By clicking here, you may SUBMIT your own comment, and/or you may READ the other comments made by public contributors. .

Terrorism in the 21st Century
Combating International Terrorism

Item 6 05-NOV-2001 18:55 Richard Farson

Welcome to the discussion on combating international terrorism.  In this discussion, we will consider issues and actions relevant to the larger concerns about terrorism as it is played out on the international scene.

6:1) 05-NOV-2001 22:08 Richard Farson

Ray Alden has suggested that I move a provocative comment from our previous discussion to get us started on the right track.  This one, a bit out of context, is from Don Straus:

Pres Bush, with whatever partners he can gather from as many different world points of view -- ethnic, religious and geographic characteristics -- should propose a UN conference in some location other than the US to address the terrorist problem.  I would suggest taking over the whole UN group of facilities in Geneva for this purpose as both suitable in tradition and accommodations.

6:2) 06-NOV-2001 08:45 Donald Straus

I see virtue in separating our discussion into different sections, but there are also drawbacks since at best all strategies need to be linked.

My suggestion above (and expanded with a rationale in 1:53, I believe) emphasized the need for us to remove ourselves (as the US) from the police/judge responsibility and become part of a large world coalition against terrorism, albeit one with the major power and wealth to get things done.

I think the idea of getting the UN to be the moving power to decide policy would be especially important for implementing the ingenious and dramatic "cleansing" proposition of Sandy Mactaggart.

If we were the sponsors of such a program it would be a disaster for us if it didn't work, and would also be (in my mind) tempered with an even greater image of the US being the wielder of unprincipled power even if it did work.

6:3) 07-NOV-2001 16:06 John Hart

Before arriving at possible solutions, it is important to properly define the goal.  Unfortunately, the current administration has set unrealistic expectations by declaring that the goal is to eliminate terrorism.  The terrorist attacks were unspeakably horrible and heart wrenching, but once we look beyond our emotions, is terrorism any more of a predicament than driving a car?  Approximately 40,000 people die annually in car accidents.  Yet rather than give up driving, or resort to safety measures that would make owning a car cost prohibitive, we have taken a measured approach that improves over time, recognizing that we simply can’t prevent deaths from car accidents, but we can certainly improve the odds.

Improving the odds against terrorism seems like an achievable goal.  If the odds were measured in terms of lives lost, this would seem to make preventing large scale, well funded and planned terrorist operations a priority.  The paradox is that this type of action is probably easier to stop given the length of planning, number of people involved, financing required, etc. versus the lone car bomber.  To properly achieve this, the effort must be led by the U.N., otherwise, as others have said, we will alienate more of the world by possibly violating others sovereignty as well as ignoring the problems of terrorism elsewhere (Colombia, Russia, France, Rwanda, etc.) which are possibly interrelated in any case.  I think Don’s idea makes sense to start the process.

As Farhad has mentioned on more than one occasion, improving our worldwide image must be part of a long-term strategy.  Why not take advantage of the current swell in patriotism and reinstate the draft?  But this time, offer an alternative branch of service were the mission is humanitarian - placing everyday Americans in areas across the globe that need assistance.  I am suggesting both emergency assistance and long-term assistance through training and development programs.  In addition to the potential improvement in our image, I would think the benefits to Americans alone are worth the effort.  It would provide an opportunity for more of our citizens to see what exists outside of our borders and to realize that being an American is a privilege that comes with obligations - in this case 12 or 18 months of service.

Realize that any solutions are really just part of a process that evolves over time and will not eradicate terrorism.  There is no quick fix.  Unfortunately, “cleansing” of Afghanistan, although it has a certain appeal, from a practical standpoint probably wouldn’t work, as the “evil doers” would declare victory just by surviving.  Short of a nuclear attack I am not confident that you could smoke them all out of their holes any time soon.  Even if you did succeed, you wouldn’t have stopped terrorism and a certain part of the world might consider our actions more than heavy handed.  Also, I am not convinced that, at this time, the coalition is weakening, as troop commitments from other nations continue.  Keep in mind, with regard to the rhetoric from the moderate Islamic countries; secretly they must be pleased with the idea of their radicals leaving to join the effort in Afghanistan with the possibility that America will bomb them to paradise.  Perhaps the answer in Afghanistan is patience.

6:4) 07-NOV-2001 19:12 Richard Farson

Welcome, John.  Lots of food for thought and good ideas in your inaugural comment.

The idea of improving the odds against terrorism is a useful, and as far as I know, an original idea.  It has the added plus of probably being measurable. 

A number of us believe that responsibilities should be shifted to the UN as soon as possible.  I think Bush might be willing to give over a lot of his problems now to the UN, but he would be caught in a dilemma, trying to sell that idea to the more radical conservative elements in his party.  Any ideas on that?

Reinstating the draft might sell now with the surge of patriotism, particularly if there were alternate service options.  Sen. McCain has introduced legislation calling for an increase in domestic volunteering, but, as you point out, we really need more Peace Corps type programs abroad.

Your point that the "evil doers" require only partial survival to claim victory, and along with that heightened antipathy toward the USA, is, I'm sure, all too true.  I suppose we can claim victory, of sorts, if we get bin Laden, but it would be a somewhat empty claim at best.

6:5) 07-NOV-2001 20:56 Donald Straus

John Hart: I would like to add my suggestion for a UN initiative to your great idea for reinvigorating the Peace Corps program.

6:6) 08-NOV-2001 00:12 Kip Winsett

Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?  I have been reading the many comments in this forum, various opinions in newspapers and watching many newscasts that advocate a "coalition" in dealing with terrorism.  There seems to me to be a fundamental problem here.  People who live under repressive regimes have no manner in which to gain freedom other than by acts which we label as terrorism.  A lot of these repressive governments are likely to seize upon any sort of UN anti-terrorism resolution as a means to engage in even more repressive brutality to keep their populace under control.  Before we rush toward some generic one size fits all policy, it seems to me that we need to really determine what actually constitutes an act of terrorism.  Freedom is (and always has been) a difficult state of affairs.  Ultimately, freedom grants to the individual the right to choose his own doom, to follow his own conscience.  Freedom means that the individual does not owe his life to the whims of his liege lord (or any other master) even if that mastery is confirmed by law.  I disagree strongly with the notion set forward by John Hart that freedom obligates one to serve. Quite the contrary, freedom guarantees one the right to refuse service.  Freedom transcends religious values, morality, ethics, or any other group imposed strictures.  American democracy is founded upon the belief that the common man has the ability and the inalienable right to govern himself.  Many of us may, at times, not like the choices that are made by others, but I'm certain we all treasure our own right to make choices.  Statutes which mandate behavior deprive us of freedom, and I firmly believe such statutes should be held to the absolute minimum necessary to protect the few from the many and the weak from the strong.  I believe that this same principle applies to other countries as well as our own.  Supporting any resolution which inhibits the freedom of individuals in other countries strikes me as being the worst possible form of hypocrisy.

