199 (EAS). Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
Abbreviations:
HSA: United States. (2002). Cong. House of Representatives. Homeland
Security Act of 2002. 107th Congress, H.R. 5005. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
NSS: United States (2002). White House. The
National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington:
http://www.whitehouse.gov.
USA-PATRIOT: United States. (2001). Cong. House of Representatives. Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism (USA-PATRIOT) Act of 2001. 107th Congress,
H.R. 3162. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
Notes:
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/07/ inv.ashcroft.testimony/index.html
(2) http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/navy/gmt_terrorism.pdf
(3) http://www.msiac.dmso.mil/ootw_documents/sscdictionary/body_t.htm
(4) http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html
(5) http://www.state.gov/s/ct/pgtrpt/2000/2419.htm
(6) http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
(7) http://www.nsarchive.org
(8) http://www.cnn.com/ 2002/LAW/05/columns/fl.dean.cheney.5.24/index.html
Selected works cited:
Burgess, Mark. (2003). Terrorism: the problems of definition. Washington,
DC: Center for Defense Information. http://www.cdi.org (25 June 2005).
Crotty, William ed. (2005). Democratic development and political terrorism.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Kushner, Harvey ed. (2003). Essential readings on political terrorism:
analyses of problems and prospects for the 21st century. New York:
Gordian Knot Books.
Laqueur, Walter. (2003). No end to war: terrorism in the twenty-first
century. New York: Continuum.
Naftali, Timothy. (2005). Blind spot: the secret history of American
counterterrorism. New York: Basic Books.
Rockmore, Tom, and Joseph Margolis and Armen T. Marsoobian eds. (2003).
The philosophical challenge of September 11. Oxford, England, UK:
Blackwell.
United States. (2002). Cong. House of Representatives. Homeland
Security Act of 2002. 107th Congress, H.R. 5005. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
---. (2002). White House. The National Security
Strategy of the United States of America. Washington: http://www.whitehouse.gov.
---. (2001). Cong. House of Representatives. Uniting
and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism (USA-PATRIOT) Act of 2001. 107th Congress,
H.R. 3162. Washington: http://thomas.loc.gov.
Whitaker, Brian. (2001). Guardian Unlimited. Magazine. "The
definition of terrorism." United Kingdom: http://www.guardian.co.uk
(25 June 2005). |
| |
| If
this presentation has you asking questions, check out NewsKing.com
for additional articles and presentations, as well as links
to neoNewton.com
and other sites where answers are waiting! Click HERE
to visit NewsKing.com! |
 |
|
|
|
|
© Copyright 1998-2005 T.J. Newton. Click HERE
to read the terms and conditions of copyright. All rights reserved.
|
