Acts of hate: full list of 'deportation' acts (UK)

[Lori Price CLG]

Acts of hate: full list of 'deportation' acts

The Home Office today published a list of "unacceptable behaviours" which will lead to the deportation or exclusion of any foreign national who commits them from the UK.

According to the Home Secretary the list is indicative rather than exhaustive and covers any non-UK citizen whether in the UK or abroad.

<snip>

Terrorist violence

Cannot foment, justify, glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs

<snip>

Method

Individuals who do the above by any means or medium are caught by the legislation, including:

- writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;
- public speaking including preaching
- running a website

<snip>

Lori Price

[Roland99]

1. I wonder if Pat Robertson is now glad he's not British?

[Lori Price CLG]

7. LOL!! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove need to be tried for treason. n/t

[merwin]

2. And I thought the USA took it too far...

[Mike Daniels]

4. Took what too far?

A county (in this case, the UK) doesn't have the right to expel a non-citizen who advocates violence or terrorism?

[merwin]

5. Under those laws, if you put up an anti-blair website you could be

a terrorist and thrown out of the country.

Unfortunately, they don't have those pesky freedom of speech laws.

[iverglas]

9. really?

Under those laws, if you put up an anti-blair website you could be a terrorist and thrown out of the country.

We do seem to be reading different laws. Where did you find the ones you are reading, and what do they say?

Unfortunately, they don't have those pesky freedom of speech laws.

Hmm. Maybe you aren't reading any laws at all. Maybe you're pulling crap out of your bum and posting it for the world to see.

Isn't that kinda embarrassing?

Of course, I guess that if I were the kind of jingoistic chauvinist who thought that mine was the only country had things like freedom of speech laws (actually, it's your Constitution, in your case), and that the country where my own country got the entire body of ideas consisting of things like freedom of speech from in the first place didn't have "freedom of speech laws", it would take quite a bit to embarrass me, since I actually ought to have expired from embarassment by now.

I'd direct you to the UK's Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (which it incorporates) ... if I thought there were any point.


Here's what the British right wing had to say today about this sort of thing:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/faithschools/story/0,13882,1555406,00.html

There's a long list of things we might include in any description of our national character, or "Britishness".

But I don't think we need engage in some protracted exercise to define our shared values. We can do it in a single phrase: freedom under the rule of law.

This simple, yet profound expression explains almost everything you need to know about our country, our institutions, our history, our culture - even our economy.

It is why British citizens are free men and women, able to do what they like unless it harms others or is explicitly forbidden.

And why no one and nothing is above the law.

These shared values, enshrined in our constitution and institutions over centuries, are the foundation of our civilised society. They are democratic, progressive and protect our human rights.

Our response to the new threats we face - whether through foreign policy, security policy, or as a nation - should involve the consistent application of these shared values.

(The speech contained quite a lot of other stuff that I by no means adopt; just thought this bit was interesting.)

Ah, those Brits. Such sheep.

[merwin]

28. Yes, really

We do seem to be reading different laws. Where did you find the ones you are reading, and what do they say?

Well, I'm reading the article listed in this thread.

Method

Individuals who do the above by any means or medium are caught by the legislation, including:

- writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;
- public speaking including preaching
- running a website
- using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader


along with


terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear


So, basically Pat Robertson would be kicked out of the country for what he said. As much as I hate to say it, what he said is his right to say, as stupid as it is.

And my comment about anti-Blair is justified by:
Let's say you run a website that says that Blair needs to be removed from office because he is going to bring the Iraq war into England and cause many civilian deaths.

That statement includes the calculated threat of violence to attain a goal that is political in nature, and could therefore be considered terrorism.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the laws that they (as well as our own homeland security) are creating are FAR too vague and can very easily be interpreted however you want to interpret them. You don't think it can happen? Fine. Come back in 10 years when EVERY SINGLE ONE of our rights are gone.

[iverglas]

39. hardly worth reading

let alone responding to.


Well, I'm reading the article listed in this thread.
Method

Hmm, yes. "Method" ... of doing ... anything in particular?


Let's say you run a website that says that Blair needs to be removed from office because he is going to bring the Iraq war into England and cause many civilian deaths.

That statement includes the calculated threat of violence to attain a goal that is political in nature, and could therefore be considered terrorism.

I'm doubting, from that, that you even speak English.

Perhaps you could highlight the words in the first paragraph that constitute a "calculated threat of violence". You might want to look up "threat" in a dictionary ... and then try not to equivocate and pretend that the meaning of the word in the context of interest to us is anything like (per my Oxford, meaning #2) "an indication of something undesirable coming" ...


Basically, what I'm saying is that the laws that they (as well as our own homeland security) are creating are FAR too vague and can very easily be interpreted however you want to interpret them.

Those who actually know something about statutory interpretation, and constitutional law, and suchlike things ... such as moi ... might just find your statement a tad idiotic.

Really. Governments don't just get to interpret legislation however it wants to interpret it. Really. I mean, not out here in the big world outside US borders, anyhow.


You don't think it can happen? Fine. Come back in 10 years when EVERY SINGLE ONE of our rights are gone.

Well, if you're worried about your own rights, you might want to do something about that.

If you want to make moronic statements like that one about the UK not having "freedom of speech laws" (you did just change that subject handily, didn't you?), there's not much I can do about it.

[StrafingMoose]

47. "Justify" and "running a website"

gets you the boot. So basicaly, if you say the Iraqis have a right to fight an invasion on a website, you get the boot. Hell, this right has even been admitted by a US Army general!

[iverglas]

53. wtf?

I have no clue what this had to do with anything I said.

I also have no clue what a US army general said about the justification for Iraqis taking up arms against the invasion has to do with someone in the UK justifying terrorism.

But mainly, I have no clue why you would claim that saying "the Iraqis have a right to fight an invasion" is equivalent to "justifying terrorism" under the proposed UK law.

George W. Bush may define Iraqi resistance to invasion and occupation as "terrorism". I don't think any moderately intelligent and honest person does so, and I can't think of any reason for asserting that British courts would do so.


I just really have to wonder whether anybody talking about this subject has any clue what s/he is talking about, and not just in terms of an understanding of human rights law and statutory interpretation.

If the cities of the US were hosting clandestine pseudo-religious institutions and gatherings at which growing numbers of people, who had entered the US solely to exploit it as a base for attracting followers to an ideology of hatred, were advocating and organizing violent attacks on populations within the US and elsewhere, I'm curious what some people here would be saying. A lot of you folks still really don't have an iota of an inkling of what things are like outside your borders.

Any move that the Blair government makes that appears to violate someone's fundamental rights, and the UK's basic rules and commitments in that regard, can and should be criticized. But that can really be done without portraying everything that the govt might do as something it isn't, and making uninformed and entirely irrational claims about what that govt is proposing to do.

[merwin]

56. I'm not the only one that believes that the anti-terrorism laws are far

too vague. They can (and have) been expanded to any number of things outside of terrorism. Just north of where I live there was a bust of people attempting to build a tunnel into canada to smuggle drugs. They were surveyed and their property searched without warrants under anti-terrorism laws.

Regarding the previous poster's comment, I believe he was trying to say that if you ran a website that stated that the Iraqi's have a right to defend themselves and to be insurgents, then you could be considered as supporting terrorism, and be prosecuted as such.

Note that these laws don't go away after we are done with Iraq. Use your imagination.

I don't think I'll be responding to many more of these comments as they are getting increasingly personal in the nature of the responses. I prefer more civil conversations :-)

[iverglas]

62. not everything is about the USofA

Really. A whole lot of things in the world have nothing to do with the USofA at all.

Just north of where I live there was a bust of people attempting to build a tunnel into canada to smuggle drugs. They were surveyed and their property searched without warrants under anti-terrorism laws.

So?

I can't think of much more to say. If you can think of some reason why this fact should be considered in a discussion of some other government's response to a very real problem in some other country, let me know.

I believe he was trying to say that if you ran a website that stated that the Iraqi's have a right to defend themselves and to be insurgents, then you could be considered as supporting terrorism, and be prosecuted as such.

Fucking duh. And you imagined that I didn't grasp this because ...?

The fact that he was saying it didn't make it so -- perhaps you gathered that this was my own point.

You might have gathered this from my saying that the fact that George W. Bush calls Iraqis who are resisting the occupation "terrorists" doesn't mean that any intelligent and honest person would do so, or that any court in any free and democratic society would agree with that characterization.

And the allegation that "if you ran a website that stated that the Iraqi's have a right to defend themselves and to be insurgents, then you could be considered as supporting terrorism, and be prosecuted as such" IN THE U.S. OF A., under the governance of dishonest morons like George W. Bush, really has nothing to do with the situation at hand.

Perhaps all that was unclear to you. Who knows?

Do you imagine that Brits would put up with the sort of thing you posit? If so, you imagine wrong. Really.

Note that these laws don't go away after we are done with Iraq. Use your imagination.

Nah, I'm plainly not equipped for the job. I'm some sort of idiot toady eager to hand extreme powers unquestioningly over to an authoritarian state. We Canadians are like that. Odd how we end up not having any of those "free speech zones" up here, our government leaders have to answer to our representatives and the media daily, and various other things happen that suggest we may just not be as stupid and sheeplike as the rest of the world apparently looks through the mirrored prism of that border.

I don't think I'll be responding to many more of these comments as they are getting increasingly personal in the nature of the responses. I prefer more civil conversations

We apparently have different definitions of "civil".

[StrafingMoose]

71. For the moment...

I'm more concerned by the eventual abuses of Bush, Blair and the likes, since well... They are in power, right? They are the people who could abuse these new definitions. Of course, I know insurgency is not necesarily terrorism. And no, I'm not scared of " moderately intelligent" people.

"If the cities of the US were hosting clandestine pseudo-religious institutions and gatherings at which growing numbers of people, who had entered the US solely to exploit it as a base for attracting followers to an ideology of hatred, were advocating and organizing violent attacks on populations within the US and elsewhere, I'm curious what some people here would be saying. A lot of you folks still really don't have an iota of an inkling of what things are like outside your borders."

Problem is that these people you're talking about have been used by CIA/MI6 in Kosovo, Chechnya, Libya, etc. and were provided safe haven in UK to recruit more "soldiers". They were everything but clandestine, MI5/6 knew who they were. That's admitted by the authorities themselves. Nevertheless, they weren't bother as long as they didn't attack British interest on British soil.