6:7) 08-NOV-2001 01:18 Richard Farson

Kip, there are two parts to your comment.  The first points out that for most oppressed people, violence has been their only way out.  That was true in the founding of our own nation.  I believe that without violence Palestinians would not be players on the international scene at all, really the only chance they have.  That is obviously why they can't abandon the practice, much as it is called for.  You place in sharp relief the fundamental dilemma called up by our current war, an unsolvable dilemma that makes it clear we cannot and should not try to eliminate all violence.  So what should be our criteria?  No matter how we define terrorism, it will never excuse the violent acts we can later recognize as having been necessary for the fight for freedom.  So a precise definition is truly impossible.  Would you agree? 

On your second point, about the obligation to serve, you make a strong case, certainly tapping into fundamental definitions of freedom.  I, myself, don't believe in compulsory education, because I feel it violates children's rights.  Yet, inconsistent as it may seem, I do not argue with the state's right, our collective right, to call for compulsory national service as long as it clearly serves the national defense, and as long as there are legitimate ways to avoid it based on individual moral convictions.  I distinguish between the state deciding what is good for the individual and forcing it upon him or her, such as medical treatment or compulsory education, and the state's calling up emergency forces for the ultimate protection of the populace, such as military service.  Does that distinction cut any ice with you?

As you are well aware, the idea of Freedom has been debated by philosophers for centuries, but most conclude, I believe, that freedom without boundaries cannot be permanently experienced as freedom.  Indeed, the momentary experience of freedom comes from moving boundaries.  Eliminating boundaries is not true freedom in the phenomenological sense.  Freedom requires structure.  Am I wrong about that?

6:8) 08-NOV-2001 08:09 Donald Straus

The above exchange of Dick and Kim raises another set of dilemmas of our times.  To what extent can a world made smaller by rapid transportation and communication tolerate great differences in permitted behavior, ethics, and culture?

6:9) 08-NOV-2001 11:16 John Hart

Dick, another way to pose the question regarding freedom is, ‘does it come without a price’?  The answer, quite literally, is no.  We are obligated to pay taxes that probably support many programs that we disagree with, which might even include the current war.  When I refer to obligation, I am speaking as much to a moral obligation as a legal one.  One of America’s image problems is that we have an excess of success.  It’s the same reason that so many people don’t like the Yankees baseball team.  As a result of our geography, resources, political system, etc., we live much better than most of the rest of the world.  We also consume a large percentage of the world’s resources.  Is the hatred others feel towards us, in some cases to the point of terrorism, part of the price we pay for freedom and our indifference to the plight of others?  With an alternative branch of service, I am suggesting an alternative to the billions spent on defense that failed to preserve the freedom of 5,000 people.  I also wonder how service to one’s country and the less fortunate for 12 to 18 months, in the big picture, is a loss of freedom when, in fact, it might just be the opposite.  Freedom from indifference, freedom from hatred, freedom from ignorance, freedom from selfishness, etc. 

I agree with Kip regarding the need for a definition of terrorism.  It is why I included Rwanda in my earlier comments.  The unimaginable number of innocents who have been butchered in that country’s tribal conflict were technically not victims of terrorism, but certainly deserved more help from the world than they got.  Should the definition include a regime that terrorizes its own citizens?  If it does, we might actually be supporting “terrorists” who are trying to remove that regime.  Perhaps, rather than a definition, we need a process were a situation is presented to the U.N. and the members decide if and what action is required.

6:10) 08-NOV-2001 11:50 Richard Farson

Telling points, John.  The idea that a sense of obligation can develop morally out of a sense of freedom is, I think, the basis of our democratic experiment.  I do not believe that rights and responsibilities should be legally linked, i.e. rights are withheld until responsibility is proven--voting rights, for example.  I think that may be Kip's point, too.  But we extend rights and freedom in the belief that a sense of responsibility and obligation will then develop as a moral concern.

As you say, the price we pay for freedom, and indifference to the plight of others, is vulnerability to terrorists.  And, while we cannot avoid the dangerous effects of freedom, we can do something about our indifference to the plight of others, as you suggest.  Moreover, it is well to be reminded that the very act of service extends our freedoms.

I agree that while we probably should always seek a definition of terrorism, realizing we can never actually finalize one for the reasons I outlined, it may be better, as you suggest, to think of a process by which an international body like the UN could assess individual cases in a way to make terrorism seem less necessary.

Don, your point about the inevitable restrictions on behavior that accompany the new freedoms we attain by a world made smaller is well taken.  In human affairs, we always have the co-existence of opposites.

And John, I appreciate your helping me do my job of keeping this discussion focused on terrorism, because while we need to explore the fundamental philosophical implications of our proposals (if not here in this discussion, where?) it is always good to be reminded of our main theme.

6:11) 08-NOV-2001 12:16 Raymond Alden

Many, many years ago, when we were raising small children, we debated the link between responsibility and rights.  We decided that our children would get a small cash "allowance" as a matter of right, and that they would do their "chores" as a matter of responsibility to the family, and finally, that we would never link the two.

It was, and is, a good distinction.  I like John's idea of the draft with added options -- all to fight terrorism, because that fight must happen on a broad front where there is room for all kinds of service.

Didn't Bush declare war on more than "all terrorism"?  I thought he said on "all evil, everywhere".  Grotesque, if true.

6:12) 08-NOV-2001 15:54 Richard Farson

Rhetorical usage, no doubt.  We probably shouldn't hold him to those words.  But he may have bought himself some trouble if he doesn't begin to qualify that term "evil" with some precision that would let him off the hook.

6:13) 09-NOV-2001 03:00 Kip Winsett

Dick, in regards to your question about criteria, I have given this a lot of thought (not to say it is necessarily good thinking <g>)  Anyway, I am currently of the opinion that each person in any given nation has the inalienable human right to struggle to be free.  I don't, however, think that such a person has the right to include (without consequence) in his/her struggle people in a different country (unless that country has stationed occupation troops in the fighter's country - such as British troops in Northern Ireland.  At that point, the Britain became a legitimate target by virtue of its official use of military personnel.)  So, perhaps, a place to begin in defining terrorism would be acts of violence committed against non-combatant countries.  Even if we ascribe to Bin Laden the highest moral intent of saving the Afghani people his action is still unconscionable. The victims of his attacks were in no way any part of any action to interfere with the freedom of the Afghanis - or that of the Palestinians for that matter.

The second point is, of course, forever debatable.  I recall a short poem by Kenneth Patchen about freedom, "And when freedom is achieved you have given a word the power to send men to their deaths.  Men are not free who are sent to die - only those who send them are free. You should have freedom stuffed down your fat throats".  Does the state really have a legitimate claim on the lives of its citizens even for defense of the country?  I say not.  Not if we are truly free.  Freedom includes the right to give up freedom, to allow ourselves to be conquered.  The whole purpose of freedom is to allow each of us to become the best person we are capable of becoming.  If we are at the beck and call of the state, then the quality of our actions (good or evil) is determined by others who might well have a personal covert agenda separate from what is declared.

If Americans are so oblivious to the needs of others in this world that they have to be "pressed into service" to help them, then perhaps America doesn't deserve to be free and should pay some price for that unconcern.  Freedom requires nothing.  However, if we fail to be responsible, compassionate, concerned people then we will eventually lose our freedom.  Deservedly.

As to structure and boundaries, it is only in a state of complete freedom that the individual has the opportunity to truly actualize in a deliberate and conscious fashion the highest principles of humanity.  Being good or doing right because we fear the consequences of not so being or doing is, in my mind, inadequate.  The human species needs to evolve to a point where right action is the personally preferred action.

Geez, as I read this it sounds a little pompous but I do, nonetheless, think that it is true.  It may be that we need to coerce good behavior, but in truth, good behavior will only exist when each person wants to behave well.

6:14) 09-NOV-2001 07:33 Mary Catherine Bateson

Freedom does obligate one to serve -- rights have costs, which means they should be matched by obligations -- but of course the meaning of "serve" should not be such as to reduce freedom, i.e. requiring narrowly ideological behavior.  I think it's a great idea to have a form of universal national service (I always have, but hadn’t seen it in this context.)  We keep wondering why other nations have a negative image of us and why we know so little about them...

Many paternalistic programs are imposed because at another level they clearly enhance freedom -- illiteracy and addiction are limiting conditions -- speeding creates dangers for the driver and for others and accidents impose costs on the whole of the community -- if we do believe in the right to basic medical care and freedom from want, we do have to have obligations that protect health and prepare adults to be self-supporting.  That doesn’t mean that all the existing programs are good or well designed...

6:15) 09-NOV-2001 11:49 Richard Farson

"Complete freedom" is a difficult concept for me to get my mind around, either in concept or action.  Concepts are always defined by, and coexist with, their opposites.  I think there are problems with idea of individual freedom unconnected to social context.  The full expression of our "individual" potential requires involvement in, and accommodation to, our surround, especially our social surround.  Studies of creativity in artists and scientists, for example, indicate that they do their most creative work not when they are left alone with apparent complete freedom, but when others are involved in their work.  Even the concept of "right action" is developed through interaction with others, as I hope we are doing in this dialogue.  How difficult it would be for us to think these issues through without the assistance of others.  Do you agree, Kip?

Mary Catherine, I have always supported universal national service too.  I don't regard that requirement of citizenship to be paternalistic.  But I believe that the paternalistic requirements that everyone be literate, or free from addictions, even though they seem to serve the collective good, overreach with serious negative consequences.  There may be no negative consequences to being literate, or free of addictions, but the institutions and practices that must be imposed on people to make sure that they are literate or addiction-free are oppressive, and incidentally, ineffective.  I know these distinctions I am making between legitimate and paternalistic governmental power blur (military service is oppressive too), but doesn't the achievement of freedom always involve confronting such dilemmas, always require of us a balancing act, reconciling the requirements of achieving the vital common good (such as defense, or traffic control) with the protection of individual liberties?  And don't our different philosophies about how to balance those concerns result in fascism or communism on the one hand and libertarianism or anarchy on the other? Isn't democracy an effort to achieve a context, or a balance, that actually gives the greatest expression for individual liberty because it recognizes the distinction between the right of government to require service or regulation, but denies it the right to impose practices that unnecessarily limit individual freedom?

See what you started, John, with your idea about national service to fight terrorism peacefully?

6:16) 09-NOV-2001 18:18 Kip Winsett

Catherine, once we accept the idea that freedom does obligate one to serve then at some point in time we become hostage to somebody else's idea of what constitutes freedom.  One person's "narrowly ideological behavior" is another person's "completely reasonable behavior".  It might be the case that "paternalistic programs are imposed because at another level they clearly enhance freedom", but just as often those paternalistic programs are imposed to line the nests of an elite few at the expense of the many, or to satisfy the moral values of the powerful at the expense of the weak.

I think the idea of Americans in large groups personally serving to enhance and enrich the lives of other peoples is excellent, but I think compulsory service is self-defeating - it ceases to be service and becomes forced labor.

Just think for a few minutes about who will be excluded from having to serve and then think about who would be most likely to serve.  I can't, for instance, imagine that Bill Gates, Carly Fiorina, Governor Bush, or others of the American elite would give up a couple years of their lives.  Can you?  Somehow it will work out that they just won't have to fulfill this obligation.  Of course, they will reap immense profit from the compelled service of their fellow countrymen.

I would like to propose that instead of making the service compulsory, we pay people an excellent wage to undertake this assistance to others.  I further propose that it be supported entirely by those American companies and individuals who have already profited obscenely from the exploitation of the "Third World".  The oil companies, the pharmaceuticals, the automakers, arbitrage traders, investment bankers, etc.  I understand that in America something like 90% of the wealth is in the hands of 5% of the population.  That 5% has the most to lose and they have certainly gained the most in the past.  Perhaps it is time for them to absorb some of the real cost that attaches to their actions and profits.

6:17) 09-NOV-2001 19:44 Kip Winsett

Dick, we are born free aren't we?  I mean, really, nobody can take away our essential freedom.  But, we constantly surrender our freedom in a variety of ways; we surrender our freedom to survive in whatever fashion we choose; we surrender our freedom to be reckless; we surrender our freedom to believe as we choose; we surrender our freedom to wantonly impose our will on others.  We have the right to be stupid, addicted, abusive, etc.  But it is the right of every person to make such choices of surrender without being coerced.  I personally choose not to steal, for example, not because of the penalties for stealing, or the moral opprobrium such behavior might incur, rather I choose not to steal because I don't need to steal.  I freely surrender that option.  There are cases in which (for the sake of my starving children for example) I would take back my right to steal.  I might well surrender my freedom to live daily as I choose and go off to fight a war but only if I decide that overall it is in my own best interests to do so.  I wouldn't do it if I thought it was against my best interests to do so (Vietnam).

Clearly, none of this has any meaning in a social vacuum.  It is via interaction with others that we discover and grow.  Certainly, participation in this forum stretches me to really think about these issues in a much broader context.  Freedom, for example, is something I have simply taken for granted.  Until now, I haven't really engaged in any thoughtful perusal of the subject.  Nor is it my intent to advance my thinking as being definitive or even necessarily "right".

A group is comprised of individual members.  Remove the individuals, and there is no more group.  For the group to be successful, it must recognize and meet the needs of the individual.  Each individual must weigh the agenda of the group against his/her individual needs.  If the agenda fails to satisfy the individual then he/she is not obligated to follow it.  In a free society, if enough individuals refuse to follow the agenda, then the agenda changes or the group dissipates.

