Abortion clinics have been bombed with people in them...not terrorism.
Labs conducting animal research burned...terrorism.
Lite-brites garner 140 hours and apologies.
Real fake bombs get...two weeks suspension.
Feds push terrorist label on arsonistsCreate a bogeyman and you can lock up anyone.
A federal judge was to hear arguments Tuesday on a motion by the government to add a so-called terrorism enhancement to their sentences. (Article)
Terrorism is designed through the use of violence to intimidate non-combatants into complying with ideological and/or political goals. It's not that I advocate the destruction of labs necessarily. It is that by confusing the two types of attackers is to not be prepared to defend against different types of attacks.
If we start thinking of a group like ALF as being a terrorist organization, we put ourselves at risk by misunderstanding actual terrorists. We also dilute the nastiness that is real terrorism. It also makes for bad analysis. Knowing that ALF does not want to commit acts of violence against people necessarily and is more interested in destroying apparatus instead, we can then assume that they would attack at night or on the weekend. A terrorist on the other hand, is interested in horrific carnage (not necessarily massive) therefore would be more inclined to attack during the week and during the day.
I'm not saying elements of radical groups might not eventually commit an act of terrorism. I'm not saying they're innocent; they've committed illegal guerrilla attacks against the corporate research community. I'm saying that they haven't yet comitted a terrorist act and it is to the detriment of the intelligence community, law enforcement, the courts, and most importantly our civil liberties if we allow this sloppy, opportunist use of the word terror for corporate/political agendas.
Hold everyone accountable for the proper use of the word.
No comments:
Post a Comment