Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is US A Terrorist State?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is US A Terrorist State?

    Following a discussion on a different thread, I thought a new thread might be better to explore this question.

    I'm concerned about the rule of international law in world affairs, and what the breaking of international law by the strongest states says to the weaker states.

    So, some questions that I'd like to explore:

    1) What is terrorism?

    2) Is the US guilty of terrorism?

    3) If so, what effect has it had on the rule of international law, and what could we do to put it right?

    What is Terrorism?

    Whilst most of us have a picture of terrorism in our heads, it's prudent to try and define terrorism, so we have something to work with. My own definition is a distilled version of other definitions:

    The unlawful use of force, or threat of force, to effect radical social, economic or political change
    It is prudent to look at other key definitions.

    The General Assembly resolution 49/60 adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism:

    Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.
    The European Union employs a definition of terrorism for legal/official purposes which is set out in Art. 1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism (2002). This provides that terrorist offences are certain criminal offences set out in a list comprised largely of serious offences against persons and property which;

    given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.
    U.S. Code of Federal Regulations:

    "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). "
    United States Department of Defense: the

    "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
    League of Nations Convention (1937):

    all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public.
    To name but a few. So, onto the next question.

    Is the US Guilty of Terrorism?

    In order for the US to be guilty of terrorism, they would have needed to have committed criminal acts matching some, all or fewer of the above definitions. So have they?

    It is interesting and instructive to look at the comments of Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and ambassador to Mauritania:

    In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us — this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group — they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says — one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.

    If we look at an uncontroversial example, Nicaragua vs The United States, heard at the International Court of Justice. The ICJ condemned the United States for what it called the "unlawful use of force". So here, we have a criminal act, as ajudged by one of the highest legal authorities n the world. It seems to meet the definitions above, so was the US guilty of international terrorism in this specific instance?

    If we take a more current, topical example, namely that of Iraq, will we reach the same outcome? To show this, the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq would need to be shown to be a war of aggression.

    Waging a war of aggression is a crime under customary international law and refers to any war waged not out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN.

    In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

    During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:
    To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
    Source


    So to demonstrate that the Anglo-American invasion was a war of aggression, we must assert or otherwise show that the war was 1 - not waged out of self defence, and 2 - Not sanctioned by the UN. Since it is clear that the Anglo-American invasion clearly satisfies both these counts, it would seem that yet again, the US was and is guilty of acts of international terrorism.

    These are just 2 instances. So onto the third question:

    What effect has it had on the rule of international law, and what could we do to put it right?

    There will undoubtedly be an effect stemming from US terrorist acts. But what will it be?

    Does it undermine our insistence that other nations observe international law? Iran for example. Does it drive other nations to want to arm themselves with a nuclear deterrent?

    What could we do to put it right? Remove the US veto in the Security Council? Put the likes of Bush and Blair on trial for war crimes? I really don't know the answer to this question.

    Comments welcome.
    Last edited by timhaughton; 19 Sep 07,, 12:46.

  • #2
    We have dealt with your allegations and have shown them to be without merit. You have insulted a uniform member and that is taken with a very bad view here. You have NOT even read your own links and you obviously have not passed 1st year statistics.

    You're now trolling by repeating failed arguments in another thread just to show that you are right and we are idiots for not falling all over you. Screw off.

    The legallity of the Iraq War has been debated to death here and the evidence has been brought forth from every corner. You're not the 1st to come out right about the US being guilty and frankly, your arguments are infantile when compared to the body of work WAB has done which you have not even bothered to search off.

    Comment


    • #3
      Last edited by Dreadnought; 19 Sep 07,, 14:02.
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
        We have dealt with your allegations and have shown them to be without merit. You have insulted a uniform member and that is taken with a very bad view here. You have NOT even read your own links and you obviously have not passed 1st year statistics.

        You're now trolling by repeating failed arguments in another thread just to show that you are right and we are idiots for not falling all over you. Screw off.

        The legallity of the Iraq War has been debated to death here and the evidence has been brought forth from every corner. You're not the 1st to come out right about the US being guilty and frankly, your arguments are infantile when compared to the body of work WAB has done which you have not even bothered to search off.
        Dam, sucks to be you
        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

        Comment


        • #5
          Someone banish this guy!

          US a terrorist state, what are you smokeing?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Danielk View Post
            Someone banish this guy!

            US a terrorist state, what are you smokeing?
            Danielk, be aware of Forum Guideline No 10;)

            Comment


            • #7
              Terrorism is the purposeful targeting of civilians. Not matter what you say, or what documents you bring up trying to prove your point, that will always stand. And that is what separates the US, UK, Israel, India, etc. is that these democratic countries do not do that. If civilians are hit, they apologize. That is the prime difference between the Western democracies and our enemies.
              In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
              The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

              Comment


              • #8
                ''the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government'''- U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

                Whooops. I'm sure Saddam Husseins gov. stepped down willingly and peacefully. So no of course the U.S. isn't a terrorist state according to it's own definition. How could it be? Don't you know the U.S. even saves kittens from starving?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Keyword there was "unlawful." What the US did to Iraq was a lot of legal trickery but it was lawful.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Defying U.N. resolutions? *cough* *cough* please . . . . . . . lets call things their name. If what you're diong is TECHNICALLY not terrorism . . . yeah. It's like I'm TECHNICALLY not targetting civilians, I just don't happen to care if they end up in the line of fire, and certainly won't stop when they do.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                      Defying U.N. resolutions? *cough* *cough* please . . . . . . .
                      Name one UNSCR that the US has defied.

                      Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                      lets call things their name. If what you're diong is TECHNICALLY not terrorism . . . yeah. It's like I'm TECHNICALLY not targetting civilians, I just don't happen to care if they end up in the line of fire, and certainly won't stop when they do.
                      I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ANYTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                        It's like I'm TECHNICALLY not targetting civilians, I just don't happen to care if they end up in the line of fire, and certainly won't stop when they do.
                        Not caring whether they end up in the line of fire, and still firing when they do end up in the line of fire, means you're targeting them through negligence.
                        In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
                        The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
                          Danielk, be aware of Forum Guideline No 10;)
                          What's that? WAB is a no smoking area?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Feanor View Post
                            Defying U.N. resolutions? *cough* *cough* please . . . . . . . lets call things their name. If what you're diong is TECHNICALLY not terrorism . . . yeah. It's like I'm TECHNICALLY not targetting civilians, I just don't happen to care if they end up in the line of fire, and certainly won't stop when they do.
                            You mean like poor old Saddam did for 12 years? ...and if what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is terrorism to you, then what Russia has done in Chechnya would make the U.S. look like amatures....
                            Last edited by smilingassassin; 19 Sep 07,, 19:10.
                            Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

                            -- Larry Elder

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by smilingassassin View Post
                              then what Russia has done in Chechnya would make the U.S. look like amatures....
                              how is that?? please explain, (you do know checnya is russia, and everything happening there is internal issue?)
                              "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X