I see democracy as an attempt to provide a means whereby individuals can live together exercising their right to surrender some of their freedom, yet doing so in an orderly fashion in which they have full participation and protection.  We do this because we believe that on average we will personally benefit.  Once the participation is limited or the protections withdrawn or the benefits too reduced, democracy will fail and we will be the ones fighting to regain freedoms that we willingly surrendered.  The people of those mid-east countries which now so occupy our thoughts have surrendered too many of their freedoms.  Their political systems don't offer them the participation, protection and benefits necessary to ensure that their surrender tends to work in their overall best interests.

6:18) 09-NOV-2001 21:05 Donald Straus

I am not sure how strong is my belief in what follows, but it is an issue that I think is worthy of some discussion. 

Dick Farson and quite a few others have made strong assertions that freedom in a free democracy precludes the imposition of activities or behavior.  (But as Dick has said, there are exceptions – e.g. national service).

I would like to suggest for discussion that being a citizen in a working democracy DEMANDS quite a few imposed activities, and the more technical, wealthy, and powerful it is, the more a modern democracy needs to demand of the individual citizen.

Let me choose education for one example that Dick has chosen: e.g. the "imposition to be literate".  To open the discussion, I would support a literacy/educational requirement to the vote.

In doing so, I would want to redefine both literacy and education so that it is not a traditional amount of conventional education, but something more "democratic" in its measurement.

I would also seek to avoid a stigma on those who chose not to attain the designation of literacy/education, and would impose a requirement on those who did choose such a designation to participate in voting and perhaps other duties involved in good governance.

There are, of course, some valid concerns and arguments against such a drastic re-definition of "the right to vote".  But I also feel that there are equally drastic weaknesses in the present operation of democracy as we are now practicing it.

Incidentally, I have noted, both by observing students in the little college here in Maine (College of the Atlantic), and also observation in both the press and TV, that there has been an amazing increase in student interest in governance and current affairs following Sept 11.

6:19) 10-NOV-2001 20:46 Douglass Carmichael

Harlan Cleveland and Don Michaels, and just now Walt Anderson in his “All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization”, all say that governance of complexity may be beyond us.  What if we take a kind of old fashioned naturalist's approach and say something like “when populations are doing well, they get organized by the rich”?

When populations are near crisis, exuberant religious fragmentation and cults forming happens (see R.R. Dodds’ “The Greeks and The Irrational” for a full view of this in Athens as it caved in to Macedonian power).

When populations are in a crisis, lawlessness breaks out.

When populations are living post crisis, there is a sense of relief, of rebuilding time.

And the obvious things when there is more than one such "population".

Given that, terrorism is guaranteed in a situation such as ours.  The concentration of wealth in all the countries we need to consider is a driving force, and a sure path to destruction.

So, to deal with terrorism (the revolt of the poor, with ideologies, against the rich, with ideologies, and class crossovers all over the place, like bin Laden himself) would require some major reinstituionalization which would require some major reculturalization.

We face issues like:

Separation of church and state- still a good idea?

The use of private property as the main support for the sovereignty of the individual against the state (Locke)-still a good idea?

Elites do not want to spend money on educating everyone - especially given a world wide glut of industrial production, when they will use education to revolt rather than for jobs that don't exist - still a good idea?

The use of the UN, and a coalition of states, right now would probably be an extension of the New World Order logic, with Citicorp (does it still exist?), Shell and others being the defended ones.  (The current meeting in Qatar is it, where the military is clearly lined up to protect the rich against - who?)

We have to take seriously that the kleptocracy is all too real, and we maybe cannot recover without a strong reaction against the current governance within the US.

To me, this is like laying out the paints to try to make a picture: messy, but we can’t move too quickly to narrow definitions of the problem.  Often, making a problem larger is the only way to deal with it because only then are the real forces included.

6:20) 11-NOV-2001 09:26 Nicholas Johnson

Defining Terrorism

Nicholas Johnson

Do you know anybody who's in favor of "terrorism"?  I don't.

The United Nations Security Council came out against it after little or no debate.  The world is virtually unanimous in its opposition to "terrorism”.

Why the quotes around the word?  Because after we all agree the attack on the World Trade Center was terrorism, the UN, and the rest of us, still need a definition to differentiate other events.

Terrorism, standing alone, seems to involve some or all of the following elements:

- An ideological or political purpose (not conventional criminal acts).

- The desire to cause "terror" as much as human or physical destruction.

- Attacks on specific, or random, persons.

- Destruction of essential infrastructure or other physical property.

- A desire to die in the effort (unlike military personnel).

It's hard to define in terms of terrorists' actions.  Their techniques -- bombing bridges, infiltration, assassination, hand-to-hand combat -- are things our military special forces and CIA agents are trained to do. Surely they aren't terrorists.

There is an only half-humorous definition of a terrorist as "someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an airplane”.  That is, terrorism usually involves attacks by individuals, as distinguished from a nation's uniformed military.

Does this mean that actions dubbed "terrorism" in time of peace become acceptable in time of war?  Apparently so.

Our government is at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan.  But is that all it takes to turn "terrorism" into "war" - a president's assertion?  It's not just that there's no Congressional declaration of war.  It's that usually wars are declared against nations.  Bin Laden is not a nation.  Nor, for that matter, is the Taliban.

And is it not at least possible that September 11th was masterminded, funded and staffed from Saudi Arabia?  (More of the terrorists were Saudis than were Afghans -- as, indeed, is Bin Laden.)  If so, are we willing to bomb our source of oil?

Is President Bush not a terrorist because he orders bombs dropped from military planes, and Bin Laden is because he orders civilian planes to be used as bombs?

Surely we don't want to argue that it is only "terrorism" when others do it to us.  And yet, if not, how do we justify "harboring" (the President's word) American Catholics who finance terrorist acts of the IRA against Protestants in Ireland?  Cuban Americans who want to overthrow Castro?

What about our "School of the Americas" in Georgia (now "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation")?  It's trained those we've called "freedom fighters" in Central and South America.

School of the Americas Watch charges that "Graduates of the SOA are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America”.

Does that make the SOA a terrorist training camp?  Presumably, our government thinks not.  At least there's no known plan to bomb Georgia.

What of our mining the harbor in Nicaragua?  This is a terrorist's kind of action.  The World Court condemned it.  The U.S. simply ignored world opinion and the court's judgment.  Would it be terrorism if Nicaraguans provided training in how to place mines in New York City's harbor and sink U.S. ships?  Presumably.  So why was it not terrorism when we did it to them?

What of our attempted assassination of Castro?  Our involvement in the overthrow of Salvador Allende's government in Chile?  There were no declarations of war.  What we did couldn't even be justified as retaliation.  No terrorist destruction had been wrought by Cuba or Chile in the United States -- certainly nothing like the September 11th attack.

What if a military dictatorship takes over a democratic third world country?  Are we to condemn as "terrorists" those who use all available means to reestablish democracy?  Even if we fund and train them?  What if we back the dictator?

And so we come full circle.

Apparently, it is not "terrorism" we condemn after all -- aside from that on September 11. Only "unjustified terrorism”.

We're all against it.  On that there is unanimity.  Now all we have to do is figure out what "it" is.