Now Blair wants to drive them out. Fine! You UK people diserve a safe country, like any peaceful being. London 7/7 should never happen again. But by sheltering them in the past, they gained valuable help for these 'covert' wars listed above, and gained once again on the move of driving them out.

I'm not saying these systematicaly cancel Britons's freedom of speech, I'm saying "justifying" "terrorism" by "running a website" is vague, very vague. Hell, a few months agoAnnan was pushing people around to develop an international definition of "Terrorism".

[iverglas]

82. just to clarify

I'm Canadian. And I'm at least as opposed to what Bush and Blair have done as anyone here. I spent several very very cold and sometimes very wet days and nights stamping around on demonstrations in front of your embassy back in 2003, for what that's worth. And over 20 years earlier, I was representing opponents/victims of Saddam Hussein in asylum claims ... back when the US was arming him and all. And representing refugees from a number of other places that might have been quite okay to live in had it not been for the contributions of the US (and other imperial colonizers before it of course). As well as working with a range of international solidarity and domestic anti-racist efforts, running for office as a social democrat, organizing the first counter-G7 summit, etc. etc. I'm not unaware of the etiologies of the problems. And I don't support the troops.

Not to be snarky. Just to say that I'm not rah-rah-ing anything based on the last 5 minutes of history.

I could perhaps say that the chickens are coming home to roost in the UK, just as I could say that about the US before it. Now, that wouldn't be advocating terrorism ;) ... but it also wouldn't be particularly useful or a particularly genuine response to a real problem being faced by people who, as individuals, maybe don't deserve the full force of the chickens' guano.

Canada's own Anti-terrorism Act has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. Its political author, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, suddenly found that the civil libertarian principles he had made a career of championing were a little more, uh, flexible than he'd maybe previously allowed.

Definitional problems have indeed arisen. The main one has been in relation to the definition of "terrorist group", which has been applied rather questionably (mainly, to prohibit fundraising inside Canada). Other serious problems have arisen under the Act, relating to lengthy detentions and secret evidence -- only a very few cases, but very disturbing, and a focus of intense scrutiny and activity on the part of progressive organizations.

But there has been no more effort to apply these provisions to sincere discussion of political ideas and actions than there really has been in the US (to my knowledge -- if I'm wrong about the US, I withdraw the comparison).

And my actual point is that I just don't know what reason there would be to anticipate such application of such provisions in the UK.

Anyhow, I'll allow you to feast your eyes on how it all ended up, up here.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/as/2001/c41/whole.html

"terrorist activity" means"terrorist activity" means

(a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:

(i) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on December 16, 1970,

(ii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on September 23, 1971,

(iii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3) that implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1973,

(iv) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.1) that implement the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 17, 1979,

(v) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.4) or (3.6) that implement the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, done at Vienna and New York on March 3, 1980,

(vi) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on February 24, 1988,

(vii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) that implement the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

(viii) the offences referred to in subsection 7(2.1) or (2.2) that implement the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, done at Rome on March 10, 1988,

(ix) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.72) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 15, 1997, and

(x) the offences referred to in subsection 7(3.73) that implement the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1999, or

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person's life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

"terrorist group" means

(a) an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or

(b) a listed entity,

and includes an association of such entities.

For greater certainty
(1.1) For greater certainty, the expression of a political, religious or ideological thought, belief or opinion does not come within paragraph (b) of the definition "terrorist activity" in subsection (1) unless it constitutes an act or omission that satisfies the criteria of that paragraph.

Facilitation
(2) For the purposes of this Part, facilitation shall be construed in accordance with subsection 83.19(2).

[StrafingMoose]

90. You seem to have a great 'portfolio'

You said you were representing Iraqi exiles, you worked as lawyer back then? I'll have to read Canada's Anti-Terrorism act. And yes, if well defined, anti-terror laws can be applied without abuses and protect more people than it will harm them, I agree.

But in the current context (of USA's geopolitical thrust in the Middle East to gain control of the last scraps of fossil fuel on earth) where Cheney described this as a "war that won't end in our lifetime", I'm very concerned about any change to civil rights. Resource wars are dirty, very dirty.

Now, I know UK has it's own governement, it's own constitution and the Iraq invasion could very well be the only point where UK and USA are totally committed partners, and that what happens domesticaly in USA won't necesarilly happen in UK.

If you look closely at the Patriot Act in USA, domestic terrorism can be defined as "trying to change the governement's policy trough intimidation". Now, I think a peaceful demonstration of anti-war protesters numbered in the 200,000 (for example) IS something that can be taken as intimidation, thus violently repressed by the police -- and every abuses will afterwards be justified by saying the police was fighting 'terrorism'.

I'm just concerned about changes to civil rights when I see the coming energy crisis looming in the background and thinking our leaders might go down the wrong way you know...

Btw, I'm Canadian too :P

[Xithras]

63. Nope, that's not terrorism

Bushit jingoism aside, the definition of terrorism is fairly well understood: "The use or threat use of violence by a person or group against civilians with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments."

There's no justification for terrorism, because it's never justifiable to attack civilians. What is going on in Iraq is an insurgency, not terrorism. What happened in London is terrorism, not a justifiable war. It might have been a little different if they'd hit Parliament or taken a shot at Blair, but to attack unarmed civilians is never a valid action in any war, by any combatant.

This is why I really don't have any problem with the British law. Terrorism is like Naziism...it's the indiscriminate killing of innocent people to further an ideological goal. Anyone who justifies that deserves to be deported...or worse.

[StrafingMoose]

65. Re...

I agree terrorism should not be justified, but this is not part of the BushCo & Blair lines:

"What is going on in Iraq is an insurgency, not terrorism."

We could argue at length if this IS the "Coalition"'s view on what's happening in Iraq.

I am aware that the possible main objective of those new policies is to drive out people like the one-eyed captain-hook guy (Abu Hamza) and the likes.

But judging from what I saw, they also open the door for abuses.

[endarkenment]

77. why would you think that the UK,

a government that recently used secret policies to execute an innocent civilian in cold blood would abuse its power? That is quite a stretch.

[pennylane100]

25. Unfortunately, non-citizens we send abroad to be tortured

don't benefit much from our freedom of speech laws. We also have the patriot act to keep our own citizens in line.

[The Stranger]

35. First, countries don't have rights. People have rights.

And the question becomes what constitutes advocacy and who is defining "terrorism."

Advocacy and free speech is the lifeblood of a democracy, and proscribing it is killing your democracy.

[zanne]

95. That's a bit naive...

How long do you think it will be before the law is expanded to include citizens? My guess is, not long. We've lived under a very deceptive government for five years now; we've learned to be critical and not take anything at face value. England hasn't had that kind of experience.

[iverglas]

96. for pity's sake

How long do you think it will be before the law is expanded to include citizens?

I dunno; how long do you think it will be before the sun rises in the west?

Exactly where might a government expel its citizens TO?

Well, we'll take a few of your terrorist justifiers up here in Canada; maybe the UK will trade you its for yours ...

These doomsday scenarios assume ... well, precisely that: that doomsday has arrived.

If doomsday is already here (that is, is here at the point when, you posit, such things will be happening), then the fact that a government starts expelling its citizens to Antarctica or some such thing is probably going to be the least of everybody's worries.

Governments do not expel their citizens to the territory of some other state unless the entire concept and organization of modern states, and things like liberal democracy and the rule of law and constitutionality, have broken down completely and ceased to have any relevance or force.


We've lived under a very deceptive government for five years now; we've learned to be critical and not take anything at face value.

But no, you see. The problem is quite the opposite.

The US collectively has ceased to be even remotely critical, and has been happily taking things at face value for quite a long time now. How else would it find itself where it is now? There hasn't actually been an armed coup and the overthrow of democratic government by force; everything that is happening has happened because the people have, collectively, allowed it to happen.

For USAmericans to assume that this is the case, or is going to be the case, anywhere else in the world, for instance in the UK, is just ethnocentricity in action once again.

If the UK "hasn't had that kind of experience", perhaps it's because they haven't been passively allowing their society to be transformed to quite the appalling extent that has occurred in the US over the last 35 or so years, and they themselves haven't adopted the "I'm all right, Jack <and fuck the rest of you>" attitude that prevails in the US to quite the same extent.

Please don't assume that any of the rest of us out here beyond your borders (including up here in Canada) are quite as prepared to sit back and let our democratic institutions and processes be eaten away from under us while we suck back fast food and Hollywood blockbusters and prosperity theology and oceans of gasoline.

The time to pay attention is before it happens. Losing one's democracy isn't an "experience", it's a choice.

[zanne]

112. "Losing one's Democracy isn't an "experience", it's a choice".

I agree with you totally. So why do you support such draconian laws for England? You're right in that the US could not "expel" American
citizens, but I'm sure you've noticed we've had some Americans arrested for "suspicion" of terrorist ties under the Homeland Security Act. They don't have to "deport" citizens to quelch free speech and expression; they can always detain them. You really should think before you react.

[iverglas]

113. can anyone here address the speech rather than insulting the speaker?

"You really should think before you react."

I'm simply in no more need of this kind of crap from you than I was from the one of your colleagues whose crap remains visible in this thread, who chose to misrepresent what I had said and misrepresent me as a racist.

If you can come up with some reason for characterizing me as someone who reacts without thinking, I might come up with some reason to spend three second thinking about something you say.

In the posts in this thread in which I have addressed a rather incredible volume of uninformed, misguided, blinkered and downright stupid opinion, I have not once called anyone expressing the opinion a name, or associated him/her with any unsavoury or unintelligent group of people, and I have consistently held to addressing what was said. I guess I'm just some kind of genetic mutant.

By the way, in case you happen to be under some delusion that when you said:

"So why do you support such draconian laws for England?"

you were actually addressing something I did say, I would suggest that you try finding a post, and the words, in which I said it. Good luck.

[Mike Daniels]

3. Well, if you don't foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence

through those means listed, I guess you won't have anything to worry about.

There's nothing in what you posted that implies that running a website in and of iself is going to be illegal.

[Guitarman]

10. Exactly

You can be anti Blair all you want. But when you start advocating acts of terrorism, that is what will get you a one way ticket out of the country.

Terrorism by definition is the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances.

