4 ms·

Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? "Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear. Wikileaks releases

Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? "Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear. Wikileaks releases secret documents produced by the government of United States (et al). If Wikileaks is a terrorist organization, then secret documents produced by the government of the United States must cause fear. Is that really what King intends to say?

steveklabnik 16y ago
> Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? Absolutely; they represent a threat to his power, and so he'll use whatever tools he has at his disposal to disadvantage them in that fight. If they're a terrorist organization, it becomes illegal to give them monetary support, which they obviously need. It's much simpler than the definition of the word 'terrorist'.
mquander 16y ago
I disagree. "Terrorism" implies that a group is full of bad evil meanies who want to hurt America. I believe that is exactly what the honorable Rep. King wants to say about Wikileaks.
Rhapso 16y ago
The legal, societal, and political definition of Terrorism was changed around the same time as the patriot act was enacted. It now is used as a politically charged buzzword to assign to any group who practices guerilla warfare and the united states government does not like. Historically we tend to call them "Freedom Fighters" when we agree with them. Publicizing the secret actions of the government meets the above definition to said governments requirement.
roel_v 16y ago
Actually, no. What he says is, that one could qualify Wikileaks as a terrorist organization, if one were to take the definition of 'terrorist' from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Note that under this act various activities fall under 'terrorism', none of which requires 'causing fear'. For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear. So his point is that to put anyone on the terrorist watch list, that person needs to be qualified as a terrorist, obviously. But the term 'terrorist' doesn't have a fixed, unambiguous meaning; it can mean many things to many people in different context (ergo that phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'). So if one were to use the definition from the INA, which he is arguing is just a good a definition as any others, Wikileaks (or its members/representatives) would qualify and as such be put on the watch list, which would then cause a whole bunch of other things. Note also that this definition of terrorism far outdates the post-9/11 terrorism scare, so it can't be blamed out overzealous Homeland Security stuff or anything. So nice try, but no cigar.
- mishmash 16y ago
  > For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear. Pretty sure being on a plane while it's hijacked would be a fearful event.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    This is a side product of the actual act. The primary purpose isn't to cause fear, it's to get the money or prisoners or whatever. That as a side effect fear is generated is irrelevant.
    - mishmash 16y ago
      Interesting, but even if your goal lies elsewhere, why else would you choose to hijack a plane if it wasn't to at least present the appearance of some fatal outcome? And that's ignoring the very real secondary dangers to passengers that can occur during a hijacking. I think it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist.
      - roel_v 16y ago
        The reason is to get money, the means is to threaten people with death. Robbing a bank: the goal is to get the money, the robber uses the threat of violence or death to compel the employees to give him money. I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing; what I was saying that the GP defined terrorism as something that requires a motive of instilling fear; i.e. a goal of the acts that the terrorists is to make people afraid. That's one definition but the INA defines it differently, which is just another definition. If you define all acts of highjacking as terrorism, you explicitly do away with the requirement of fear. And for good reason, because otherwise one would have to start proving state of mind, which is a legal snake pit. But if you restrict yourself to people with the intention to cause fear to discern a terrorist, you can't call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist, because your definition requires a different criterion, namely the objective of the highjacking. To conclude, "it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist." is meaningless because it's said in a vacuum, without a definition of who is a terrorist. This whole discussion is about the distinction between to definitions, and that under one definition some people are terrorists and under another they aren't. (I'm not taking a position, I don't know and I don't care, definition problems are boring; the fact that the OP failed to recognize this nuance, and effectively turned his argument into a straw man, is what bothers me.)
tibbon 16y ago
I wonder what percentage of the founding of America was done through "terrorism".
- wmeredith 16y ago
  I'd say somewhere between 50 and 90% by the US government's "standards".
- Rhapso 16y ago
  none. Those were "Freedom Fighters" or "Guerilla warfare" only "bad" people are terrorists, and by definition the american government cannot be "bad"
DjDarkman 16y ago
> "Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear. It used to mean that, but now it's just a buzzword that refers to people who don't agree with you. It works like "racist": - you belong to an ethnic group - you go to a job interview - you get rejected - you will call the employers racist and blame your rejection on racism to blur that fact that it was your flaw In our context a terrorist is a person who does something that is embarrassing to the media or the government.