6:21) 11-NOV-2001 18:35 Raymond Alden

Excellent questions, Nick!  Now how about some answers?

I'm not being facetious; we really do need to define what we mean when we use the word in this discussion.

I offer this: "Terrorism" includes acts of destruction against groups of random people and/or property for the purpose of frightening (coercing?) others.  It is distinguished from "crime" in part by the selection of targets, i.e. to attack Bush or bin Laden as individuals for perceived wrong-doing is different from attacking residents of Washington DC or Kabul.

6:22) 11-NOV-2001 19:57 John Hart

Again, I think any attempt to define terrorism will prove to be to limiting.  In this type of circumstance, perhaps it is better to find a process.  I would suggest that the members of the U.N. determine which acts of aggression require action and what type of action.  In this way, maybe the world can do a better job to prevent the type of horror that occurred in Rwanda, Bosnia, etc. as well as the WTC.  The process could require that anyone could submit to the members for their consideration a situation that they consider to be an act of aggression directed at civilians.  The U.N. investigates and makes a determination as to whether or not this situation does require a response and if so what. 

Utopian definitions of freedom aside, I suggested a government humanitarian corps, namely because Americans have not volunteered for this type of service in great numbers.  Perhaps they would if it was structured as a government service similar to the military.  I do favor mandatory service to your country because not only do I not think that taking 12 to 18 months off from preoccupation with self is a bad thing (after all we are part of a community) but that the paradox might be that while serving others one is actually enriched more so than by what they might have chosen to do otherwise.  I also think that a U.S. government program would be perceived differently by the rest of the world.  Many of the negative comments one hears concerning Americans usually has more to do with government policy and less to do with American citizens.  This would be one government policy that could foster good will.

6:23) 11-NOV-2001 21:49 Richard Farson

I think that Nick's informative journey through the issues involving a definition of terrorism, taking us full circle, illustrated rather cogently that firm criteria are impossible to reach.  I think that was his point.  As John suggests, each troubled situation needs to be evaluated individually.  Not an easy job, but possible.  To my mind, defining terrorism is impossible.

Ray, how would Hiroshima stack up in your definition?

6:24) 11-NOV-2001 23:37 Nicholas Johnson

Dick:

1. If I were the head of state of other than a superpower, I think I'd kind of like to know what actions of mine, will, and likely will not, bring forth weeks of very heavy bombing of my country.  I'd feel an obligation to let my fellow citizens know that.  Do you really want to rest with, to borrow a Supreme Court Justice's standard in another context (obscenity; or, at least, another kind of obscenity), "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."?  One of the law's most basic principles of fairness is that one can know ahead of time when one is, or is not, violating the law.  Evaluating individually "each troubled situation" (an evaluation to be done by U.S. officials presumably) provides very little guidance.

2. Actually, I think one could come up with criteria for defining terrorism.  But, before doing so, we'd need to acknowledge the hypocrisy we currently bring to the task (which I tried to illustrate in comment 20, above).

3. Your example of Hiroshima may slightly muddy the issue.  (It can be argued, in benefit-cost terms, that more lives were saved -- Japanese as well as American -- than had the war not been brought to the earlier end that Hiroshima made possible.)  The better case for your inquiry (the tougher, cleaner case) might be Nagasaki.

4. Consider if our country's position may appear to those who live elsewhere as something like the following:

"There is only one proper way for a nation (or ethnic or religious group) to defend itself, or to attack another for that matter, that we find acceptable and within our view of international law.  And that is to do it with resources similar to the overt and covert technology and professionals we use (not incidentally, using weapons that we are more than happy to sell to virtually any nation on earth).  The fact that few if any other nations have those resources (we have more than the next seven largest nations, don't we?) is irrelevant.  That's the way war should be fought.  If another nation or group does not have resources of that nature we believe that they should be forbidden from attacking in any other way (e.g., rocks from Palestinians; hijacked U.S. civilian airplanes by Bin Laden).  In other words, while we have the right to use our military personnel and CIA agents and their technology (e.g., ships, planes, etc.) against others, they have no right to use the only weapons at their command against us.  Anything they do we will characterize as "terrorism," condemn as beyond the norms of civilization, and punish with the proper weapons of war in an effort to impress the lesson upon them."

Just a thought.

6:25) 12-NOV-2001 03:50 Richard Farson

Nick, I love your #4.  Points up the dilemma nicely.  Also your point about the difficulty for any international body to make a judgment without specific criteria for evaluation, or a nation or individual not to know what might be a terrorist act, is well taken.  Not having an acceptable definition poses that problem.  And we can certainly define terrorism, as Ray has done.  But there will always be the exceptions, as I suppose there are in any legal situation.  The trouble is that there will be a lot of them.  Maybe most will be, as your previous analysis showed.

I think the cost/benefit analysis on Hiroshima can't apply.  Terrorists could use the same argument.  I think that historians now agree that Hiroshima was meant to scare the Japanese, but perhaps even more, to scare Russia.  It was not a military target in the traditional sense of hitting supply lines or communication centers or ammunition dumps.  It was meant only to kill civilians in gigantic, impressive numbers, and did.  Other than the fact that it was accomplished in a declared war, it fits most definitions of terrorism I have read.

6:26) 12-NOV-2001 22:10 Raymond Alden

Bit of circular reasoning here.  To define anything is, essentially, limiting.  That's the point, exactly.  If anyone's idea of terrorism is acceptable then we can hardly discuss the subject intelligently.  If we limit the subject by defining it, then we have something to talk about.

Hiroshima?  I've no apologies in mind on that subject, possibly because I was headed for an invasion of Japan when the big ones dropped and ended the war.  So I'm not objective.  But I do think that the alternative would have been equally devastating -- to different people, of course, but such are the effects of warfare.

6:27) 13-NOV-2001 01:39 Richard Farson

I think you misunderstand my question about Hiroshima.  It wasn't meant to call forth an apology, or a justification.  I just wanted to know if it fit the criteria of a terrorist act, as usually defined.  I believe it does, and therefore is a good example of why it is difficult, if not impossible, to finalize a definition.

The most interesting discussion might be an analysis of the acts that are included or excluded from any definition.

6:28) 13-NOV-2001 01:44 Kip Winsett

As Douglas observes, there isn't anything new about any of this.  This drama has been played on the world stage for millennia.  Civilizations rise and fall.  They fall due to internal events or they fall due to invasion.  The various causes are clear and recognizable.  And, as Nick observes, there is nothing to support the position that America is, ipso facto, the "good guy" in all of this.

Elitism is dangerous to the human race.  Whether it be the elitism of a country, a group of countries, or a class within a country, eventually the overwhelming number of disenfranchised will gain sufficient momentum to upset the apple cart in bloody fashion.  I find it astonishing that the elite never recognize this in time since they wind up paying such a terrible price (French Revolution).

9/11 - does anyone else find the number sequence just a little amusing?  Who ya’ gonna call?