So call Bush and Blair every name in the book. Blog, publish and express how you feel about them in any way. But when you start injuring or killing people, or telling people how to do so in order to get your point across, that is where freedom of speech stops and terrorism begins.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute from which there can be no consequences. In order to fight terrorism effectively, measures such as this will have to be enacted. Otherwise there is the potential for terrorist organizations, both domestic and foreign, to use the concept of absolute freedom against us.

However, any action such as this would have to be checked and balanced along the way to make sure that it were not abused.

The same type of action could also be taken with regard to the right to own a firearm. Sure it is a right to own a guyn. But what need is there for the average citizen to own an automatic weapon. You have a right to defenc yourself, just not to be able to organize your own army.

[endarkenment]

32. We have a definition

"Terrorism by definition is the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances."

So Tony bLiar will be deported exactly when?
So * et al will be facing charges under the Patriot Act, right?

[Guitarman]

48. In a perfect world.

As much as I want to see Bush in chains for lying to this country and getting us involved in a bogus war. I still believe that there is a real terrorist threat in the world that has to be dealt with.

Unfortunately, invading Iraq had nothing to do with that terrorist threat. As a matter of fact, when I was looking through the International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism's webpage for International Terrorism and Terrorist Organizations. Not one of thos organizations was based in Iraq. Just one of those things that make you go, "WTF!!!"

[endarkenment]

55. I'm still waiting for a definition of terrorism

'cause this is not just a talking point. Laws have been passed making 'terrorism' illegal and 'justifying and/or glorifying terrorism' illegal, but nobody seems to be able to put forth a definition of terrorism and terrorists that does not apply to the US and UK administrations. So should we put folks in jail for glorifying the Iraq war, or just for glorifying the opposition to the Iraq war?

[iverglas]

70. personally, I find that disingenuous

Here's some grist for your mill, though:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,15935,1555575,00.html

The lack of definitional guidance angered civil liberties campaigners who warned it would make Muslim communities less likely to help police with their investigations.

"What exactly is meant by 'terrorism'?" said Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty. "What kind of behaviour constitutes 'justification'? Could this cover political debate about the circumstances in which it is acceptable to take up arms against non-democratic regimes across the world?

"Without some further explanation this is vague, counter-productive to the obvious aim of greater clarity, and could be seen as contrary to the 'UK's culture of tolerance', which we all want to protect.

"For example, before the war in Iraq would it have been seen as justifying terrorism for an Iraqi asylum seeker to voice his opinion that Saddam Hussain was an evil dictator who should be overthrown by violence if necessary?"

I find that disingenuous too.

The fact is that there is a long and broad body of law in countries like the UK regarding notions like freedom of expression. Efforts to take action against individuals based on the ideas they express, where those ideas are very plainly not intended to be understood as inciting terrorist violence, would simply not succeed.

And in that context, intelligent people of good will really just are not likely to have serious disagreement over the meaning of "terrorism". As has been made quite plain in this thread, there are commonly agreed defintions of the term. No British court would allow the government to simply make up its own (say, to include support for resistance to the occupation of Iraq, or academic discussion of the merits of terrorist activity) and demand that it be applied, when doing so violated a long tradition of free expression of ideas. Really.

I am not by any means saying, in any of this, that I see no problems with the proposed measures. In particular, I share the opposition to the power to deport people to countries where they will be at risk of mistreatment.

I just think that informed, rational discussion of problems is possible without pretending that they're something they aren't.

[endarkenment]

75. you must be reading some other thread

"As has been made quite plain in this thread, there are commonly agreed defintions of the term"

none of which put forth here manage to distinguish the actions of the US and UK governments in Iraq and the actions of insurgents and others in Iraq and elsewhere.

"Terrorism" (defined as seemingly gratuitous violence against civilians or non-combatants) has been a part of all generations of war. Until recently, in fact, most wars killed many more civilians than military and not all of this was accidental - recall the Rape of Nanking, the London Blitz, and the firebombing of Dresden. As 4GW blurs any distinction between "military" and "civilian," we can expect more activities that the general population will regard as terrorism. In other words, there may be more terrorism in 4GW, but it is not unique to nor defined by these attacks."

http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm

[iverglas]

105. nah, I'm just applying sincere analysis

I find disingenuous hokiness much less satisfying.


You could always direct your efforts to having the term "aggression", which is included in international instruments relating to war crimes and the like but has never been defined, given some more attention. This might satisfy the need that all of us have for a means of expressing condemnation of the acts that we all deplore and that you are trying to call something they aren't.

"War crimes" are of course already defined -- and kinda the whole reason why we need the concept of "terrorism" in the first place to characterize acts committed by people who are not combattants in state conflicts is that that term does not cover the acts/intent that concern us here.

Why what's set out here doesn't cover what some of you here are so concerned about, I just don't know.

http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Article 5
Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court

1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

(a) The crime of genocide;

(b) Crimes against humanity;

(c) War crimes;

(d) The crime of aggression.

2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 6
Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 7
Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

...

Article 8
War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Wilful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

(vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

(viii) Taking of hostages.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts: ...

If I knew why anyone wasn't getting this, I might be able to help.

This instrument, and others like it, define, and provide for punishment for, actions committed by state actors in state conflicts.

The concept of "terrorism" is designed to address similar actions committed by non-state actors outside state conflicts.

What earthly need is there for cramming what Bush and Blair have done into the definition of "terrorism", when it can quite plainly be addressed by applying the definition of "war crime"??

[Lori Price CLG]

79. 'Terrorism' can be defined as the litany of actions the Bush regime has...

taken, since the first coup d'etat.

Lori Price

[lockdown]

23. But saying the London bombs were caused by invading Iraq

is justifying terrorism, according to Labour.

[iverglas]

109. got a quote?

I'd love to see it.

[endarkenment]

29. What exactly is the definition of

justify terrorist violence?

Glorify terrorist violence?

What exactly is the definition of 'terrorist violence'?

So for example if I say that from the perspective of muslims living in nations occupied by an illegal, criminal, invading army acts of resistance including the use of violence against the occupying army's nation are justified, am I guilty of a crime?

If I say that leveling Iraqi cities with artillery, tanks, and warplanes to suppress an insurgency is justified is that a crime?

[IA_Seth]

6. And who defines "terrorism" anyway?

Thats about as broad a term as pornography:

I am sure that American Revolutionaries were considered terrorists.

I am sure the Colonists would be considered terrorists by the Native Americans if they had such a word.

I am sure Saddam considered the Shia uprising after Gulf War I "terrorist" activities.

And on and on...its all a matter of perspctive. Laws that rely on definitions of broad terms have an easy way of limiting freedoms, especially freedom of speech.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. No it isn't.

It's defined right there in the OP.

"Terrorist VIOLENCE in furtherance of partuclar beliefs."

So if you're not advocating violence (which has a legal defenition, too) then you've got nothing to worry about.

[pauldavid]

26. Bush advocate violence in the name of democracy

every day, but most Americans (outside DU) would not really consider him a terrorist. This can be done on and on. Like the fist poster said, the american revolutionary's advocated violence to promote democracy, taxation WITH representation and religious freedom. Were they terrorists?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. Are you seriously comparing...

the American revolutionaries to Osama bin Laden? I don't seem to remember George Washington reveling in the murder of English civilians, but I could be wrong.

[endarkenment]

42. yes; they both fit your definition of terrorism. nt.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

57. No, they don't.

Not at all. Not in the slightest. The goal of the army under Washington was not to "terrorize" the British - it was to defeat them in battle. The goal had nothing to do with intimidating and frightening the British government or the British public, and everything to do with defeating its army. If you cannot, or will not see the difference between armed revolutionaries fighting a regular army, and armed revolutionaries murdering civilians in order to frighten them into accepting their demands, then there's no point in defining anything.

[endarkenment]

72. You are both naive and mistaken.

In the colonial south the revolutionary war was fought by partisan militas against solidly entrenched british forces and their loyalist supporters. Those loyalist supporters would be 'civilians'. The intention most certainly was to discourage their loyalty by killing them and destroying their property. See Francis Marrion, aka 'The Swamp Fox' fictionalized by that idiot mel gibson. Marrion was known to hunt Indians for sport along with violently discouraging the loyalist population from supporting the crown.

Civilian atrocities, as in all wars, were of course committed by both sides.

So I'm still looking for that definition of terrorism that excludes what official states do in the normal course of their affairs.

[pauldavid]

85. A proper official definition does not exist

because it would force us to say what we mean, thus exposing our inherent hypocrisy. If there was one it would be something like "When THEY kill OUR civilians." Of course THEY and OUR could apply to any number of racial ethic, ideological or religious groups. But it is not terrorism when WE (No matter who WE refers to) do it. Its like saying something is barbaric. THEY are always barbaric, but we don't see much barbaric about what we do.

[pauldavid]

84. Dont tell me, tell Comander Coocoo Bananas

He is the one that "cannot, or will not see the difference between armed revolutionaries fighting a regular army" . He keeps saying they are terrorist. No, they are revolutionaries.

[pauldavid]

46. yes i am

We celebrate the 4th of july to this day, reveling in our smashing defeat over those pesky red coats giving us the freedom ( except for women, blacks, and indians). You are right though its easier to revel in kill people of a different race, like indians. Now that, americans were proud of!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

59. No.

First of all, the Fourth of July has nothing to do with victory over the British. Independence Day is a celebration of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. And who, pray tell, is reveling in killing people of a different race on Independence Day? If anything, the greatest patriotic holidy in the us is a celebration of killing other white people.

And your post doesn't address any of my points about why the American Revolutionaries, by any reasonable definition of the word, were not "terrorists" as their aims, and the goals they used to achieve them, were not meant to inspire terror.

[pauldavid]

60. Don't you think

shooting a cannon at some one will inspire terror? Independence day is about Independence from England which we had to go to war for... much like the Muslims are doing now gain indemedenace form the American and the British.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

67. ::bangs head on table::

I give up. You see no difference between fighting an army and murdering civilians. I, and the geneva convention, disagree with you.

[endarkenment]

73. So when we leveled Fallujah, what was that?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

86. An atrocity.

A war crime.

But it wasn't terrorism.

[endarkenment]

87. Sophistry

Their atrocities against civilians: terrorism.
Our atrocities against civilians: not-terrorism.

