TED Conversations

russell lester

Orchardist, Grange

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Terrorism a crime or an act of war?

In the current world we are engaged in a war against terrorism and those states we identify as supporting it. This is a shift from the traditional veiw of terrorism as a crime and its practitioners as criminals is this a good change? why? Why not?

+2
Share:
progress indicator

  • Same AsIs

    • 0
    Jan 7 2013: I have erased my comment...I believe the others have answered it better...

  • John Smith 30+

    • 0
    Jan 6 2013: "Terrorism a crime or an act of war?"

    There are limits when you try to apply artificial concepts universally. The difference between war and crime is not a logical one, it's one born out of convenience in a world where war was common.

    There is no logical answer to your question, but having to ask the question can sometimes be prevented, for example a deliberate attacks against civilians is a crime in both civilian and military law, so any deliberate terrorist attack on civilians is a crime. When it comes to attacks on armed forces there is no right answer and governments often try to have it both ways. Deliberate killings and indefinite detention are legal with enemy soldiers, but you have to set them free once a peace treaty is signed, putting people away for life on ideological grounds is legal with criminals, but you can't deliberately kill them or detain them without a trial. Governments tend to combine the parts before the "but"s and forget about the parts after them. It's possible that a new Geneva Convention will invent new rules for dealing with non-state armed forces but until that time it's a grey area.
  • thumb

    Daryl Roche

    • +2
    Jan 6 2013: The notion of waging a "civilized" war, a war with rules that both sides agree to follow is, well, ridiculous. In-spite of the psychological manipulations ascribed to defining and restricting violent political conflicts as war or terrorism, it's all war. There are no boundaries and never have been. Everyone and everything is a valid target in war if destroying that target is perceived as a tactical advantage worth the potential political repercussions. "Collateral Damage" is assumed and therefore deliberate. How does this differ from a so called act of "terrorism" against a civilian target?

    War is hell on earth, there is NOTHING glorious, noble, or civilized about it. And America is as guilty of using "terrorism" as Al-Qeda.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Jan 6 2013: A war on terror is one of the more stupid propositions of my lifetime. Terrorism is an idea. Wars against ideas don't work. They simply inspire ways to get around limits artificially imposed. They grow more terrorism (copycats).

    Terrorism has nothing to do with whether it is war or crime. It has to do with how terrified the terrorists are. (People who are at peace within themselves do not terrorize). It may be hard for you to see from your perspective, but the USA has become a major terrorist player. It's just that what we do to others is colored for you so that you don't see it for what it is. We use the full power and might of the state to terrorize, but we call it "national defense" even when it clearly is not.

    War itself is terrorism, but terrorism is not necessarily war.
    • thumb

      russell lester

      • 0
      Jan 6 2013: I like this but what is the distinction that sets terrorism apart from war? Is it some thing like the targeting? I would think that targeting of only or mainly hard targets military bases government buildings ect would be war while targeting soft targets would be terrorism.
      • thumb

        Gail . 50+

        • 0
        Jan 7 2013: Imagine for a moment that the US were attacked on our home soil & abroad. Only our military bases were attacked, but attacked none-the-less.

        Will the non-military citizens feel safe and secure and go about their day-to-day lives in peace as if nothing happened, or will they be terrified?

        If they will be terrified, then an act of war is terrorism.
        • thumb

          russell lester

          • 0
          Jan 8 2013: I think you are right and that all acts of terror should be proscribed. I have a neat book published in the early 1900's in the window between the first world war and the failure of the league of nations. "International Anarchy"

  • Barry Palmer 50+

    • +1
    Jan 6 2013: First, I will address your question as it was asked.

    The traditional concepts of crime and war were very different entities, each well defined with very different characteristics. Modern acts of terrorism do not fit into the traditional concepts. Modern terrorism is committed by multinational organizations with support networks that include states, corporations, charities and individuals. Our reaction to these organizations is labeled a war as a means of justifying the use of unrestrained violence with no oversight and no recourse to the courts. Traditionally, even war had rules, but we now find that following the traditional rules would make it impossible to accomplish our objectives. Governments largely ignore the old rules and justify this by claiming that they are not applicable to this new form of war.

