http://www.salon.com/2011/12/10/the_real_definition_of_terrorism/singleton/
The real definition of Terrorism
The word that simultaneously means nothing and justifies everything.
VIDEO
The FBI yesterday announced it has secured an indictment against Faruq Khalil Muhammad 'Isa, a 38-year-old citizen of Iraq currently in Canada, from which the U.S. is seeking his extradition. The headline on the FBI's Press Release tells the basic story: "Alleged Terrorist Indicted in New York for the Murder of Five American Soldiers." The criminal complaintpreviously filed under seal provides the details: 'Isa is charged with "providing material support to a terrorist conspiracy" because he allegedly supported a 2008 attack on a U.S. military base in Mosul that killed 5 American soldiers. In other words, if the U.S. invades and occupies your country, and you respond by fighting back against the invading army — the ultimate definition of a "military, not civilian target" — then you are a . . . Terrorist.
Here is how the complaint, in the first paragraph, summarizes the Terrorism charge against 'Isa:
In an effort to depict him as a crazed, Terrorist fanatic, the complaint includes this description of conversations he had while being monitored:
Yet when it's the U.S. that is doing the invading and attacking, then we're all supposed to look upon this very common reaction with mockery, horror, and disgust– look at these primitive religious fanatic Terrorists who have no regard for human life — because the only healthy, normal, civilized reaction someone should have to the U.S. invading, occupying, and destroying their country is gratitude, or at least passive acquiescence. Anything else, by definition, makes you a Terrorist. That's because it is an inherent American right to invade or occupy whomever it wants and only a Terrorist would resist (to see one vivid (and darkly humorous) expression of this pathological, imperial entitlement, see this casual speculation from a neocon law professor at Cornell that Iran may have committed an "act of war" if it brought down the American drone that entered its airspace and hovered over its soil without permission: "if it is true, as the Iranians claim, that the drone did not fall by accident but was brought down by Iranian electronic means, then isn't that already an act of war?").
It's one thing to condemn 'Isa's actions on moral or ethical grounds: one could argue, I suppose, that the solemn duty of every Iraqi was to respectfully treat the American invaders as honored (albeit uninvited) guests, or at least to cede to invading American troops the monopoly on violence. But it's another thing entirely to label someone who does choose to fight back as a "Terrorist" and prosecute them as such under charges that entail life in prison (by contrast: an Israeli soldier yesterday killed a Palestinian protester in a small West Bank village that has had much of its land appropriated by Israeli settlers, by shooting him in the face at relatively close range with a tear gas cannister, while an Israeli plane attacked a civilian home in Gaza and killed a father and his young son while injuring several other children; acts like that, or the countless acts of reckless or even deliberate slaughter of civilians by Americans, must never be deemed Terrorism).
Few things better illustrate the utter meaninglessness of the word Terrorism than applying it to a citizen of an invaded country for fighting back against the invading army and aiming at purely military targets (this is far from the first timethat Iraqis and others who were accused of fighting back against the invading U.S. military have been formally deemed to be Terrorists for having done so). To the extent the word means anything operationally, it is: he who effectively opposes the will of the U.S. and its allies.
This topic is so vital because this meaningless, definition-free word — Terrorism — drives so many of our political debates and policies. Virtually every debate in which I ever participate quickly and prominently includes defenders of government policy invoking the word as some sort of debate-ending, magical elixir: of course President Obama has to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process: they're Terrorists; of course we have to stay in Afghanistan: we have to stop The Terrorists; President Obama is not only right to kill people (including civilians) using drones, but is justified in boasting and even joking about it, because they're Terrorists; of course some people should be held in prison without charges: they're Terrorists, etc. etc. It's a word that simultaneously means nothing and justifies everything.