One major obstacle in defining terrorism lies in the fact that it depends upon where you sit.  Clearly, the terrorists believe that they are suffering significant injustice at somebody's hands and that the only means at their disposal to change that are acts of violence which so frighten the perceived oppressors that there is a major shift in policy toward the oppressed.

A second major difficulty in defining terrorism is that whatever definition we develop will be self-serving.  As Nick makes clear, by our current definitions America is a state which engages in and sponsors terrorism - yet we do not define ourselves as terrorists.

6:29) 13-NOV-2001 08:53 Mary Catherine Bateson

I had understood Caucus would be down for several days, so I am far behind the current conversation.  But I do want to interject a comment on the discussion of freedom, which suggests that a lack of constraints is somehow normal.  No human beings live in Utopian freedom or Hobbsian lawlessness.  The question is not whether humanness requires constraints, the question is which constraints and how they can be established or modified.

A lot can be said for local controls -- but note that, as a black friend of mine once said, "we have long since federalized decency”, i.e. poor schools, public health, etc. in many parts of the south are an inheritance of racism that other states probably should not tolerate.  Are there models in our multilevel system that might be relevant to thinking about the role of the UN?

6:30) 13-NOV-2001 16:01 John Hart

Dick, as a starting point, the U.N. could analyze actual events that have occurred in the past several years and indicate which are acts that would have required action and why.  From this, they could continue to develop a set of guidelines.  Also keep in mind that the process should allow the “guilty” party a chance to respond before the bullets start flying.  Although, I am not sure whether we need to determine the details of how the U.N. develops and implements a strategy as much as we need to decide if the U.N. should be the party with primary responsibility to coordinate the effort against international terrorism in large part to avoid the U.S. in the future from international criticism for perhaps an action based on the wrong definition of terrorism.

6:31) 13-NOV-2001 21:04 Richard Farson

John, the empirical approach you suggest is surely the right way to do it.  The benefit of having it done by the UN is that self-interest of any nation is mitigated by the presence of many very different cultures with different allegiances.  So, while it would stop the UN from going after some people we might identify as terrorists, it would give legitimacy to the people the UN does go after.  Would we need to go back pretty far to determine long-range effects, or would that matter?

6:32) 14-NOV-2001 02:54 John Hart

Dick, I think how far back you go is less important than the number of different examples the U.N. provides to help establish guidelines.  This process could be similar to the IRS or SEC guidelines, which are not intended to be definitive.  In the case where one is unsure as to how the guidelines are to be interpreted for their particular situation, the SEC or IRS is approached on a no names basis for a determination.  It creates an environment where one proceeds cautiously if they are willing to move forward without a determination understanding the potential downside.  Probably not a bad thing when contemplating a violent action.

6:33) 14-NOV-2001 03:17 Richard Farson

Perhaps they could be analyzed the way Harvard Business School case studies are - with pseudonyms.  Good idea, John.  Of course, you and I have not yet addressed the way power politics surely would come into play in such assessments, or at least in the decisions that would flow from such assessments.

6:34) 14-NOV-2001 09:14 Carlos Campbell

The September 12, 2001 issue of the Financial Times published an article which indicated that the UN Security Council was having difficulty defining terrorism.

I submit the following as a definition which I wrote for an article on Terrorism: "An act that inflicts death, physical destruction, economic chaos, government destabilization and/or mass psychological trauma in a manner which provides maximum leverage toward results relative to resources committed in order to achieve political objectives or personal/group power."

I arrived at New York's Laguardia Airport at 7:55 AM Monday September 12, 2001.  The flight was uneventful except for the gentleman that sat directly across the isle to my right.  We chatted briefly about our experiences in government but spent more time on our present corporate activities.  He had recently returned from Moscow where he had worked on the problem of spent nuclear fuel.  We walked out together into the morning chill and searched for our drivers, both of which were late.  We backtracked to the head and made light of the new security restriction that requires all passengers to remain seated during the entire flight between Washington, DC and New York.  We walked out again into the bright sun light and the cold air.  This time, our respective drivers were waiting.  I said good-bye to the "Judge," and thought to myself, "Here is the former Director of the FBI and later the CIA (Judge William Webster) and he cannot even get out of his seat on the Delta Shuttle to take a piss."  Sometimes I think we have gone too far.

6:35) 15-NOV-2001 01:29 Richard Farson

Carlos, did Webster give you any opinion on the intelligence picture?

6:36) 15-NOV-2001 10:11 Carlos Campbell

Dick, if I told you, I would have to kill you!  No, we did not discuss anything of substance.  We spoke about the disposition of spent nuclear fuel because that is one of the areas he is working on.  This was a concern when I was at the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1965, which I mentioned.  So, all I could say was that I had an appreciation for the sensitivity of the issue.

Last night, I attended a briefing on Terrorism at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC.  Dr. Richard Wirthlin, the former pollster for Ronald Reagan, and Edwin Meese, the former AG, spoke.  Dr. Wirthlin handed out a Special Edition Report on the Nation's response to September 11, which was substantive and quite revealing.  The highlights are as follows: America is determined and supportive of troops; confidence in air travel shaken but not broken; financial confidence wanes; consumer confidence is guarded but steady; the Nation has a stronger desire to become more self sufficient with respect to energy; America has a strong desire to get back to normal; and that the Olympic Games must go on!

6:37) 15-NOV-2001 19:17 Kip Winsett

Carlos, I am curious about your definition of terrorism - "An act that inflicts death, physical destruction, economic chaos, government destabilization and/or mass psychological trauma in a manner which provides maximum leverage toward results relative to resources committed, in order to achieve political objectives or personal/group power."  What does that mean for people throughout the world who might want to overthrow their own oppressive governments?

John, I wonder how likely it is that any person who would actually commit an act of political violence would actually "check in" with the UN to see it was OK?

6:38) 15-NOV-2001 19:26 Carlos Campbell

Kip, as we know, "One person's terrorist is another’s freedom fighter."  You do give me a reason to rethink what I wrote.

6:39) 15-NOV-2001 19:41 Raymond Alden

Does a definition of terrorism have to be independent of the provocation, i.e. war is terrorism under different circumstances, isn't it?

The last part of Carlos' definition is a matter of efficiency, I think, applicable to good, bad, justifiable, and unjustifiable acts.

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that there is always a distinction between violence for personal gain vs. violence in one's own defense.  Presumably both would be carried out as efficiently as possible.

6:40) 16-NOV-2001 00:33 Kip Winsett

Regarding the definition of terrorism, it seems to me reasonable to insist that acts of violence are terrorism when they are perpetrated against a non-combatant country.  For example, although I strongly support Israel, it seems to me that by sending a professional military against the Palestinians, Israel has given the Palestinians the right to retaliate by any means possible.  Same with Britain and Northern Ireland.  Neither the Irish nor the Palestinians have a standing military that would allow them to confront the enemy in conventional warfare.  Since the US was not an active participant in military actions against Afghanistan, and is not currently an active participant in military actions against the Palestinians, an attack against us seems beyond the bounds of "fighting for freedom".  There are, as with any definition, some weaknesses in this, but it seems possible that a majority of countries might be willing to accept it since it only seeks to protect against an unknown or undefined external enemy.