Both are atrocities against civilians, which is the commonly understood meaning of terrorism.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

88. No, the atrocity isn't the point.

Terrorizing the public is the point of terrorism. Osama kills civilians for a reason. I think we're just nhilists.

[pauldavid]

92. We do it for a reason too

Its called OIL

[endarkenment]

93. I actually don't believe you are serious.

You think that we leveled Fallujah for no reason, out of nihilism? What a crock. We leveled Fallujah to send the Sunni population a clear message: submit and obey our authority or suffer the consequences. How that is not terrorism becomes an exercise in definitional arguments. It clearly is terrorism by the plain common understanding of the word.

[pauldavid]

76. Oh

OF COURSE I see a difference between fighting an army and murdering civilians. The problem is that terrorism is poorly defined. Now you say terrorism = "murdering civilians" Well, actually that is already called murder. But if terrorism = "murdering civilians" then all murderers are terrorist could be deported as such under the new law if they are non citizens. Abortion could be called terrorism bla bla bla. Like I said, you can come up with all kinds of examples. I don't really thing * or GW the first was a terrorist. I think they were all people who thought killing for their beliefs was cool. RIght now we have the problem of how poorly terrorist is defined. Why does this problem exists? Because of what you will not admin to; that when you say terrorist, you mean a person of middle easter decent who commits murder of a non Muslim believer in the name of their beliefs. You will not call the same act of bombing an abortion clinic a terrorist act because they actors in this cases are (mostly) white christians committing violence against non christian believers. But NO ONE will legally define terrorism the way they mean it so it will be ill defined and new laws will apply to the wrong people/acts.

The problem is racism hypocrisy. When my group does it... it is one thing, when another group does it, it is another. But we cant admin that it public so we will say it is always bad when anyone does it, but overlook it when our group does it. and that is WRONG!!!!!!!!

[pauldavid]

49. But no

I do not think they are terrorist... just that they fit the definition. The problem is language. I think all war and killing are equally wrong. Calling a war on poor muslims a "War on terrorism" does not make it good. Calling a war on the rich and powerful like America a "holy war" does no good in justifying it either. we should just call it what it is war and murder. If we think it is ok to murder people, we should stand up and say, and eye for an eye. The murder us so we murder them. Talking like that, rather then wrapping murder in cute little costumes like "collateral damage" lets us have a real debate about what we think is moral as a society? Is it moral to kill those that kill us for killing them for killing....

I do not think so. Maybe you do. But lets stop playing word games. Killing is killing.

[Igel]

54. Yes, the problem is language.

Using offensive speech is violence.

Violence in the furtherance of political change is terrorism.

Terrorism is to be punished with deportation and/or jailtime.

Therefore criticism of the government is terrorism.

But that kind of spaghetti reasoning only works if you allow your definitions to squish and be blurred, if they lack precision and clarity, if the reader of a definition is unable or unwilling to recognize that the words on the page do have a context and a background.

In other words, if you stop playing word games.

Such as "Killing is killing." Are these situations really equivalent? (1) I kill some guy who's just gunned down 5 people and is now coming for my toddler, saying, "I'm going to kill him then you". (2) While aiming at the guy in (1), my toddler, in fear, grabs my arm: my first shot goes wide, and I kill somebody in a nearby building, looking out through her curtains. (3) I kill some guy of a different race, who I've never seen before, because he smiled at my daughter in a public place in a way I thought might indicate he liked her.

After all, killing is killing. Or maybe you haven't actually thought through what that expression could entail.

[pauldavid]

61. Violence in the furtherance of political change is terrorism?

All war, by this definition is terrorism. nuff said bout that.

We have laws in place for all kinds of killing. We dont need any more.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

68. No, again, it isn't.

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"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 circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"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), (imperilled) 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" (Schmid, 1988).

[endarkenment]

74. Fallujah

"employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons"

Again - how was that not terrorism. How is the ongoing 21st century experiment in state control of Fallujah and its CIVILIAN POPULATION not terrorism?

[pauldavid]

83. Exactly

[pauldavid]

80. No, yet again

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism

1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

if this were true then then GW saying he will bomb a nation falls under terrorism...so that aint it. A better definition saying what we really mean would be "All criminal acts directed against a OUR State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds US or OUR general public BY A MUSLIM

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"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 circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

If this was terrorism them threating preemptive war with North Korea for being a communistic dictatorship that wants nukes would be terrorism... but we all know it isn't...thus, what this should say is: "Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in general public, for political purposes are in circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them ".

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
I dont think you mean that, cuz if you did you would say things like the CIA sponsored coup in Hatti was an act of terrorism, so I think you really mean: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime


now, as time goes one, people get that the old definition doesn't fit but they cant come out and say what they mean, so they make the definition harder to understand like number 4
4. Academic Consensus Definition:


"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action,Wouldn't dropping bombs from air planes do the same thing? employed by (semi-) clandestine individual But not the CIA...Heck NO!, group or state actorsBut not the USA or any other white nation, for idiosyncratic Meaning Islamic and not christian, criminal or political reasonsNow this gets me...so now they say any criminal or political reason? wtf?, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.Meaning you hate white leader but can only kill white civilians, cuz otherwise cutting any tariff would be considered terrorism The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and will tend to have lighter skin color then the killersand serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets aka non Muslims 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" (Schmid, 1988).



Look, the real definition of terror is when THEY the WEAK, kill US the powerful. If they were powerful would go to war with us and try to kill our leaders. They are too week for that, so the do something else. It is all war though. Terrorism is just propaganda WE use on US to make US feel better about killing THEM....whoever WE, US and THEM are.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

89. I disagree.

A better definition saying what we really mean would be "All criminal acts directed against a OUR State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds US or OUR general public BY A MUSLIM

Which is fine, except that by your definition the Oklahoma City bombing wasn't terrorism. Or IRA attacks in England. Or Aum Shinrikyo's sarin attacks on the Tokyo subway.

Let me put it to you this way: The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was terrorism. Now, would you still call it terrorism if Libya had sent fighter jets to down the airliner? I wouldn't. I'd call that an act of war.

If this was terrorism them threating preemptive war with North Korea for being a communistic dictatorship that wants nukes would be terrorism... but we all know it isn't.

Correct. It isn't. If this were the definition, the UN itself would be a terrorist organization for threatening and then authorising the war against Iraq in 1991, amongst other things.
If we started sending saboteurs to blow up North Korean school children, it'd be terrorism. We've certainly condoned that sort of behaviour before, most notably in Central America, where by the Bush doctrine (terrorist supporters = terrorists) would imply that the US were acting as terrorists.

I dont think you mean that, cuz if you did you would say things like the CIA sponsored coup in Hatti was an act of terrorism, so I think you really mean: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

Yes, I think that definition is wrong and stupid.

Now this gets me...so now they say any criminal or political reason? wtf?

Yes. This would most likely encompass some of the actions of, for instance, drug lords in South America who have a need to keep the population cowed. In that case the aim isn't political, but the goal of the action - to inspire terror - is the same.

Look, the real definition of terror is when THEY the WEAK, kill US the powerful.

No it isn't. Why must you insist upon describing all violent acts as terrorism? Let's take the situation in Iraq, for instance. Guerilla fighters are placing roadside bombs and using them to blow up US military vehicles. That isn't terrorism, it's guerilla warfare.

On the other hand, driving a car bomb full of explosives into a market and blowing it up is terrorism. Unfortunately, our fearless leader has blurred that distinction, much as you are now blurring it in the opposite direction.

If they were powerful would go to war with us and try to kill our leaders. They are too week for that, so the do something else.

You seem to be of the opinion that the only two types of violence and warfare are set-piece battles and terrorism. This is wrong. It's important to understand the difference between, guerilla warfare and terrorism. Terrorism is a method, just like guerilla warfare. But they're not the same method at all.

[pauldavid]

91. Terrorism, as we in the west define it

"It's important to understand the difference between, guerrilla warfare and terrorism." - They differ only in that we white people like to animalize brown people so when terrorism is brown on brown or in the "jungle" of a brown nation, then it is gorilla-warfare. When they DARE pull this stuff on white people, then it is evil terrorism. It's all us vs them tribal bullshit. We do the same things they do. They think what the do is ok as do we. Maybe the "methods" differ (Millions dollar bombs form billion dollar planes vs homemade weapons) But , I am sorry to say, the intentions behind the acts are all the same. Beat them anyway we can.

As for McVeigh "A jury Monday convicted McVeigh of murder and conspiracy in the April 19, 1995, bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, a blast that killed 168."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/03/mcveigh.defense/

Never convect of "terrorism" that article doesn't mentions terrorism once. While some article will, mcviegh was part of a militia. Militia are sanctioned by the constitution as a means to protect the people from government. Did the framers endorse terrorism? Does the constitution give people the right to form terrorist organizations, or commit terrorist acts?

[iverglas]

94. this really is silly

"It's important to understand the difference between, guerrilla warfare and terrorism."
- They differ only in that we white people like to animalize brown people so when terrorism is brown on brown or in the "jungle" of a brown nation, then it is gorilla-warfare. When they DARE pull this stuff on white people, then it is evil terrorism.

Perhaps they differ in the mouth of George W. Bush only in that way. You're not talking to George W. Bush -- or, I would hope, for him. And you simply have no basis for treating the entire world as if it is organized and defined by George W. Bush.

He and his cronies and the US media and thence the great USAmerican public may have called the attack on that US boat -- the Cole? -- "terrorism". It wasn't. It was an act of guerrilla warfare.

The US may not have acknowledged, and USAmericans may not have recognized, the war the US was in, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a war. None of us is under any obligation to accept how the powers that be in the US define anything.

An attack on a military target, barring exceptional circumstances, IS NOT terrorism. The USAmerican public's sentimentalization of its boys and girls in the military does not mean that an attack on them when they are performing military duties -- activities that involve the use or threat of force on behalf of a state in a context in which the state is indeed using or threatening force -- is "terrorism".


Never convect of "terrorism" that article doesn't mentions terrorism once. While some article will, mcviegh was part of a militia. Militia are sanctioned by the constitution as a means to protect the people from government. Did the framers endorse terrorism? Does the constitution give people the right to form terrorist organizations, or commit terrorist acts?

You might want to recall the date when the act in question occurred, and consider what the laws said at that time.

