William Saletan over at Slate thinks there’s a distinction between terrorist attacks and casualties of war.
So why is this distinction even important?
…if we can’t tell the difference anymore—if we need lessons in the meaning of terrorism from the father of a suicide bomber—then it’s time to remind ourselves what we’re fighting for.
He points to the definition in American law,
According to the U.S. Code (Title 22, Chapter 38, Section 2656f), “the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” That’s the definition we apply to other countries when we designate them as state sponsors of terrorism.
So how do you apply this to the facts, or to incidents of violence? Saleton explains,
The Sept. 11 attacks, which used planes full of civilians to hit the World Trade Center, fit this definition. So did the attempt to blow up Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day. So did the Taliban’s 2008 bombing of a hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan.
The Afghan base bombing doesn’t fit the pattern. The CIA personnel who died in the attack were combatants. In interviews with multiple newspapers and wire services—for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here—U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed that the personnel at the Afghan base were closely engaged in selecting drone targets in Pakistan and orchestrating special-operations attacks on the Taliban-allied Haqqani network. In the Afghan theater, the CIA is becoming a paramilitary agency. It runs our drone war in Pakistan, and the Afghan base struck on Dec. 30 is “a targeting center for Predator strikes and other operations inside Pakistan.”
Good catch. I loathe the term terrorism myself.
Might not be such a catch.
It seems to me that the act in question may fit the definition of “terrorist activity” and that the Taliban would fit the definition of a “terrorist group” under s83.01 of the Criminal Code.
Marc is actually right, except the article above is discussing American law.
He is also right that the term is defined in Canada in 83.01. However, the Taliban is not mentioned on the current entities list.
Out of all of the conventions cited in the Code, I only see one that is relevant though, the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. The acts in question could violate Article 2 of the Act as they occurred within “a State or government facility” or what could be described as a “infrastructure facility.”
However, I’m not certain Canada would have jurisdiction under Article 2, especially where it’s a third-party (the U.S.) that is affected. The facilities mentioned in Article 2 are defined in Article 1(1),(2), and appear to be intended in to refer to the same State in which the offence occurred, i.e. Afghan facilities.
The U.S. might be able to further establish jurisdiction under Article 6(2)(b), but I still don’t know if military bases are what is intended here as the equivalence of “embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises.”
Finally, a far more controversial provision may vitiate any obligations under this convention given Article 19. Although the current operations there under ISAF are Security Council sanctioned, the actual invasion did not appear to comply with international law.
A much broader definition is provided under 83.01(1)(b), but that could include almost any act of war. It’s not my fault that it’s such a horribly written provision in the Code, but I don’t think we knew what we were doing at the time.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious….
Playing with words may make you feel smart and “book learned” however, the simply reality is this; When a TERRORIST carries out an attack…it is by definition a terrorist attack. Let’s remember, Islamic extremists don’t try and kill you because you are trying to kill them…..they try and kill you because you don’t think like them, or share their beliefs. That’s why the Taliban, and their sympathizers see nothing wrong with murdering women or children, or throwing acid in the faces of little girls.
I’m sorry Omar, but that’s reality. Attempting to understand the motives of these sub-human monsters through legal texts is simply a wasted effort.
“Playing with words,” as you put it, is the the implementation of the rule of law – ensuring that only those who are guilty of a crime are punished for it.
As for the rest of your comments, you do disservice to the Canadian Forces with your bigotry Mr. Lane. Dehumanization is always necessary step before abuses like torture and genocide.
I was pretty sure one of the moderates banned you from commenting already months ago. I’ll have to look into that again.
Well in fairness to Mr. Halifax he does have a point in that the article seems to conflate legal interpretation and general semantics. Just because something doesn’t meet the legal definition of something doesn’t mean that in common parlance we can’t use our own operational definitions. A common example would be that a lot of people probably feel that a person who commits a more culpable form of legal manslaughter is nonetheless a “murderer. The title of the article is “Stop crying ‘terrorism’ every time we are attacked” but then goes on to provide a legal reason why one shouldn’t. There is some sort of fallacy in that.
That said the legal definition in this case is pretty good as an operational definition as well… nor do I endorse any of the rest of Halifax’s ‘logic’. A ‘terrorist act’ is a terrorist act because of the nature, motivation, etc. of an act, not simply because it is committed by someone deemed to be a terrorist as Mr. Halifax suggests. Theoretically a ‘terrorist’ (i.e. a person who has commited some sort of terrorist act in the past) can commit an act, even an act of violence, that isn’t ‘terrorism’. The fact that he was a terrorist in the past does not make the new act ‘terrorism’. The application of the term ‘terrorism’ to attacks on military/quasi-military targets (as it commonly is in the context of Afghanistan) is a misuse of the term.
James – If those CIA agents were at home in Langley you might have a point, but as long as they are attached to and assisting an occupation force in a foreign country (whether you support the war in Afghanistan or not) it can’t be terrorism.