6:41) 16-NOV-2001 17:21 Bill McGaw

Good spin, Kip.

Richard and I were debating the definition subject last night. Wish you'd been along.

6:42) 17-NOV-2001 16:29 John Hart

Kip, keep in mind that one of the concerns with regard to the U.N. taking action against some country or group is that they were not aware that they were violating the U.N. terrorism guidelines because their situation did not fit into the existing guidelines.  If they choose not to have the U.N. make a prior determination, they accept the consequences.  Also, I wonder how legitimate their cause is if they are unwilling to present it to the U.N.?

6:43) 18-NOV-2001 21:33 Nicholas Johnson

Is "violence" a more analytically useful term than "terrorism"?

Upon reflection, I think that from an academic, analytical perspective (if anyone thinks that perspective appropriate here) "terrorism" as a word is simply not very useful -- for many of the reasons we have well illustrated.  In the world of "purr words" and "slur words", it clearly falls in the latter category.  It tells us almost nothing descriptive about the acts and perpetrators involved; like many judgmental terms -- from "cool" to "terrorism" -- it mostly describes an electro-chemical process inside the speaker's head.

Would a word like "violence" be less loaded and useful?  It's far from perfect.

(Illustrative problems with it: Those who disagreed with our Iraq policy charge that it has caused the death of 500,000 young children (for lack of food and medicines).  Without debating the merits of that charge, if it were accurate would those deaths fairly be called the result of "violence"?  What if it could be shown that, by next spring, an additional one million Afghans have died from starvation, exposure and illness; that is, one million who would not have died but for our driving them from their homes by our bombing.  Could those deaths reasonably be called the result of violence?  Does "violence”, used in such ways, become not much more precise than "wrongdoing"?)

There are undoubtedly better words.  But failing one, I'll leave the problems with it behind because it at least comes a little closer to the descriptive than "terrorism”.

Then (if anyone cares enough about this analytical puzzle to want to continue to play the game) perhaps the next step would be to identify as many of the variables as we could come up with regarding the persons and situations involving violence.

This would be a very long list.  And, having created it, we would probably come to the realization that individuals will usually differ in their bottom line conclusions as to whether the violence was, or was not, warranted and justifiable.

(Of course, if one is a pacifist, and purist, no violence is ever warranted.  That makes the decisions administratively very easy. But I'm assuming most of us are willing to balance our values.)

For example, we might identify:

- Discipline of children.  Is it OK for a parent to spank a child, but not OK for a teacher to do so?

- Spousal physical abuse.  (Do not abused women sometimes use the phrase "terrorized" to describe their feelings?)  Is it OK for an abused wife to kill her drunken husband with a kitchen knife when he comes at her one more time with a broken whiskey bottle?  A judge/jury in her trial might recognize this as "self-defense" and justifiable homicide ("violence").  What if she shoots him in his sleep?  That's a more difficult case legally (as no harm to her was imminent at that moment) but many would conclude, "He had it coming."

- Can a benefit-cost analysis of lives saved justify lives taken?  Hiroshima would be our example.  And, as we've seen, our group differs on the conclusion (and perhaps the facts put into the benefit-cost formula as well) on that one.

- How relevant are national boundaries?  Does the international community have less concern about "violence" when it is applied by a government to its own citizens, or between two non-governmental groups within a country, than if one "country" attacks (or responds to the attacks of) another?  Do we judge differently the justifiability of the violence used in our Revolutionary War and our Civil War?

- Is violence involving individuals or groups within one nation who attack individuals or sites within another nation more acceptable if done in the name of a "nation" than if done in the name of an organization (or anonymously)?

- Does it make a difference when a "nation" is the perpetrator (whether within or outside its boundaries) whether the head of the nation (or other decider on his/its behalf) is subject to some meaningful democratic control or not?  In other words, can the decision to use violence reasonably be said to be a decision of a nation's people in some sense, or is it merely the decision of a single individual?  Does that affect our decision about its justifiability?

- Presumably we view differently (not that we accept, only that we view differently) the initial strike (e.g., Pearl Harbor) from the response/retaliation (e.g., our bombing Afghanistan after the World Trade Towers came down).

- And that distinction presumes the retaliatory party has engaged in some adequate fact-finding (even if not a "trial" in the U.S. due process sense) to make sure they are responding to the correct party (e.g., are we applying the death penalty to the right accused?  What is our evidence (the Taliban have been asking for) that Bin Laden, rather than some other Saudi-based, or other, individual/group was behind this particular act?).

- Are the targets military or civilian persons? Are civilians (a) deliberately, or knowingly and unavoidably, targeted (as in Hiroshima and the World Trade Towers), (b) never the target as such, but small numbers are known to suffer occasional "collateral" death or injury (as in the Afghanistan bombing), or (c) successfully protected from all harm (as only military personnel and material are ever targeted, and then only when civilians are known to be protected)?  Do these distinctions make a difference?

- "Does the punishment fit the crime"? Is the violence that is applied in some way proportional to the act that provokes it?

- A related issue is the nature of the violence. Is (1) dropping bombs (a) that, let us say, cause instant death, on (b) unknown individuals, to be distinguished, from the standpoint of justifiability, from (2) subjecting individuals confronted face-to-face with rape and other torture, lingering death, and post-death dismemberment?  Both sets of victims are equally dead.  If we conclude that any violence is unjustified under the circumstances of the case, is the former somehow less unjustified than the latter?

- How relevant are cultural differences? For example, many countries view our use of the death penalty -- state supported violence against an individual citizen -- as the most serious of human rights abuses.  They have long since abolished the death penalty as barbarism. Is our state violence somehow less unacceptable because of our nation's long history of popular acceptance of the death penalty in the "wild west" and elsewhere?  Would it be more unacceptable if the death penalty were adopted by a nation that has a long and proud history of opposing it?  Are we willing to give a similar "base on balls" to nations, or religions, that engage in stoning, or the cutting off of hands?

- Finally, and particularly relevant in the context of current events, does a religious or other ideological (e.g., "make the world safe for democracy," "freedom," "free markets") motive make the violence worse, or better?

- Schools are going back to the daily Pledge of Allegiance.  Presumably a school could punish a student who refused to participate, thereby violating a school board policy.  But the Supreme Court has held that a school cannot punish a student for failing to say the Pledge if s/he fails to do so for religious reasons.

- Similarly, parents and students alike can be punished by the state for a failure to attend public schools -- unless they happen to be Amish.

- Native Americans legally can possess eagle feathers under some circumstances (for religious ceremonies) that would otherwise be a serious felony if done by a non-Native American.

- Suppose, only hypothetically, that your own religion specifically requires each adherent to take up arms, if necessary, to keep non-believers from defiling your holy places by their presence.  You ask the non-believers to leave (a place they are not, legally, forbidden to be) and they refuse.  Is your subsequent violence against them -- by whatever means you may have at hand -- more justifiable than it would be if you were not a member of that sect and attacked them anyway?

