We may all know that Najibullah Zazi is a suspected
al-Qaida terrorist, but the federal government doesn't
have a firm definition of what "terrorist" means.
(AP Photo/Elizabeth Williams)
Who is a terrorist? Just as important: How do we differentiate terrorists from freedom-fighters, mere criminals, outspoken political dissidents and soldiers, and keep the "war against terror" from poisoning everyday life? A recent report from a watchdog group suggests that federal agencies can't agree on just what defines a terrorist -- and that their confusion endangers civil liberties.
In Who is a Terrorist?, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University reports that, looking back over the last five-and-a-half years, "a comparison of all of the terrorism cases listed by three separate and independent agencies — the courts, the prosecutors and the [National Security Division (NSD) — an office in the Justice Department] — found that there were only 4% of the defendants in common."
The problem is that these different agencies use the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" to mean different things, so that overlap between their various lists can sometimes seem purely accidental. As a result, one-third of defendants who were charged in federal court for specific terrorism offenses were not categorized as having any connection to terrorism by prosecutors. Just as troubling, more than a quarter of people listed as terrorism defendants by the NSD were not ultimately classified as having anything to do with terrorism by the prosecutors in their cases.
Ultimately, federal prosecutors refuse to pursue two-thirds of the terrorism cases referred to them by investigative agencies. The minimal overlap between lists of terrorists, refusal of prosecutors to label defendants as terrorists and rejection by prosecutors of supposed terrorism cases suggests that large numbers of people are being improperly labeled as terrorists or potential terrorists at a time when federal officials can't even agree what it means to be a terrorist or to commit terrorism. People so labeled are subject to special scrutiny, restrictions on travel, and other impositions that are troubling in themselves when applied to people convicted of no crime, and are even worse when the arbitrary nature of such labeling is revealed.
As TRAC points out:
[W]hile the treatment of the comparatively small number of terrorism detainees held in Guantanamo has for many months been the central focus of an intense political debate between President Obama, former Vice President Dick Cheney, members of Congress, civil liberties organizations and others, the subject of the government's poorly focused and often inept handling of the far larger number of individuals drawn into the traditional criminal process or improperly listed on the government's watch list has received comparatively little attention.
In fact, the prosecution of "terrorism" cases with no connections to actual terrorists may be no accident. As TRAC reveals, U.S. attorneys were issued a directive just last year saying that federal terrorism cases "may have, but are not required to have, identifiable links to terrorist activity." NSD lists of suspected terrorists include people charged with fraud, drug offenses and violations of immigration statutes. These names make up 43% of the total.
Of course, anti-terrorism resources expended to track and prosecute non-terrorists are resources that aren't available for use against the real thing. The government's refusal to settle on a firm definition of what constitutes a terrorist may put us in danger from both the authorities and from the real terrorists.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
You might also enjoy these
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Comments
In my opinion, one who tries to hurt our country or our people is a terrorist, wether a systematic attack like king obahma is doing or a direct attack like "obahma" bin laden. LOLOLOLOLOLO, but its really not funny, especially when little old ladies with logical arguments are being called terrorist's when voicing their opinions.
A "terrorist" is someone who tries to cause fear through violent attacks (or threats of attack) against innocent non-governmental individuals, and then use that fear to attempt to force a change in government policy. Just like Bush, Obama, Pelosi, Osama, or anyone else who has ever done the same thing.
No attack on a government employee or facility is a "terrorist attack" no matter who orchestrates it, or how many innocents are killed. It is still *wrong* if non-governmental people are killed. "Collateral damage" is completely unacceptible and is never right, not even in defense of freedom. Surgical precision is necessary when responding to threats. Governments will always try to surround their most evil actors with innocent human shields.
"Surgical precision is necessary when responding to threats."
Spoken as a true armchair warrior.
Even with the most highly trained Special Operations units, using military force is like doing surgery with a chainsaw - if you can't accept that, don't exercise the military force option.
As for "terrorist," it's simply replaced RICO as the blanket label of choice for law enforcement.
Thank you, Kent. Whenever I am asked to define terrorism, I respond that it is the exercise of violence against powerless non-policymakers in order to force concessions from powerful policymakers. This is also your definition. Any other definition is self-serving statist bullpucky. Attempts targeted directly at policy makers aren't "terrorism," any more than rounding up hookers is "sexism."
You got it in one Henry.
From what I have seen the terrorists who want to kill us are not to be called terrorists but Americans who vehemently disagree with this administration ARE to be called terrorists.
And let's not forget that third-party supporters or pro-life folks are considered terrorists, too.
Good definations, And didn't even consult Janet Napolitano!
Kentsays and Henry seems to agree that "A "terrorist" is someone who tries to cause fear through violent attacks (or threats of attack) against innocent non-governmental individuals" So are we to assume that the 9/11 "attackersa' weren't after any "governmental individuals" when they flew into the Pentagon and what of the plane that didn't make it? Seems it was tasked to hit the White House. No "governmental individuals" there either I guess. You people are sad. Jay has it pretty much right. If you attack me and mine, including anyone any where in this country and you aren't wearing a uniform and fighting under the auspices of a recognized government, then guess what,you are a frickin' terrorist
Unfortunately, HadEnough, your definition would include the heroes of the American Revolution. It highlights the classic dilemma of "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
On the other hand, if you use the "innocent targets" standard, British Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris - "Bomber Harris" - would certainly qualify as a terrorist for his actions during World War II.
There's a reason generals like Abizaid, Petraeus and Odierno seldom used the word "terrorist" when talking about the insurgencies in Iraq - it only serves to narrow any possible conversations.
As someone who spent a fair amount of time in the low-intensity conflict/asymetrical warfare world, I would say that, yeah, by our own precedent, the Pentagon and White House were legitimate targets (and I lost a buddy at the Pentagon) - the Towers were not.
Either way, I have no qualms about hunting down the folks who did it.
HadEnough: The fallacy of your definition is apparent when you consider that it makes John Dillinger a terrorist, Jeffrey Dahmer a terrorist, John Wayne Gacy a terrorist, Stacey Koons a terrorist, John Wilkes Booth a terrorist, Sitting Bull a terrorist...
About the planes meant for the Pentagon and the White House, whatever point you think you have, you don't. The planes with political and military targets were not instruments of terrorism. You apparently think they were because you call the people in them "terrorists," but that's just a circular definition.
Indeed, it can be argued that the planes that hit the towers may not have been terrorist instruments either. According to some interpretations, their purpose was not to influence policy, but to paralyze American capitalism (the "terrorists" seemed to believe these towers were the financial nerve center of America). So they were as military a target as a dockyard or a factory in WWII.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!