    Is this change good or bad? Both. Good because it allows our governments to fight the bad guys where they live. Bad because it allows the governments to perpetrate violence with no regard for any legal rights, and no recourse other than the next election. The loss of legal rights applies to all citizens, not just the perpetrators. In the Constitution of the USA, section nine specifically provides for the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

    So basically the governments are conducting a war without rules while claiming that the terrorists are committing crimes. An act of war can also be a crime.
    • thumb

      russell lester

      • 0
      Jan 6 2013: This is a very coherent and well written piece. The evolution of the crime from that of non national organizations to larger networks of international and quasi national entities, is a valid explanation for the elevation of this crime to war. I still feel that calling this campaign a war is an insult to soldiers.

      However even with the legitimacy of the suspension of habeas corpus which is arguable, there is a very salient law that actually according to the constitution has primacy over all other laws.

      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

      and the 1996 war crimes law

      (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
      (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
      (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
      (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
      (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;

      • Barry Palmer 50+

        • 0
        Jan 8 2013: I do believe that an unbiased criminal investigation of the current military actions in Afghanistan and recently in Iraq would result in indictments, very likely including the President. I have mixed thoughts about this. On the one hand, the terrorists cannot be allowed to continue their campaign unopposed. On the other hand we should be able to pursue them legally. Unfortunately, it would take years to renegotiate the Geneva Convention. Just changing a law in a timely manner seems to be impossible in the current political situation. One reason our system of government gives so much power to the President is so that the President can quickly respond when speed is necessary. In the real world, we must sometimes do what is necessary and settle the legalities later. Until someone designs a perfect government, we will have to make do with this one.

        Violence begets violence. All the words of the speeches, the laws, the treaties and even the Constitution will have no effect on the bombs. (I am not advocating this, just saying this is how it seems to be.)
        • thumb

          russell lester

          • 0
          Jan 21 2013: Yet if we abandon the law and the ideals that they enshrine, liberty and equality, then what are we fighting to save? Its harder to do what needs doing within the law but its that effort that defines just rule from tyranny.

          "Would you cut down the law to chase the devil?"

          "Aye! I would cut all the laws in england flat to have at him!

          "And when you had cut down the law and all was laying flat around you where would you hide when the devil turned upon you?"

          a conversation paraphrased, that was credited to Sir Thomas Moore

      • Barry Palmer 50+

        • 0
        Jan 22 2013: I agree completely. We have given up our rights and the rule of law. The terrorists have won, because, with our current system of government, the terrorists have all the advantages. We need a system that is more flexible. We need the ability to protect ourselves while staying within the law.

        The flip side of the above conversation is that when you stay within the law, and that allows the devil (terrorists) to win, you no longer have law, liberty, or even your life. Dead people don't need laws.
  • thumb

    russell lester

    • +1
    Jan 6 2013: Is a domestic terrorist engaged in revolution? Is a mass murderer a Terrorist? what is the criteria? Is Charles Manson a terrorist while Ted Bundy a criminal?

  • Kevin Jacobson

    • +1
    Jan 6 2013: I could only base such an opinion on the size of the organization causing the harm. If the terror organization was, say, five members large, then I would classify it as criminal activity, where if the organization causing the harm was several thousand strong, like Al Queda, then yes, I would classify terrorism as an act of war.

    • greg dahlen 20+

      • 0
      Jan 6 2013: That makes sense because the police, who fight crime, seem to be oriented to taking on individual criminals, such as a robber, whereas the military takes on big groups and is a big group itself. Also the military is more accustomed to fighting battles that cross country lines, as terrorism does, they know the logistics, the communications, etc.
      • thumb

        russell lester

        • 0
        Jan 6 2013: The military are specifically not trained to act as law enforcement, they are actually degraded in combat capability and exposed to undue risk as police officers. However the use of military to carry out military missions is appropriate and the destruction of enemies is such a mission. The assault on specific targets such as training camps and weapons caches is the role the military should pursue.

  • george lockwood 20+

    • 0
    Jan 6 2013: Wouldn't it depend on the facts?
    • thumb

      russell lester

      • +1
      Jan 6 2013: By classifying it as an act of war don't you give insult to the men and women who wage war by the rules of war and do not attack "soft targets" for maximum civilian casualties? What is the down side to treating it as it has been treated for decades as a crime? Interpol was a very aggressive hunter of terrorists as were various European police agencies. By making it a war don't we acknowledge the validity of their issues and actions?
Showing all 20 comments