Posted on 08/12/2002 3:43:11 PM PDT by vannrox
By Jill Overton
The US Code defines terrorism as a crime that appears to be intended to (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.
None of the crimes committed by the 9/11 attackers fall within the "intent" definition of the US code. They were hijackers and mass murderers, but not terrorists.
George W Bush declared a war against terrorists. Under that guise, the US threatened the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with military action unless they surrendered Osama bin Laden. When the Taliban insisted on evidence supporting the US position that Bin Laden was the culprit behind the 9/11 hijackings and mass murders, the US offered none.
Instead, the US bombed Afghanistan, violating its own code. They attempted to intimidate and coerce the civilian population of Afghanistan, they attempted to influence policy of the Afghan government through coercion and intimidation, and they attempted to affect the conduct of the Afghan government by assassination and kidnapping.
In retribution for a criminal act, the US defiled its own code by terrorising Afghans on all three counts.
As Noam Chomsky has observed in his book 9/11, if Western powers ever abided by the US Code's definition of terrorism, it "would at once reveal that the US is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients".
The US Immigration and Nationality Act defines "terrorism" differently.
It has expanded the definition to include any unlawful act that involves "(I) The hijacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle)".
By this definition, the hijackers of 9/11 were certainly terrorists. However, the Immigration and Nationality Act is not in line with the US Code, as it excludes any consideration of the intent provision of the code. That consideration alone distinguishes a crime from its aim.
What would the 9/11 culprits be tried for if they still lived? Terrorism, hijacking and mass murder?
If they were tried for terrorism, their case would be thrown out of court unless their intent could be proven to fit within the definition in the US Code.
Nothing has been produced to suggest that the authorities have any evidence to support a prosecutor's argument about intent fitting the US Code.
On the other hand, item (V) of the Immigration and Nationality Act also defines terrorism as "The use of any (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain) with intent to endanger directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property".
By this definition, the US government is certainly guilty of terrorism. The use of chemical agents in the Vietnam war and the use of nuclear weapons in the Second World War qualify the US as terrorists under section (a).
Plenty of evidence exists to establish intent under the US Code's definition as well.
Without doubt, the US government is guilty of terrorism under section (b).
If America acts on its threats toward Iraq, that will certainly constitute an act of terrorism.
Under section (VI) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, terrorism is further defined as "A threat, attempt or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing".
Surely the threats made toward Iraq, the attempts to overthrow the government and the conspiracies with exiles to overthrow Saddam Hussein qualify America as a terrorist under all of its own definitions.
The US, however, is not satisfied with being a terrorist. It is actively engaged in eliciting other countries' support for its terrorist activities, in an effort to deceive itself into believing that it is above its own laws.
None of the crimes committed by the 9/11 attackers fall within the "intent" definition of the US code. They were hijackers and mass murderers, but not terrorists.
Huh?
The US Code defines terrorism as a crime that appears to be intended to (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population
Dear Sir:
I had never heard of the Gulf Daily News until today, when I was alerted to Jill Overton's piece. I realize Ms. Overton's words are her own, but you stand behind her in the sense that you chose to publish it.
Is it the explicit position of your magazine that Afghanistan was better off under the Taliban than it is currently under US-backed Karzai, despite regrettable civilian casualties?
I am a Christian, not a muslim, and I have no affection for sharia law as I understand it. Do the people at your publication prefer the previous Taliban government because they attempted to practice sharia law?
Overton quotes Noam Chomsky, who is well known to be a controversial fringe figure in the US. Otherwise the piece comes off as law school cafeteria blather, not a serious discussion of terrorism.
Perhaps it's true that the United States and the people in nations covered by the Gulf Daily News do not share many common points of view or interests. It's a pity that you choose to publish views that further that separation rather than foster understanding.
Sincerely,
===================================================
I realize this letter does not contain much red meat to entertain people at FR, but I wanted to send a message that they would actually read, rather than one they would just delete.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.