steveklabnik 16y ago

> Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification? Absolutely; they represent a threat to his power, and so he'll use whatever tools he has at his disposal to disadvantage them in that fight. If they're a terrorist organization, it becomes illegal to give them monetary support, which they obviously need. It's much simpler than the definition of the word 'terrorist'.

mquander 16y ago

I disagree. "Terrorism" implies that a group is full of bad evil meanies who want to hurt America. I believe that is exactly what the honorable Rep. King wants to say about Wikileaks.

Rhapso 16y ago

The legal, societal, and political definition of Terrorism was changed around the same time as the patriot act was enacted. It now is used as a politically charged buzzword to assign to any group who practices guerilla warfare and the united states government does not like. Historically we tend to call them "Freedom Fighters" when we agree with them. Publicizing the secret actions of the government meets the above definition to said governments requirement.

roel_v 16y ago

Actually, no. What he says is, that one could qualify Wikileaks as a terrorist organization, if one were to take the definition of 'terrorist' from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Note that under this act various activities fall under 'terrorism', none of which requires 'causing fear'. For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear. So his point is that to put anyone on the terrorist watch list, that person needs to be qualified as a terrorist, obviously. But the term 'terrorist' doesn't have a fixed, unambiguous meaning; it can mean many things to many people in different context (ergo that phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'). So if one were to use the definition from the INA, which he is arguing is just a good a definition as any others, Wikileaks (or its members/representatives) would qualify and as such be put on the watch list, which would then cause a whole bunch of other things. Note also that this definition of terrorism far outdates the post-9/11 terrorism scare, so it can't be blamed out overzealous Homeland Security stuff or anything. So nice try, but no cigar.

mishmash 16y ago
> For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear. Pretty sure being on a plane while it's hijacked would be a fearful event.
- roel_v 16y ago
  This is a side product of the actual act. The primary purpose isn't to cause fear, it's to get the money or prisoners or whatever. That as a side effect fear is generated is irrelevant.
  - mishmash 16y ago
    Interesting, but even if your goal lies elsewhere, why else would you choose to hijack a plane if it wasn't to at least present the appearance of some fatal outcome? And that's ignoring the very real secondary dangers to passengers that can occur during a hijacking. I think it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      The reason is to get money, the means is to threaten people with death. Robbing a bank: the goal is to get the money, the robber uses the threat of violence or death to compel the employees to give him money. I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing; what I was saying that the GP defined terrorism as something that requires a motive of instilling fear; i.e. a goal of the acts that the terrorists is to make people afraid. That's one definition but the INA defines it differently, which is just another definition. If you define all acts of highjacking as terrorism, you explicitly do away with the requirement of fear. And for good reason, because otherwise one would have to start proving state of mind, which is a legal snake pit. But if you restrict yourself to people with the intention to cause fear to discern a terrorist, you can't call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist, because your definition requires a different criterion, namely the objective of the highjacking. To conclude, "it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist." is meaningless because it's said in a vacuum, without a definition of who is a terrorist. This whole discussion is about the distinction between to definitions, and that under one definition some people are terrorists and under another they aren't. (I'm not taking a position, I don't know and I don't care, definition problems are boring; the fact that the OP failed to recognize this nuance, and effectively turned his argument into a straw man, is what bothers me.)

tibbon 16y ago

I wonder what percentage of the founding of America was done through "terrorism".

wmeredith 16y ago
I'd say somewhere between 50 and 90% by the US government's "standards".
Rhapso 16y ago
none. Those were "Freedom Fighters" or "Guerilla warfare" only "bad" people are terrorists, and by definition the american government cannot be "bad"

DjDarkman 16y ago

> "Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear. It used to mean that, but now it's just a buzzword that refers to people who don't agree with you. It works like "racist": - you belong to an ethnic group - you go to a job interview - you get rejected - you will call the employers racist and blame your rejection on racism to blur that fact that it was your flaw In our context a terrorist is a person who does something that is embarrassing to the media or the government.