I presume this list of variables could be expanded almost infinitely. A little more -- if anyone cares to add to it -- might be useful.

But however long the list it would be of limited utility in predicting normative judgments about when violence is, and is not, justifiable.

It is, in that sense, not unlike the analysis we go through in deciding whether a "copyright violation" is, nonetheless, OK because it can be considered "fair use”.  (The multiple factors in that analysis being such things as: how much of the work was used, was it data/historical material or creative, was it taken for commercial purposes (to profit the "wrongdoer") or for educational or other non-profit purposes, and did it have an adverse impact on the true owner's market/income?)

But the fact that multiple-factor analysis does not lead to precise prediction of outcome doesn't detract from the fact that it is nonetheless worth doing.

6:44) 19-NOV-2001 00:05 Kip Winsett

John, your final sentence of 6:42 has illuminated for me the thrust of your purpose.  If the UN were to adopt some policy guideline that actually permitted acts of violence in the political arena, and if we could rely upon the UN to judge any such proposed acts from a completely unbiased stance, then perhaps such would be useful.  At any rate, more useful than the nothing we currently have.

6:45) 19-NOV-2001 00:30 Kip Winsett

Nicholas, whew!  You certainly have raised some excellent points.

Based upon the dictionary definition of terrorism, all laws are, in fact, terroristic since they are, by nature, coercive.  They are designed to manipulate behavior by instilling a fear of the consequences in would-be lawbreakers.  Nonetheless, we have laws governing behavior.  It seems that most of us agree that laws are necessary to ensure the survival of the majority of the human species.  Apparently, humans, as a whole, have a very intense desire to maintain the whole.  This often transcends the desire to maintain the individual.  In the same sense that without individuals there would be no group, we apparently believe that without the group individuals would rather quickly die out.

Laws seem to be the vehicle we have chosen whereby both the group and the individual enjoy protection from the excesses of themselves and each other.  Of course, a law, to be functionally effective, requires a high degree of specificity.

I tend to think of a word as being like corral.  It is a singularity which contains various other words that specify distinctions.  A cup and a mug, for example, are functionally identical.  The only difference lies in a subtle variation of shape, which difference is found in the dictionary definition of each.  It seems that the attempt to define terrorism is an attempt to discover the subtle differences between one act of violence and another.  The word is irrelevant except so far as it serves such a purpose.

Humans seem to accept the concept that every group of people whether a tribe, a sect, a professional organization, a nation, etc. has some right to govern:

1. the actions of its members toward others within the group

2. the actions of its member toward itself

3. the actions of its members toward others outside the group

4. the action of itself toward its members

5. the action of itself toward non-member individuals

6. the action of itself toward other groups

We also seem to accept that groups have the right to some extent to govern the behavior of others toward itself and its members.

Clearly, all of this is relatively simple when there is only a single group.  A multiplicity of groups confounds the challenge.  The entire world as a "community" of many diverse groups, each with its own laws, struggling to interact with each other on virtually a daily basis is relatively new to the human experience.

In most groups, murder is forbidden.  But typically, the group takes some pain to define exactly what constitutes murder.  In America, we have varying degrees of murder (e.g. murder in the first, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc).  We also allow the killing of another human under certain specific conditions (e.g. war, self-defense, abortion, execution by the state, etc.).

It seems that terrorism is an act which is perceived by a multiplicity of groups as being directed against humanity in general.  In other words, the goals of the perpetrators have taken precedence over everything else.  To the "terrorist" mind, there are no innocents.  Everybody and everything is a legitimate target.  The rest of us live in fear that we may suffer severe consequences, not because of any specific acts on our part, but simply because we live in the world.  We are subject to a random death penalty only because we are not part of the terrorist organization.  Worse yet, we are subject to that threat simply because we exist.  In the past, this was described as barbarism.

I suspect that this gives rise in most people to a visceral sense of fear and repugnance because it violates the innate sense shared by most of us that humanity itself must survive.  How can we feel secure about survival of the species if we are targeted for death simply because we exist as a member of the species?

In some ways, it is a remarkable display of self-restraint that we don't simply annihilate, at whatever cost, those people who are willing to act in such a fundamentally irresponsible manner.

So, it seems to me at any rate, that it is important that the world community decide what acts against the community will just not be tolerated.  To do that, I suspect we have to define very specifically what constitutes such an act - just as every group has done with defining what constitutes murder.

To me, it seems that the real challenge lies in not making the definition overly restrictive.

6:46) 19-NOV-2001 23:52 Raymond Alden

Delightful, Nicholas!  Thank you.  I've got to go over that one a few more times.

6:47) 21-NOV-2001 08:01 Nicholas Johnson

Kip: Thoughtful responses.

But I think I might want to tweak a bit the following paragraph in your 6:45:

"It seems that terrorism is an act which is perceived by a multiplicity of groups as being directed against humanity in general.  In other words, the goals of the perpetrators have taken precedence over everything else.  To the "terrorist" mind, there are no innocents.  Everybody and everything is a legitimate target.  The rest of us live in fear that we may suffer severe consequences, not because of any specific acts on our part, but simply because we live in the world.  We are subject to a random death penalty only because we are not part of the terrorist organization.  Worse yet, we are subject to that threat simply because we exist. In the past this was described as barbarism."

Unless you are speaking of "no innocents" within the category of persons the terrorist is attacking, at least I am unaware of a case to which your description would apply.

I don't know about you, but I felt no concern whatsoever that the terrorists in Northern Ireland might someday decide to come after me, nor the Tamils in Sri Lanka, etc.  Not just because I was a long ways away, but because I perceived their attacks as directed against a very specific population or government.

The American who turns a machine gun on random fellow Americans (not in the attacker's home or workplace or otherwise related to his/her life) is normally found to be insane.

Without having studied the matter, my feeble memory is that most "terrorists" have some rationale (not "justification," not "clear thinking," but some explanation for what they are doing) that relates to:

1. A desire to communicate to the world their perceived abuses (ala our Declaration of Independence); hence the not uncommon fights located around the television studios and towers, or the demands surrounding plane hijackings that their statement be published.  (One of what is often itemized as one of the "reasons for the First Amendment" is its function as a "safety valve," an alternative to violence.  That was a part of my support, as an FCC Commissioner and since, for the "public access" channels on cable television.)

2. A retribution for past wrongs. (Bin Laden's expressed concern regarding American troops in Saudi Arabia could conceivably be an example.)

3. A strike as "preemptive self defense”.  This is a dangerous concept -- which is why the U.S. criminal law tends not to recognize it.  That is, self-defense is, for the most part, only an acceptable excuse for violence when the attack is taking place or immediately probable.  But that is, it seems to me, what we are doing militarily in Afghanistan (among other things): trying to eliminate/reduce the likelihood of future attacks upon the U.S.  (See, in this