And you really might want to read some constitutional scholarship before blathering on about what your constitution does and does not endorse. And maybe just plain stop being disingenuous. If you're seriously saying that a homicidal attack on a child care centre is a legitimate act by someone engaged in guerrilla warfare, you're ruling yourself out of the discussion.


Certainly there is some substance to the point that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder -- just as truth and beauty and justice are. Everything is, to one degree or another.

That has seldom meant that a society cannot adopt a common meaning that will be applied for the purposes for which it needs a meaning.

To most people, taking their car without permission is theft; to Proudhon, their possession of the car was theft. At present, our society defines property and theft in particular ways, even though our definition arguably causes widespread misery.

If you are going to reject a definition of terrorism because it reflects the particular way in which things are organized at present, you are going to have to reject the definition of theft too. How can you *not*, when it results in people who take chocolate bars by stealth being punished and people who take the fruits of other people's labour by coercion -- by paying them half what their labour is worth, which they are forced to accept or starve -- walking free?

You could say exactly the same thing about property and theft as you are saying (in the first place, before we got into guerrilla warfare) about warfare and terrorism: warfare is us doing it to them, terrorism is them doing it to us:

They differ only in that we comfortable people like to demonize impoverished people, so when theft is us exploiting them, then it's property rights. When they DARE pull this stuff on us, then it's evil theft.

And the very recognition of the fact that there *is* such a thing as "guerrilla warfare" -- that people who attack military targets for a political purpose are *not* terrorists -- guerrilla warfare almost always being a matter of "brown them" vs. "white us" or our proxies, shows your thesis in that respect to be false anyway.

We aren't living in anarchist utopia. *None* of our laws (or of the definitions underlying them) is going to accord with a utopian anarchist view of the world.

IF a definition of "terrorism" that the UK adopted, for instance, were to be such that, or to be applied in such a way that, it violated the precepts of the society, the society being a liberal democracy, which precepts *DO* include things like equal protection of the law and due process and protection of the right to life, THEN you would have an argument.

"Liberal democracy" does have organizing principles. Those principles may not always be easy to state and apply, and they do, yes, become internally contradictory at a certain level of magnification. (And as far as we know, the principles of any kind of social organization we can imagine would be the same. There are apparently insoluble paradoxes inherent in our nature and existence as both individuals and members of collectives -- our desire and need for both liberty and security -- even if a genuine attempt is made to respect the interests of all members of the society and not simply to protect the interests of the wealthy or powerful or white.)

But to pretend that they don't exist, or can never be applied rationally, just isn't intellectually honest -- or productive.

[pauldavid]

98. You think this is silly?

If you think I am the only one saying that this definition stuff is kind of a problem, go read http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/08/index.html#007522
Go argue them. If you want to listen to what I am saying, read on.
<rant>
Look, you may think this silly, but this definition stuff is THE problem.
Dehumanizing, racialist Language, is what allows white people to slaughter native Americans, aboriginal Australians, and European Jews.
It is what allowed us to enslave the Africans, and nuke Japanese civilians. It has allowed us to subjugate India, the middle east, Africa, south America.
It allowed the Brits to sell opium to the Chinese and Americans to sell crack to African Americans.
THE problem is that we use Language to separate the world into US vs THEM when in reality there is only US.
We use Language to make things that are FAR more the same, somehow different.
Maybe it was a useful evolutionary tactic in tribal times, but its getting us killed now.
Rather then pointing out what is different we need to point out what is the same.
All violent acts, no matter who does them are violent acts.
Every human, no matter race, religion, nationality, or sex is human.
Everything on earth, that is alive is life.
We are all connected.
We are all the same thing.
But, if we must insist on labeling people as evil and violent lets start with people that have done the worst things for blind faith.
Lets start with the people whose faith in money is so blind, it drives them to commit atrocities that the no other culture has ever dared to commit (See WWII as an example)
Those of us whose culture comes from Greece, are clearly "bad" no matter what word you want to use for "bad".
But if you really think there is some OTHER "bad" called "terrorist" fine.
Are all "terrorists" not human? Do they not eat, sleep, breath, walk, talk, sing, die, bleed, love, hate, fear.
That any one of those things exist is a miracle.
Outside of earth, how may places can you find any of those qualities.
There are more similarities then stars in the sky between us and "terrorists" but people like you want to find one or two differences so you can feel above THEM.
The darker we draw the line between us and them, the easier it will be to harm to them.
The problem with this is that it is as silly as drawing a line down the center of your body and declaring war on the right, with the left.
Black vs White, Men vs Women, Republican vs Democrat, Capitalism vs Communism, USA vs USSR, East vs West, Christian vs Muslim, Believer vs Nonbeliever, America vs Terrorism, Us vs Them.
HUMAN vs HUMAN!
</rant>

[pauldavid]

99. You think this is silly?

If you think I am the only one saying that this definition stuff is kind of a problem, go read http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2005/08/index.html#007522
Go argue them. If you want to listen to what I am saying, read on.
<rant>
Look, you may think this silly, but this definition stuff is THE problem.
Dehumanizing, racialist Language, is what allows white people to slaughter native Americans, aboriginal Australians, and European Jews.
It is what allowed us to enslave the Africans, and nuke Japanese civilians. It has allowed us to subjugate India, the middle east, Africa, south America.
It allowed the Brits to sell opium to the Chinese and Americans to sell crack to African Americans.
THE problem is that we use Language to separate the world into US vs THEM when in reality there is only US.
We use Language to make things that are FAR more the same, somehow different.
Maybe it was a useful evolutionary tactic in tribal times, but its getting us killed now.
Rather then pointing out what is different we need to point out what is the same.
All violent acts, no matter who does them are violent acts.
Every human, no matter race, religion, nationality, or sex is human.
Everything on earth, that is alive is life.
We are all connected.
We are all the same thing.
But, if we must insist on labeling people as evil and violent lets start with people that have done the worst things for blind faith.
Lets start with the people whose faith in money is so blind, it drives them to commit atrocities that the no other culture has ever dared to commit (See WWII as an example)
Those of us whose culture comes from Greece, are clearly "bad" no matter what word you want to use for "bad".
But if you really think there is some OTHER "bad" called "terrorist" fine.
Are all "terrorists" not human? Do they not eat, sleep, breath, walk, talk, sing, die, bleed, love, hate, fear.
That any one of those things exist is a miracle.
Outside of earth, how may places can you find any of those qualities.
There are more similarities then stars in the sky between us and "terrorists" but people like you want to find one or two differences so you can feel above THEM.
The darker we draw the line between us and them, the easier it will be to harm to them.
The problem with this is that it is as silly as drawing a line down the center of your body and declaring war on the right, with the left.
Black vs White, Men vs Women, Republican vs Democrat, Capitalism vs Communism, USA vs USSR, East vs West, Christian vs Muslim, Believer vs Nonbeliever, America vs Terrorism, Us vs Them.
HUMAN vs HUMAN!
</rant>

[iverglas]

100. and you still fail to have any point

The unfortunate thing is that there are lots of points to be made -- it's just that yours isn't one.

I fail to see what your link has to do with the point you claim to have:

MILITIAS VERSUS COPS VERSUS TERRORISTS. Kathryn Jean Lopez is outraged that Cindy Sheehan would refer to terrorists in Iraq as a "militia" instead of the more proper "terrorists." Indeed, the distinction is clear. If you act like this in Iraq, you're called "the police": ... And here's "the military": ... By contrast, these are "the terrorists": ... <sarcasm implied in the text>

This misuse of language is NOT "dehumanizing, racialist Language". It is the politically motivated misuse of language against opponents who are distinguished by their POLITICAL GOALS, *NOT* their race or other inherent characteristic.

"Dehumanizing, racialist language" includes things ranging from "nigger" and "redskin" to "primitive" and "inscrutably Oriental". And the broader category, language that dehumanizes by stereotyping and/or ascribing negative personal characteristics based on inherent group characteristics, includes things like "bitch" and "fag" and on and on.

Misrepresenting one's opponents, and their motives and actions, is a completely different matter.

Is calling a Democrat "a commie" dehumanizing by stereotyping/generalizing based on a characteristic of Democrats? No!! It is simply a misrepresentation ... or, briefly put, a LIE.

You act as if there really is no difference between the people who attacked the Cole and the people who bombed the London subway. There is a difference.

And the fact that George W. Bush and his wholly-owned subsidiaries in the US media call the former "terrorists" when they aren't does NOT mean that it is incorrect to call the latter "terrorists".

Timothy McVeigh WAS a terrorist, and that fact is not altered by someone calling him a patriot. The fact is based on the common consensus as to what the word means.

Consensuses such as this are NEVER universal and NEVER settle all issues that arise at the margins.

You and I and the world in general will agree that a tomato is red. But if we make tomato soup, and start add yellow food colouring to it, we may very well disagree about the point at which the red tomato soup becomes orange. This does not mean that we cannot agree that the soup starts out red and that the food colouring is yellow, and it does not mean that there will not be a point at which we do agree that the soup has become orange.

But, if we must insist on labeling people as evil and violent lets start with people that have done the worst things for blind faith.

That would be fine and dandy -- IF what someone were doing was labelling people "evil and violent".

That is NOT what is being done.

First off, NO ONE is being "labelled" anything.

The ACTIONS and INTENT of the people who DO certain things are being CHARACTERIZED as "terrorist" BASED ON a consensus as to the meaning of "terrorism" -- which, whether YOU accept it or not, DOES EXIST.

The fact that George W. Bush is NOT being "labelled evil and violent" by the same people who are characterizing others' actions/intent as "terrorist" does NOT mean that those others are NOT terrorist in their actions/intent.

In order to convict someone of murder, for instance, in the ordinary criminal courts, no proof is required that the person is "evil and violent". All that needs to be proved is that s/he committed an ACT that is defined as homicide, and had the INTENT of killing someone without justification.

A person who commits, or advocates, a terrorist act could be a loving child, a doting parent, a rescuer of lost pets and a writer of poetry -- and STILL commit or advocate a terrorist act.

Calling one set of acts/intents "terrorism" DOES NOT PRECLUDE calling another set of acts/intents, or even people, "evil and violent".

Calling one group of people "terrorists" DOES NOT PRECLUDE calling another set of people "imperialist warmongering murderers".

Calling one group of people, who do one set of things, "terrorists" in no way implies approval of another group of people who do another set of things. Just as calling one group of people "armed robbers" does not somehow imply approval of child abusers. They are different, and what they do is different.

