Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot really. My buddy shav would still insist that Washington was the original terrorist.
The 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.
Fact rarely gets in the way of a persons beliefs.
Originally posted by agrysonI think an arguement could be made. Now, if the Guard wasn't the group that controlled al-Quds, which exists almost solely to support terror, the case would be harder to make.
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?
Originally posted by MerkI posted this:
Doesn't have anything to do with it. He's just an example, the average policy maker isn't much different in their treatment of facts.
The 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.
You responded with this:
Not really. My buddy shav would still insist that Washington was the original terrorist.
Fact rarely gets in the way of a persons beliefs.
You don't see why treaties and laws are relevant? Try reading it again two or three times.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect. I think that a lot of policy makers disregard laws and treaties on a regular basis. Your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking, infortunately.
I posted this:
[b]The 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.
You responded with this:
[i]Not really. My buddy shav would still i ...[text shortened]...
You don't see why treaties and laws are relevant? Try reading it again two or three times.[/b]
Originally posted by MerkIt's certainly true that these treaties and laws aren't defining terrorist precisely, and it's also true that treaties and laws often get broken. However it doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch to think we could start defining our legal terms better in the future.
Correct. I think that a lot of policy makers disregard laws and treaties on a regular basis. Your claim is nothing more than wishful thinking, infortunately.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTo say the least, it would be difficult to assign a a strict legal definition to a word like terrorist. And even if we did, it would likely hamstring us and restrict our abilities to take these kinds of action.
It's certainly true that these treaties and laws aren't defining terrorist precisely, and it's also true that treaties and laws often get broken. However it doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch to think we could start defining our legal terms better in the future.
While your desire to simplify is well meaning, in application, it would be a detriment.
Originally posted by MerkI dunno, I think it wouldn't limit our abilities if we came up with a legal definition. If we worked without a legal definition, there's a danger that a terrorist could challenge that definition and claim instead to be a freedom fighter or some such bull and get off the hook. By ensuring a clear (but appropriately broad) definition is in place, that can be prevented.
To say the least, it would be difficult to assign a a strict legal definition to a word like terrorist. And even if we did, it would likely hamstring us and restrict our abilities to take these kinds of action.
While your desire to simplify is well meaning, in application, it would be a detriment.
In this particular case though, I think that it should be sufficient to to claim human rights abuses and challenge them openly rather than risk going through a back door by skewing the meaning of the word terrorist. Also, by sticking to the war crimes or human rights legislation, you've got belts and breeches protection, you can challenge first ont he grounds of human rights and then go for the terrorist route if that fails, giving two options to deal with it. Though I maintain that it's important to do it in that order in the case of a state body.
Originally posted by MerkMy desire is to define the crime so we know whether a particular person is guilty or not. That's how we do all the other crimes...
To say the least, it would be difficult to assign a a strict legal definition to a word like terrorist. And even if we did, it would likely hamstring us and restrict our abilities to take these kinds of action.
While your desire to simplify is well meaning, in application, it would be a detriment.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, this is the definition I came up with on page 1, that's probably a good start and if we work on it in the next few posts til we're happy, we should be able get to the bones of the issue.
My desire is to define the crime so we know whether a particular person is guilty or not. That's how we do all the other crimes...
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.
Originally posted by agrysonThen the police are terrorists.
Well, this is the definition I came up with on page 1, that's probably a good start and if we work on it in the next few posts til we're happy, we should be able get to the bones of the issue.
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.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOk, then we can tweak it to something like...
Then the police are terrorists.
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, without domestic legislative approval.
A terrorist is simply a willing member of said group.
That way if a government body is terrorising their own people, they still come under human rights legislation.
2 edits
Originally posted by agrysonWhat if an army has domestic legislative approval in their country but not the other country?
Ok, then we can tweak it to something like...
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, without domestic legislative approval.
A terrorist is simply a willing member of said group.
That way if a government body is terrorising their own people, they still come under human rights legislation.
I'd probably call that terrorism. But then the US was terroristic in WWII.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn that case there already exists a body of law dealing with war, war crimes and human rights abuses. And my use of the word domestic is intended to limit it to within the borders of that legislature. For example, if the Iranian army thing was terrorising their own people, with domestic legislative approval, it would fall under human rights legislation, not anti-terrorism legislation.
What if an army has domestic legislative approval in their country but not the other country?
I'd probably call that terrorism. But then the US was terroristic in WWII.
Edit: But as soon as they started performing acts of brutality against civilians in other legislatures, they should be tried under human rights abuses and then terrorist legislation. In that order.