15 Aug 07
Can the army of a sovereign nation (no matter what its foreign policies) be labelled as a terrorist group? My impression was always that while a state could sponsor a terrorist organisation, its own army, by definition, could not be a terrorist organisation in and of itself.
Apparently some would disagree...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0815/iran.html?rss
What are peoples thoughts?
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonGood question. Is it true that Iran's Revolutionary Guard is separate from the actual army of Iran? I am a bit confused on it because of the different names used, but I think it is part of, or is, the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution.
Can the army of a sovereign nation (no matter what its foreign policies) be labelled as a terrorist group? My impression was always that while a state could sponsor a terrorist organisation, its own army, by definition, could not be a terrorist organisation in and of itself.
Apparently some would disagree...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0815/iran.html?rss
What are peoples thoughts?
I think that finding this out may make a difference on how people look at what their goal/job is. Whether this has any bearing on if we call them terrorist or not... I don't know.
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution
edit:extra post
They seem to be a parallel force, kind of like a reserve that isn't held in reserve if you get my meaning. Nonetheless, given that they are an official instrument of a sovereign states government, labelling them as terrorist I would see is something that devalues the word.
If they are indeed causing as much trouble as is claimed, and to be honest, that's probably quite likely, I don't think that redefining the meaning of terrorist is a good way of dealing with it.
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonThe main idea is to label them as such so monies can be withheld. How else could you have a negative effect on them without actual combat? That is, if something needs to be done to stop them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Guardians_of_the_Islamic_Revolution
They seem to be a parallel force, kind of like a reserve that isn't held in reserve if you get my meaning. Nonetheless, given that they are an official instrument of a sovereign states government, labelling them as terrorist I would see is something that devalues the word.
If th ...[text shortened]... ely, I don't think that redefining the meaning of terrorist is a good way of dealing with it.
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisI understand that bit, and fair enough if you want to do something about their funding, but it's perfectly acceptable to seize any assets you can in the name of aggressive economic sanctions. Normally all we hear about is not letting tampons be imported into Iraq (pre-war), but economic sanctions, provided a case can be made that the legislature (In Americas case, Congress) agree with that such actions are necessary is enough. Maybe you won't get international support for it, but given that the same measures can still be legally taken (boycotts and imbargoes are legal). Granted they are a blunt instrument, but there's nothing to stop passing legislation to allow targetted aggressive sanctions against a particular instrument of a particular state. My only gripe is the twisting of the word terrorist. It sets a bad precedent.
The main idea is to label them as such so monies can be withheld. How else could you have a negative effect on them without actual combat? That is, if something needs to be done to stop them.
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonAre you thinking this because the actions do not fit or that state owned terrorism is not possible? How would, for argument's sake, an army engaging in terrorist activities be labeled?
My only gripe is the twisting of the word terrorist. It sets a bad precedent.
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by lepomisIf it is an official state body, and it is possible to demonstrate that they are performing acts of violence against civilians, with intent, then they can be charged with human rights abuses and/or war crimes in the International Court, or held to international account in the case of America who I believe didn't sign up to the international court.
Are you thinking this because the actions do not fit or that state owned terrorism is not possible? How would, for argument's sake, an army engaging in terrorist activities be labeled?
By labelling an official state organisation as a terrorist group, it devalues the term. That may seem like nitpicking, but the fact of the matter is that if we label a state organisation as a terrorist group, where does it stop? Diplomatic immunity is threatened. Here's a scenario, as is implicit in the term, diplomats do state service, it is not unlikely that there are several Iranian ambassadors around the world who have economic ties of some kind with this state body. By labelling it a terrorist organisation, when these career diplomats have done nothing wrong in law, their assets get frozen and diplomatic communications with Iran become even more strained, if possible at all. That means that one could find themselves unable to communicate in an official capacity except through force even though other options may be available.
I know for a fact that armies can engage in terrorist activities, but we've had laws for that for the best part of a century, if they're not good enough, amend them.
To break it down:
State sanctioned terror in an official capacity? = Human rights legislation, which we have.
Unofficial terrorist group doing the exact same thing? = Use anti-terrorism legislation.
If one doesn't suit, don't try to redefine the word, amend the law.
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by agrysonI like what you have written and I may agree with you. By the way, what definition for terrorism/terrorist are you using?
If it is an official state body, and it is possible to demonstrate that they are performing acts of violence against civilians, with intent, then they can be charged with human rights abuses and/or war crimes in the International Court, or held to international account in the case of America who I believe didn't sign up to the international court.
By label ...[text shortened]... rorism legislation.
If one doesn't suit, don't try to redefine the word, amend the law.
15 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lepomisThank you.
I like what you have written and I may agree with you. By the way, what definition for terrorism/terrorist are you using?
My definition is (personal, not from a dictionary, though I think it gets the gist)
A terrorist group is any group of individuals who use physical and/or psychological violence against civilians in order to achieve some goal deemed important by that group of individuals.
A terrorist is simply a willing member of said group.
Note that I keep it broader than most dictionaries by avoiding using the term 'political goals', I don't think terrorists restrict themselves to political aims, there's religious and ideological aims as well as simply criminal ones such as the provisionals in Northern Ireland being nothing more than drug dealers nowadays.
Note that it is possible in this definition for a state to perform terrorist actions, but for the reasons in my previous post, we should apply the legislation already in place given that there is such legislation designed specifically for when a state uses violence with intent against civilians.
It's for this reason that no matter how much some people like the play on words of Iraq being a "war of terror" it is not, because civilians are not the targets. (Yes, we may be able to do more to prevent civilian casualties, but that is not the same as causing them) Hence, while one may believe that America is wrong to be in Iraq, they clearly cannot claim that America is using terror because they are not targetting civilians with intent.
There's a subtle but important difference between causing terror inadvertently and meaning to cause terror to further ones aims.
Edit: Spelling error
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't know, dictionaries, particularly online ones differ in some respects, and I'm not a lawyer so i don't know the legal definition, but I'd say even it has several definitions depending on the jurisdiction.
There should be a clear legal definition of terrorist somewhere. Is there?
15 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonThe definition should have been written into the treaty or law that referred to "terrorism". That's how scientists do things. It makes things much less ambiguous and easily shuts down stupid arguments about whether some group is really a terrorist group.
I don't know, dictionaries, particularly online ones differ in some respects, and I'm not a lawyer so i don't know the legal definition, but I'd say even it has several definitions depending on the jurisdiction.
15 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, from what I know of the law, it's interpretation is based on the judiciary branch, which can change with circumstances. For the purposes of this thread though, I'm using the definition I gave a post or two above, I think it covers all the bases. If it doesn't suit we can amend it of course.
The definition should have been written into the treaty or law that referred to "terrorism". That's how scientists do things.