"Different" DOES NOT MEAN "better" or "worse".

Your beef is with the societies that do NOT currently have a consensus that people who commit or advocate invading and occupying other countries without provocation or justification, and killing their populations and destroying their social and political and physical infrastructures, "imperialist warmongering murderers".

But you do your own cause no good whatsoever when you seek to have those societies call those people "terrorists", because when you do that, YOU are the one who is perverting language and assigning meanings to words that they do not, by common consensus, have.

And I AM NOT A PERSON who does not call people who commit or advocate invading and occupying other countries without provocation or justification, and killing their populations and destroying their social and political and physical infrastructures, "imperialist warmongering murderers". I DO CALL those people that -- and that does not preclude me from calling other people "terrorists".


There are more similarities then stars in the sky between us and "terrorists" but people like you want to find one or two differences so you can feel above THEM.

I think it's time you ratcheted your rhetoric down a notch. You have made a claim about me, personally, that you have no basis for making, and that I can assure you is false. I would suggest that you refrain from engaging in this sort of unwarranted and unpleasant behaviour, which has gone well beyond rant and into quite another realm at this point.

[pauldavid]

102. your dualistic way of seeing the world bores me.

I am sorry we couldn't find good common ground to stand on. Thanks for the lively argument though.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

110. excuse me, dear friend

your dualistic way of seeing the world bores me.
I am sorry we couldn't find good common ground to stand on. Thanks for the lively argument though.

Was that your way of apologizing for this --

There are more similarities then stars in the sky between us and "terrorists" but people like you want to find one or two differences so you can feel above THEM.

-- ?

Your people's customs are unfamiliar to me, if so.

In my culture, if I had called someone a racist and the person to whom I was speaking had objected, I would have felt honour-bound either to substantiate my allegation or to withdraw it, preferably with a suitable expression of regret for having made it in the first place.

"People like you" ... funny how I've usually seen that expression used in the context of that "dehumanizing, racialist language" you were talking about earlier ...

I'm really not at all sorry we couldn't find common ground to stand on. I don't think I would want to be there.

[endarkenment]

31. circular reasoning. nt.

[Lori Price CLG]

8. BTW, was Shock & Awe 'unacceptable behaviour?' Just curious. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. I'd like to hear your suggestions on what to do...

...with foreign nationals who openly advocate violent terrorism.

[endarkenment]

33. Don't give Bush a visa. nt.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

41. Now there's something we can all get behind.

Much as I *would* like to see him get deported... to a front-line unit in the gleaming new Iraqi army he's supposedly created.

[Lori Price CLG]

44. Good idea! That way, Blair is forced to carry out his own acts...

of terrorism, w.out Bush's help!
:)-Lori Price

[iverglas]

34. aren't free societies under the rule of law just the most pesky things?

The law says that people may not do this or that ... and the constitution (or equivalent: the society's concensus as it its guiding values and overriding rules) says that the state may not do the other thing.

The rest of us have encountered this little problem from time to time already -- when people are present in, say, Canada or France who are wanted in the US for serious crimes, and the US requests extradition.

Our problem is that we have abandoned the practice of killing people for crimes, while much of the US is still enthusiastically engaging in it. We regard it as a serious breach of someone's fundamental rights to ship them off to a place where they may be killed. What to do, what to do?

In France, the extradition of individuals who would then face the death penalty is prohibited by law. In Canada, it was recently prohibited by the Supreme Court of Canada, and likely would continue to be.

Well, at present, we have been successful in obtaining assurances from US prosecutors (like those "memoranda of understanding" that the UK says it intends to seek) that the death penalty will not be applied in the US in the event of a conviction. France got that assurance in the case of James Kopp, the murderer of Dr. Barnett Slepian. Canada got it in the case of two men extradited to Washington state to face trial on murder charges.

The problem comes when the assurances sought aren't worth the air they're spoken on. So far, we've all been able to rely on the US's assurances. Can the assurances of the countries to which the people in issue in the UK would be deported be relied on? Not likely.

Let's look at the risks inherent in executing these measures.

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was expelled from the US when he landed there in transit to Canada, and sent to Syria -- even though he was a Canadian citizen. He was imprisoned for two years, and tortured. There has never been any evidence produced to prove that the US had any grounds even for expelling him, let alone that Syria had any grounds for doing anything to him, let alone for torturing him. (Of course, the suspicion is that the torture was at the behest of the US ...)

This is similar to the risk of extraditing someone to the US to be tried on charges for which the death penalty applies. What if the person is actually innocent? *That* was the actual basis on which the Supreme Court of Canada rejected extradition: that the guarantees of fairness in the US judicial system provided inadequate protection of the individual's right to life.

What if the UK expelled someone to a country where s/he faced torture and death -- and the case against the person in the UK was actually as bad as the case against some death row inmates in the US? What if innocent people were being shipped abroad to torture and death ... or even just imprisonment?

What's that business about one innocent person being convicted?

Apart altogether from what opinion one might hold about the entitlement of certain people to protection -- not that one's opinion trumps the international obligations voluntarily assumed by a country like the UK anyhow -- what about people who really don't "deserve" what happens to them when that protection is denied?

There are some situations in which the potential consequences of error are just so unjustifiably horrific that the error must be on the side of protection, whether it is "deserved" or not.

And sometimes the price of that protection -- which we all enjoy -- has to be be borne by the society that has agreed to provide it.

Canada or France may some day get stuck with a monster who has undoubtedly committed multiple murders in the US, because a US prosecutor with a political agenda won't undertake not to seek the death penalty. And the UK may get stuck with people trying to foment racist violence within its borders.

And some approach that balances the individual's rights and freedoms against the society's security interests will have to be found. It's all part of what our nature as human beings and civilizations makes it our job to do.

Nobody actually said it was ever or will ever be easy.

[JackieO]

11. I'm sure it's OK to "glorify" the mass murder of civilians

as long as you're rooting for the right team.

[jasmeel]

13. Britain sets out grounds for banning hate preachers

Maybe we should do this and apply it to Robertson?? No, I guess it's only Muslims.:eyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/wl_nm/security_britain_dc_8;_ylt=Akn_Toz2NkRO0t0LKETBxXq9Q5gv;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain published guidelines on Wednesday for barring foreigners the government believes inspire terrorism, as part of a broad crackdown on Islamist preachers after last month's deadly bombings in London.


In a move that sparked sharp criticism from civil rights groups, the government released a list of unacceptable activities which would trigger deportation or an entry ban.

"The terrorist threat facing the UK remains real and significant and it is right that the government and law enforcement agencies do everything possible to counter it," said Interior Minister Charles Clarke.

"That includes tackling those who seek to foster hatred or promote terrorism, sending a strong message that they are not welcome in the UK."

[acmavm]

14. So, does this mean Pat Robertson (all things being equal of course) is

not welcome in the United Kingdom?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

18. One would hope so. n/t

Unfortunately, he'd just get deported back to the US again. Send him to Gitmo, I say!

[endarkenment]

30. One would hope not.

Freedom of speech is not limited to those whose speech we find acceptable.

[PunkPop]

15. Is that a new band?

[pauldavid]

16. now I know why GSAVE didn't fly

Because a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism might include christians and white people. Only brown people and Muslims are terra-ists, right? :eyes:

I am against deportation of "foreigners the government believes inspire terrorism" because it is a racist policy. Now, if they use it to deport people like roberson, it might be ok, until they say liberals, and environmentalist, etc inspire terrorism and start deporting them too. Policies like this sound good in the heat of the moment, but often lead a dark path.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Ok, you're against it...

What do you suggest we DO about it, then?

[pauldavid]

24. Stop killing poor brown people.

On a grand scale, stop supporting people who oppress poor brown people. On the small scale, if people are in the country and breaking the law, prosecute them under the law. Simple really. The problem is one of definition. What is a terrorist? There is no strict legal definition so anyone one could be put under such an umbrella. Mostly brown people and islamics. If we had a strict definition of a terrorist, people like Robertson, and abortion clinic bombers would be prosecuted under terrorism laws. We have laws against murder and threatening murder. If you do either, you should go to jail. That is a simple, non racist way to deal with the problem. It applies to citizens and non citizens as well as people of all colors.

With regard to my first point though, until we stop using our military to kill the week and poor, the week and poor are going to use the only means they have, terrorism, against us. We say they are evil, which they are, to kill Innocent people. The problem is that we overlook our own evil. We kill far more Innocent people then terrorists do. Until we can stop our own evil, we can not stop the evil against us. And again, our evil tend to be racist. It's easy for us to kill, or over look the killing of brown people. But hard to overlook the killing of white people. We here barely a word about Darfur, or the civilians being killed in iraq, but hear so much about the people killed in Britain. </rant>

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

36. Hmm..

>On a grand scale, stop supporting people who oppress poor brown people.

Please. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire (or was) and all of the people who comitted the 9/11 attacks were middle class. Even if we did stop killing poor brown people, Osama would go right on killing poor brown people, but we're supposed to oppose that, and the only way you oppose Bin Laden is by cutting off his money or his head, which involves killing more brown people any way you look at it. Hell, we've killed *lots* of brown people in South America and none of them are blowing themselves up.

We have laws against murder and threatening murder. If you do either, you should go to jail. That is a simple, non racist way to deal with the problem. It applies to citizens and non citizens as well as people of all colors.

You're missing the point. The things for which you can be deported are already illegal for the same reason inciting a riot is illegal. The only difference is that they're being deported rather than jailed. Quite frankly, I'd rather see them jailed than go back to their home countires to continue preaching their lunacy.

What is a terrorist? There is no strict legal definition so anyone one could be put under such an umbrella.

No, that's silly. It specifically states you must be advocating "terrorist violence." I'd say that violence is pretty well legally defined, as is "advocating," and quite frankly, the definition of terrorism is as well, in the cases for which this new rule is intended.


With regard to my first point though, until we stop using our military to kill the week and poor, the week and poor are going to use the only means they have, terrorism, against us.

Except, again, that it isn't the weak and poor doing it. I'd say there's a good case to be made that it's the strong and rich, especially when you consider the Saudi royal family and Pakistan's military ties to terrorism.

We say they are evil, which they are, to kill Innocent people. The problem is that we overlook our own evil. We kill far more Innocent people then terrorists do.

Oh, I don't know... They seem to be catching up quite rapidly in Iraq these days. This is what was so bad about the Iraq war. Bush really lost any sort of moral authority for the west. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that we can simply sit around and be blown to bits by, again, a rich loser and his wannabe army.

It's easy for us to kill, or over look the killing of brown people. But hard to overlook the killing of white people.

Oh, I don't know about that. We overlooked the killing in Yugoslavia for a hell of a long time before we did anything about it.

We here barely a word about Darfur, or the civilians being killed in iraq, but hear so much about the people killed in Britain.

Of course you don't hear much about Darfur. If you did, then people might start to realize that it's a genocide, and that we are legally bound to do something about it. Can't have that. As for civilians being killed in Iraq, I see a lot of coverage of that in the news, with every suicide bombing or whenever a trigger-happy American fires into a crowd of protesters. The only difference here is that they're actually trying to DO SOMETHING about the terrorist violence in the UK, meanwhile we're doing nothing about the terrorist violence in Iraq.

[pauldavid]

43. I really dont see any point in debating you.

>On a grand scale, stop supporting people who oppress poor brown people.

Please. Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire (or was) and all of the people who comitted the 9/11 attacks were middle class. <b> Not sure what your point or argument is here but... We didnt kill bin lauden, so I wasnt taling about him. AND THE USA DID support Bin Lauden in afganistan in the 80's. He is one of the people we should not support. As for middle class, if unemployeed is middle class...ok then</b>

We have laws against murder and threatening murder. If you do either, you should go to jail. That is a simple, non racist way to deal with the problem. It applies to citizens and non citizens as well as people of all colors.

You're missing the point. The things for which you can be deported are already illegal for the same reason inciting a riot is illegal.<b> thats the point. Adding ill defined laws about "terra-ists" is bad when we alreay have good laws</b> The only difference is that they're being deported rather than jailed. Quite frankly, I'd rather see them jailed than go back to their home countires to continue preaching their lunacy.<b>thats what I said. Put killers in jail, dont deport terrorist</b>

What is a terrorist? There is no strict legal definition so anyone one could be put under such an umbrella.

No, that's silly.<b>no, you are silly</b> It specifically states you must be advocating "terrorist violence." <b>its silly to define terrorism using the word terrorist</b>I'd say that violence is pretty well legally defined, as is "advocating," and quite frankly, the definition of terrorism is as well, in the cases for which this new rule is intended.<b>you fall under the definition of terrorism</b>


With regard to my first point though, until we stop using our military to kill the week and poor, the week and poor are going to use the only means they have, terrorism, against us.

Except, again, that it isn't the weak and poor doing it. <b>No, you are right, the USA does it too</b>I'd say there's a good case to be made that it's the strong and rich, especially when you consider the Saudi royal family and Pakistan's military ties to terrorism.<b> read above when I said we should not support the people who opress the poor brown people and reaplace "the people" with "the Saudi's" That is one of the people we should not support. It isnt the Rich Saudi's blowing themselvs up. They have the poor to do it for them. and who in there right mind would call Pakistan rich? but the main point here is we should not support the religiouse, or militarty dictators that opress brown people...aka Saudi kings or pakistani military dictatorships</b>

We say they are evil, which they are, to kill Innocent people. The problem is that we overlook our own evil. We kill far more Innocent people then terrorists do.

Oh, I don't know... They seem to be catching up quite rapidly in Iraq these days.<b> we killed more 40,000-100,000 iraqis, them?... less then 2000. they have a LONG WAY TO GO</b> This is what was so bad about the Iraq war. Bush really lost any sort of moral authority for the west. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that we can simply sit around and be blown to bits by, again, a rich loser and his wannabe army.<b>if we hadnt blown the iraqis to bits, we wouldnt have to worry about them blowing us up, now would we? and if we had used my long range rule of not supporting people who opress brown people(aka Sadam in the 80's) we would not be fighting there, and woring that they are going to bomb us back</b>

It's easy for us to kill, or over look the killing of brown people. But hard to overlook the killing of white people.

Oh, I don't know about that. We overlooked the killing in Yugoslavia for a hell of a long time before we did anything about it.<b>Ummm...we did something about it rignt? thanks for consideening my point. we did not over look it and it was in the news EVER DAY until we did something about it</b>

We here barely a word about Darfur, or the civilians being killed in iraq, but hear so much about the people killed in Britain.

Of course you don't hear much about Darfur. If you did, then people might start to realize that it's a genocide, and that we are legally bound to do something about it.<b> cuz they is poor and brown and us racicst americans dont give a shit about them</b> Can't have that. As for civilians being killed in Iraq, I see a lot of coverage of that in the news, with every suicide bombing or whenever a trigger-happy American fires into a crowd of protesters.<b>On line. 23 civilians killed with NO DISCUSSION, yet we talk all the time about what to do in london. More civian die in iraq every day then did in london. How many intervies have you seen with londoners about the effect on them compared to Iraq's? 100 white british people to 1 brown iraqi?</b> The only difference here is that they're actually trying to DO SOMETHING about the terrorist violence in the UK,<b>like publicly executing brown people on the subway</b> meanwhile we're doing nothing about the terrorist violence in Iraq.<b>sure we are. We are creating generations of terroritst over there by blowing up poor defensless brown people.</b>

<b> Sorry about all the spelling errors, but I dont have time to continue messing with this</b>

[iverglas]

51. citizenship is not necessarily a proxy for race

On the small scale, if people are in the country and breaking the law, prosecute them under the law.

Citizenship is an important organizing principle both within societies and among states. Citizenship implies an individual's entitlement to the state's protection, and the state's duty to protect the individual.

States have duties to non-citizens -- not to harm them or otherwise violate their fundamental/human rights -- but not a duty to protect them vis-à-vis the rest of the world, unless those fundamental/human rights are in issue. The right to live in a country of which one is not a citizen is not a fundamental right, at least not unless being refused entry or expelled would result in a violation of such a right.

It is an individual's choice, when admitted for residence in a country of which s/he is not a citizen, to acquire that country's citizenship or not. (In modern states, that is, which allow citizenship by naturalization.)

If an individual who is residing in a country and qualifies for its citizenship chooses not to acquire it, that is the individual's choice. The individual simply cannot then claim the same protection by the state as a citizen can.

Individuals may have all sorts of reasons for not acquiring the citizenship of their country of residence, ranging from the sentimental to the purely venal. Whatever: it's still their choice.

Some individuals, while lawfully resident in a country, may not qualify for citizenship -- because they have not acquired sufficient knowledge of the country to pass a test, for instance. While there should be exceptions for people who are not capable of meeting those requirements (the very old, the intellectually disabled), there is no reason why anyone who wanted to acquire citizenship should not be required to pass it.

So if a non-citizen-by-choice breaks the law in his/her country of residence, should s/he be entitled to the same protection as a citizen -- to the protection against being expelled? Basically, I'd ask: why? A society has enough problems, usually, dealing with people who cause problems but can't be got rid of. If someone from Belgium who had resided in the US with a green card for ten years started robbing banks, would you think it racist to attempt to deport him/her?

Yes, there is an issue as to the standard that should have to be met for deportation of a legal non-citizen resident. In Canada, it has historically been conviction for a serious criminal offence. The UK proposal doesn't seem to require a conviction for a defined offence. That standard may seem low. There will still be procedural guarantees available, the opportunity to make full answer and defence to the allegations, I would assume.

It might well be arguable that it is inappropriate to deport someone without all of the guarantees that a criminal trial affords -- but in ordinary circumstances, say if someone were being deported from the UK to a European or North American country where s/he had citizenship -- this would as arguably not be necessary, since no punishment would be being imposed by the state.

The issue arises when the deportation is to be to a country where there plainly are no safeguards against mistreatment, and mistreatment could plainly be expected.

That is where I do submit that deportation should not be carried out, because to do so would be a violation of the individual's right, not as a citizen, but as a human being, not to be subjected to mistreatment as the indirect but very real and foreseeable effect of the state's action.

But where there is no such consideration, there just isn't a good argument against deportation. A society really is entitled to decide who gets enter and remain in its territory, and to set criteria that must be met by someone who wishes to enjoy the benefits of residence in it.

[pauldavid]

52. You missed my point

Just making up bad laws does not protect a nation from violence.

I don't have a problem with a nation that wants to deport people. My guess is, there are already laws on the books that say if you are violent or advocate violence, and are not a citizen, you should go to jail or be deported. Either one is fine by me. BUT!..., Deporting people because they advocate terrorism in unnecessary. There are already laws against violence. Why make laws against "terrorist violence" when they are often only applied to people of a minority race or religion and CAN be used absurdly (like against Tony Blair or environmentalist) because they are so ill defined. In the US, we us tax evasion or mail fraud to prosecute the Mob. You can use what we have. There is no need to make laws that say the punishment for Mob Murder is x, because there is already a law that says the punishment for all murder is x. Making a law that says you will go to jail or be deported for mob behavior, and then use it at first against only Italians, then use it a reason to arrest any Italian, then use it to arrest anyone you don't like in a group... well, then you have a bad law.

[iverglas]

58. unfortunately, most of that just isn't so

And much of it would be worse than what is being proposed.

My guess is, there are already laws on the books that say if you are violent or advocate violence, and are not a citizen, you should go to jail or be deported.

Well actually, there evidently are not.

First, no country that respects human rights and the rule of law can treat citizens and non-citizens differently when it comes to applying punishments for behaviour. Such a country cannot put a non-citizen in prison for doing things that would not be an offence if committed by a citizen. That's fundamental to the rule of law: the law has no regard for persons, all are equal under the law, and so on.

And the status of non-citizen lawful resident does carry rights with it as well, the basic one being the right of non-removal unless one has done something to lose entitlement to remain. That's what this is all about, after all. Certainly, a country could abolish the entire concept of lawful permanent residence, and just make foreigners' right of residence revocable on a whim. That wouldn't fit well with modern notions of rights either.

"Being violent" is not an offence; assault is, robbery is, homicide is. "Advocating violence" is not an offence; counselling the commission of a crime, where the crime is carried out, commonly is.

The problem of hate speech is that it does not fit nicely within those parameters. It may not directly counsel the commission of an offence. But its effect on a society may in fact be worse.

Why make laws against "terrorist violence" when they are often only applied to people of a minority race or religion and CAN be used absurdly (like against Tony Blair or environmentalist) because they are so ill defined.

The stated need for the law arises precisely because there is no other law that covers the situation, it would seem. If deportation could be effected based on some other law, would it not seem reasonable that the UK govt would just be doing it, rather than stirring up this hornet's nest?

The fact is indeed that non-citizen residents of places like the UK (and the US, and Canada, and most of Europe) tend not to be of European origin. But there are all sorts of non-European non-citizen residents in all those countries who would not be affected in any way by this proposal. (I will not disagree that some people might be, or feel, targeted for the application of the law based on race or religion, but that does not invalidate the law itself any more than racial profiling by police in the US invalidates laws against car theft.)

The proposal simply is not based on race or religion. It is based on behaviour. And the behaviour in question is not being defined on the basis of some racial or religious characteristic.


There is no need to make laws that say the punishment for Mob Murder is x, because there is already a law that says the punishment for all murder is x.

That is really an entire and very different issue. The use of special sentencing measures for particular subsets of criminal offences is generally designed as a deterrent measure -- an effort to prevent people from committing the offences, based on the notion that such offenders are less impulsive and more amenable to deterrence than your average criminal -- and that has nothing to do with the proposal here.

Making a law that says you will go to jail or be deported for mob behavior, and then use it at first against only Italians, then use it a reason to arrest any Italian, then use it to arrest anyone you don't like in a group... well, then you have a bad law.

No, actually, what you have is bad law enforcement, presumably because of a bad government. The law might be bad for some reason, but how it is enforced is not necessarily evidence of its goodness or badness.

There may be reason to suspect that the proposed UK law will be enforced badly, but even if it happens, it is not a sufficient proof of the badness of the law itself.

[pauldavid]

66. Clearly

I am no lawyer, an you have a legal back ground. So I can get as deep as you in this kind of a furum but I will address one point.

"The stated need for the law arises precisely because there is no other law that covers the situation, it would seem. If deportation could be effected based on some other law, would it not seem reasonable that the UK govt would just be doing it, rather than stirring up this hornet's nest?"

So, if I, a US citizen, go to london, and kill some one... they cant put me in jail or deprot me? Bullshit. There are "law that covers the situation" If you mean there are no laws that say "You cant tell people to commit viloent crimes.... them make one. Simple. You dont need to make a law that Islamics can tell muslims to be violent... or people can tell people to scare people by hurting people... just say, you can tell people to kill people.

[iverglas]

78. yes, I'm at an advantage

But I try to use it to clarify and inform. Quite seriously.

So, if I, a US citizen, go to london, and kill some one... they cant put me in jail or deprot me? Bullshit.

Well, yes, bullshit. But then this law isn't directed to people who kill people, so mainly, it's irrelevant. And when you say

There are "law that covers the situation"

you are apparently aren't referring to the situation that the proposed laws in question do cover.

If you mean there are no laws that say "You cant tell people to commit viloent crimes.... them make one.

Well, I've noticed in searches that I've done that there don't seem to be such laws on the books in the US. Even the Canadian law on the point only says:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec22.html

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence <e.g. commits the crime>, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled. ...

It's only a crime to counsel an offence if someone actually carries out the offence. I would infer that it was regarded as too intrusive on freedom of speech to broaden this to provide that anyone who counsels the commission of an offence, period, is guilty of a crime.

So what you're proposing actually seems to be *more* intrusive on freedom of speech than what the Blair govt is proposing.

You're apparently doing that out of a concern that no group be unfairly targeted -- and that's laudable, and if that were what was happening, I'd be right behind you.

But what you say (I assume you typed "can" when you meant to type "can't", which is okay, I got the idea):

You dont need to make a law that Islamics can tell muslims to be violent... or people can tell people to scare people by hurting people... just say, you can tell people to kill people.

you're beating on a straw person. The proposal *doesn't* say that Islamics can't tell Muslims to be violent. It says that no one may tell anyone else to commit terrorist violence.

If this were happening in the US, it would look like a possible useful tool against abortion clinic bombing / doctor murdering advocates.

It is not an inherent characteristic of Muslims to engage in or advocate terrorist violence, and it isn't an inherent characteristic of Islam to approve of terrorist violence. The law just isn't framed in racist or religion-based terms.

Again, I would certainly be wary of it being applied that way -- but then, the mere fact that it was applied only against Muslims would *not* be proof that even the application of it was racist, since it could equally well be that only Muslims were advocating terrorist violence.

As to whether the law would be applied to Blair when he advocates actions in Iraq that result in the deaths of innocent non-combattants ... well, he's a citizen.

But I do find that objection to the law -- that it won't be used against anyone who advocates actions in line with British govt policy -- to be disingenuous too. Can nothing be done, if the person or organization that would do it is not perfect and his/her soul unblemished? Does the fact that Blair's actions are problematic mean that the actions of inciters of terrorism within the UK aren't?

US state governments kill people ... and no one seems to use that fact as an argument against state laws prohibiting homicide. In fact, I haven't even noticed anyone suggesting that ex-Gov. Bush, for instance, be brought up on charges of conspiring to commit homicide ...

[pauldavid]

81. The meat of the matter

you say "The law just isn't framed in racist or religion-based terms." But I say terrorist IS...if it wasn't, then yes, anyone from abortion bombing advocates to political advisor's would be considered terrorist under the law. But we all know that isn't the case, because we all know that terrorists are muslim. The problem is that the difference between a terrorist act an similar non terrorist act is that a terrorist is THEM and non terrorist is US and US vs them is this case is either based on race or riligion... but I don't think you will see it that way. They problem is that right now, it the us, the conservative talking heads are now yelling they THEY are terrorist for saying war with is a bad idea. It will happen in England too. Give it some time. All I am saying is that England can use the good laws, I am sure they have to deal with the problem rather then rushing to make broad, ill defined laws that will be used in a racist manner now, an latter be used for non intended purposes. As you said, that may be a problem of law enforcement, but I say the problem is they are not enforcing the laws they have now well.

[Wabbajack]

20. Robertson isn't a foreign national

But if he moved to the UK I think they could deport him under this law.

[iverglas]

21. something that it's important to note

The major source of objection to this proposal in the UK is not to the grounds for exclusion from the country per se -- it is to the proposal to deport people to countries that are recognized serious human rights violators.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1748672,00.html

... a senior United Nations official warned that his plans to deport foreign extremists breached international human rights obligations.

... Mr Clarke said that the measures were necessary to counter the "real and significant" terrorist threat facing the UK after the London suicide bombings on July 7.

But the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, accused the Government of trying to circumvent its duty not to deport people to countries where they could face torture or abuse.

He urged ministers to drop plans to seek memorandums of understanding with a number of North African and Middle East states that individuals returned to those countries would not be tortured. Such diplomatic assurances were not an "appropriate tool" to eradicate the risk of abuse in countries where torture was known to take place, he said.

Further clashes are likely, with lawyers warning that the Government will face a protracted legal battle through courts if it tries to deport people to countries where there is considered to be a risk of torture.

These are the fine points of human rights law that are subjects of contention in societies where individual rights *are* valued.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

22. I suggest we deport them to Afghanistan.

If they're so hell-bent on being violent, they can go join up with the Taliban, live in caves, survive on rats. See how they like roughing it for a while. Might change their minds.

[lockdown]

27. Yeah, now there's a good long-term fix for terrorism

:sarcasm:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. No, remember - it's Bush's policy.

Fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.


:)

[bpilgrim]

101. would my website get me deported? ---------- ---------- > LINK

http://media.GlobalFreePress.com

:shrug:

any lawyers in the house?

peace

[iverglas]

104. ex-lawyer, currently quite expert in statutory interpretation ...

... and constitutional law, and human rights law ...

and not having the time to spare to figger out what you might think (or fear) there might be on that site that would get you deported from the UK if you were there. Gotta get back to finishing up the job of constitutional law / statutory interpretation that's due today ...

Anything in particular in mind? Or were you maybe offering an example of a political website of the oppositional variety that wouldn't get anybody deported from anywhere we have in mind?

[bpilgrim]

106. check out my section on iraq --------- --------- > LINK

http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/index.php?cat=2

& most viewed...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=topn&cat=0

& top rated images...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=toprated&cat=0

for a quick overview.

tia :toast:

peace

[iverglas]

107. still not gittin it

... although I have a suspicion I was all along. Drier humour than mine own is rare, but possible. ;)

I see pictures, but I don't see any with captions indicating that anyone in them is saying, oh, "it is time to burn the schools where the children of the imperialist constituents of the members of Tony Blair's cabinet study to carry on the oppression of the peoples of the Middle East" ... or even "it is time to burn the schools where the children of the freedom-loving people of Palestine study to carry on the struggle for self-determination" ... or anything you've said to indicate approval of such.

I trust you're not too worried?

If I only knew what "tia" meant, I'd know whether to say "back at ya" ...

Good gallery, by the way.

[bpilgrim]

114. ic

tia = Thanks in advance

glad you like the gallery, pass the word ;->

:hi:

peace

[Megahurtz]

38. Think they wrote this one for

good 'ol Pat?:eyes:

[MisterP]

45. aw man, it looks like "V for Vendetta" is gonna be delayed for some re-

writing

[pauldavid]

50. "terrorist violence" is redundant

isn't all violence terrifying? How about we stick to laws agains violence

[Xithras]

64. Because you can have nonviolent terrorism.

Legally, threatening terrorist acts has traditionally held the same weight as actually committing them. If you called an airline and shut them down by claiming that 20 jets had bombs on them, you'd be a terrorist committing a terrorist act, even though you technically hadn't done anything "violent".

[pauldavid]

69. In the Original Post

It said.. Terrorist violence

Cannot foment, justify, glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs


that is redundat and the same as saying...

violence

Cannot foment, justify, glorify violence in furtherance of particular beliefs

Simple.

[reformedrepub]

97. Welcome to 1984

Now the rest of the world, will see what the Catholics in Northern Ireland have been putting up with for 30 years plus.....

[Lori Price CLG]

108. Bush and Blair have carried out more acts of terrorism in Iraq than...

al-CIAduh has executed, including the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Lori Price

[iverglas]

111. and I do bet that this is the Last Word

Don't bother to engage in the discussion -- but if you ever feel like it, feel free to become informed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1724060&mesg_id=1729877