* * * * *
Here are two videos relating somewhat to this: (1) Sen. Carl Levin claimed as part of the debate over the detention bill he sponsored with John McCain that it was the Obama White House that demanded the removal of language that would have exempted U.S. citizens from military detention without charges:
(2) Last month, I sat for an hour-long interview with Berkeley's Harry Kreisler as part of that university's Conversations With History series. Although the event was nominally part of my book tour, Kreisler was a very good interviewer who asked a lot of probing questions unrelated to the book which I'm not generally asked — about my background, intellectual influences and foundations, motives — and so some may find this discussion worthwhile:
Here is how the complaint, in the first paragraph, summarizes the Terrorism charge against 'Isa:
In an effort to depict him as a crazed, Terrorist fanatic, the complaint includes this description of conversations he had while being monitored:
Yet when it's the U.S. that is doing the invading and attacking, then we're all supposed to look upon this very common reaction with mockery, horror, and disgust– look at these primitive religious fanatic Terrorists who have no regard for human life — because the only healthy, normal, civilized reaction someone should have to the U.S. invading, occupying, and destroying their country is gratitude, or at least passive acquiescence. Anything else, by definition, makes you a Terrorist. That's because it is an inherent American right to invade or occupy whomever it wants and only a Terrorist would resist (to see one vivid (and darkly humorous) expression of this pathological, imperial entitlement, see this casual speculation from a neocon law professor at Cornell that Iran may have committed an "act of war" if it brought down the American drone that entered its airspace and hovered over its soil without permission: "if it is true, as the Iranians claim, that the drone did not fall by accident but was brought down by Iranian electronic means, then isn't that already an act of war?").
It's one thing to condemn 'Isa's actions on moral or ethical grounds: one could argue, I suppose, that the solemn duty of every Iraqi was to respectfully treat the American invaders as honored (albeit uninvited) guests, or at least to cede to invading American troops the monopoly on violence. But it's another thing entirely to label someone who does choose to fight back as a "Terrorist" and prosecute them as such under charges that entail life in prison (by contrast: an Israeli soldier yesterday killed a Palestinian protester in a small West Bank village that has had much of its land appropriated by Israeli settlers, by shooting him in the face at relatively close range with a tear gas cannister, while an Israeli plane attacked a civilian home in Gaza and killed a father and his young son while injuring several other children; acts like that, or the countless acts of reckless or even deliberate slaughter of civilians by Americans, must never be deemed Terrorism).
Few things better illustrate the utter meaninglessness of the word Terrorism than applying it to a citizen of an invaded country for fighting back against the invading army and aiming at purely military targets (this is far from the first timethat Iraqis and others who were accused of fighting back against the invading U.S. military have been formally deemed to be Terrorists for having done so). To the extent the word means anything operationally, it is: he who effectively opposes the will of the U.S. and its allies.
This topic is so vital because this meaningless, definition-free word — Terrorism — drives so many of our political debates and policies. Virtually every debate in which I ever participate quickly and prominently includes defenders of government policy invoking the word as some sort of debate-ending, magical elixir: of course President Obama has to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process: they're Terrorists; of course we have to stay in Afghanistan: we have to stop The Terrorists; President Obama is not only right to kill people (including civilians) using drones, but is justified in boasting and even joking about it, because they're Terrorists; of course some people should be held in prison without charges: they're Terrorists, etc. etc. It's a word that simultaneously means nothing and justifies everything.
* * * * *
Here are two videos relating somewhat to this: (1) Sen. Carl Levin claimed as part of the debate over the detention bill he sponsored with John McCain that it was the Obama White House that demanded the removal of language that would have exempted U.S. citizens from military detention without charges:
(2) Last month, I sat for an hour-long interview with Berkeley's Harry Kreisler as part of that university's Conversations With History series. Although the event was nominally part of my book tour, Kreisler was a very good interviewer who asked a lot of probing questions unrelated to the book which I'm not generally asked — about my background, intellectual influences and foundations, motives — and so some may find this discussion worthwhile:
Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald.More Glenn Greenwald
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment