Congressman wants WikiLeaks listed as terrorist group(news.cnet.com)
news.cnet.com
Congressman wants WikiLeaks listed as terrorist group
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html
14 comments
I wonder what percentage of the founding of America was done through "terrorism".
I disagree. "Terrorism" implies that a group is full of bad evil meanies who want to hurt America. I believe that is exactly what the honorable Rep. King wants to say about Wikileaks.
Actually, no. What he says is, that one could qualify Wikileaks as a terrorist organization, if one were to take the definition of 'terrorist' from the Immigration and Nationality Act. Note that under this act various activities fall under 'terrorism', none of which requires 'causing fear'. For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear.
So his point is that to put anyone on the terrorist watch list, that person needs to be qualified as a terrorist, obviously. But the term 'terrorist' doesn't have a fixed, unambiguous meaning; it can mean many things to many people in different context (ergo that phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'). So if one were to use the definition from the INA, which he is arguing is just a good a definition as any others, Wikileaks (or its members/representatives) would qualify and as such be put on the watch list, which would then cause a whole bunch of other things.
Note also that this definition of terrorism far outdates the post-9/11 terrorism scare, so it can't be blamed out overzealous Homeland Security stuff or anything.
So nice try, but no cigar.
So his point is that to put anyone on the terrorist watch list, that person needs to be qualified as a terrorist, obviously. But the term 'terrorist' doesn't have a fixed, unambiguous meaning; it can mean many things to many people in different context (ergo that phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'). So if one were to use the definition from the INA, which he is arguing is just a good a definition as any others, Wikileaks (or its members/representatives) would qualify and as such be put on the watch list, which would then cause a whole bunch of other things.
Note also that this definition of terrorism far outdates the post-9/11 terrorism scare, so it can't be blamed out overzealous Homeland Security stuff or anything.
So nice try, but no cigar.
> For example under this act, if you highjack a plane, be it for money or to get a couple of prisoners released, you're still a terrorist, even if you don't want to instill any fear.
Pretty sure being on a plane while it's hijacked would be a fearful event.
Pretty sure being on a plane while it's hijacked would be a fearful event.
This is a side product of the actual act. The primary purpose isn't to cause fear, it's to get the money or prisoners or whatever. That as a side effect fear is generated is irrelevant.
Interesting, but even if your goal lies elsewhere, why else would you choose to hijack a plane if it wasn't to at least present the appearance of some fatal outcome? And that's ignoring the very real secondary dangers to passengers that can occur during a hijacking.
I think it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist.
I think it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist.
The reason is to get money, the means is to threaten people with death. Robbing a bank: the goal is to get the money, the robber uses the threat of violence or death to compel the employees to give him money.
I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing; what I was saying that the GP defined terrorism as something that requires a motive of instilling fear; i.e. a goal of the acts that the terrorists is to make people afraid. That's one definition but the INA defines it differently, which is just another definition.
If you define all acts of highjacking as terrorism, you explicitly do away with the requirement of fear. And for good reason, because otherwise one would have to start proving state of mind, which is a legal snake pit.
But if you restrict yourself to people with the intention to cause fear to discern a terrorist, you can't call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist, because your definition requires a different criterion, namely the objective of the highjacking.
To conclude, "it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist." is meaningless because it's said in a vacuum, without a definition of who is a terrorist. This whole discussion is about the distinction between to definitions, and that under one definition some people are terrorists and under another they aren't.
(I'm not taking a position, I don't know and I don't care, definition problems are boring; the fact that the OP failed to recognize this nuance, and effectively turned his argument into a straw man, is what bothers me.)
I'm not quite sure what point you're arguing; what I was saying that the GP defined terrorism as something that requires a motive of instilling fear; i.e. a goal of the acts that the terrorists is to make people afraid. That's one definition but the INA defines it differently, which is just another definition.
If you define all acts of highjacking as terrorism, you explicitly do away with the requirement of fear. And for good reason, because otherwise one would have to start proving state of mind, which is a legal snake pit.
But if you restrict yourself to people with the intention to cause fear to discern a terrorist, you can't call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist, because your definition requires a different criterion, namely the objective of the highjacking.
To conclude, "it's still safe to call anyone that hijacks an airplane a terrorist." is meaningless because it's said in a vacuum, without a definition of who is a terrorist. This whole discussion is about the distinction between to definitions, and that under one definition some people are terrorists and under another they aren't.
(I'm not taking a position, I don't know and I don't care, definition problems are boring; the fact that the OP failed to recognize this nuance, and effectively turned his argument into a straw man, is what bothers me.)
Pretty sure being in a bank robbery/hostage situation would be a fearful event, too.
Or having your neighbour's guard dog jump on you
[deleted]
The legal, societal, and political definition of Terrorism was changed around the same time as the patriot act was enacted. It now is used as a politically charged buzzword to assign to any group who practices guerilla warfare and the united states government does not like. Historically we tend to call them "Freedom Fighters" when we agree with them. Publicizing the secret actions of the government meets the above definition to said governments requirement.
> "Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear.
It used to mean that, but now it's just a buzzword that refers to people who don't agree with you.
It works like "racist":
- you belong to an ethnic group
- you go to a job interview
- you get rejected
- you will call the employers racist and blame your rejection on racism to blur that fact that it was your flaw
In our context a terrorist is a person who does something that is embarrassing to the media or the government.
It used to mean that, but now it's just a buzzword that refers to people who don't agree with you.
It works like "racist":
- you belong to an ethnic group
- you go to a job interview
- you get rejected
- you will call the employers racist and blame your rejection on racism to blur that fact that it was your flaw
In our context a terrorist is a person who does something that is embarrassing to the media or the government.
> Has representative King really considered the implication of such a classification?
Absolutely; they represent a threat to his power, and so he'll use whatever tools he has at his disposal to disadvantage them in that fight. If they're a terrorist organization, it becomes illegal to give them monetary support, which they obviously need.
It's much simpler than the definition of the word 'terrorist'.
Absolutely; they represent a threat to his power, and so he'll use whatever tools he has at his disposal to disadvantage them in that fight. If they're a terrorist organization, it becomes illegal to give them monetary support, which they obviously need.
It's much simpler than the definition of the word 'terrorist'.
I guess the New York Times is a terrorist group too since they did pretty much the same thing as WikiLeaks: someone handed them the cables and they happily published them.
Well, we've known certain parts of the right have wanted to classify the NTY as terrorists for years now.
Having your organization on that list means that any members of it, or associates become non-persons (people without rights). It is striking that this is happening in a Western country today.
This is especially hilarious because Rep Peter King has a long history of supporting terrorists and associating with terrorist groups, as recognized by several different governments:
In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.” A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”. He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity in the UK.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Northern_Ireland for more information.
One of the coolest things about being an Arab American living in the Boston metro area is the near certainty that anytime I'm in a busy public place, there are terrorists supporters and sympathizers with me, and they're all white Irish people.
In the 1980s, King frequently traveled to Northern Ireland to meet with IRA members. In 1982, speaking at a pro-IRA rally in Nassau County, New York, King said: “We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.” A Northern Irish judge ordered King ejected from the former's courtroom, describing him as “an obvious collaborator with the IRA”. He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA activities and providing them with weapons. He was banned from appearing on British TV for his pro IRA views and refusing to condemn IRA activity in the UK.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King#Northern_Ireland for more information.
One of the coolest things about being an Arab American living in the Boston metro area is the near certainty that anytime I'm in a busy public place, there are terrorists supporters and sympathizers with me, and they're all white Irish people.
Odd. The TSA has had more of a detrimental affect on my (physically and emotionally) than Wikileaks ever could.
On 9/11/2001 it meant something to be a terrorist. However, these days it means nothing. Everything the government doesn't like is a potential terror threat, and every person acting against it could be a terrorist.
There's a big difference between terrorist, activist and military combatant.
There's a big difference between terrorist, activist and military combatant.
The interesting thing to me is that nothing will change. We have gotten a glimpse into how messed up some things are but there's no public outcry for change. People just aren't upset about the stupid things governments do. Nobody really cares. It's a bit disheartening.
Because very few are capable of creating it. It's easy to find fault, but much more difficult to create a solution. That's why nothing is changing. No one wants the responsibility of doing it.
I'm not finding fault in anyone. My point was that talk of labeling Wikileaks as a terrorist organization or something evil are baseless when one considers that leaking these documents doesn't change anything. It's almost comical that the U.S. government raised a stink about this when the fact is that people don't care enough to demand change.
I do, actually. The road to such enfranchisement is long and hard, however. I still require:
* Independent funding,
* a bit of age to serve in the House and
* a broader social network.
None of these are easy to collect.
* Independent funding,
* a bit of age to serve in the House and
* a broader social network.
None of these are easy to collect.
it saddens me that a congressman can say something like that and not be driven out of town for abusing the 1st amendment.
How can you make laws, when you don't know that the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press.
it's like religion, in Europe those who bring up religion in politics get laughed at....in U.S. it's next to impossible to get elected without it.
How can you make laws, when you don't know that the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press.
it's like religion, in Europe those who bring up religion in politics get laughed at....in U.S. it's next to impossible to get elected without it.
Non-exhaustive list of court-recognized exceptions to the First Amendment:
(1) Defamation (2) Causing panic (3) Fighting words (4) Incitement to crime (5) Sedition (6) Obscenity
I don't know what leads to you posit that the congressman doesn't know about the First Amendment. It's very well possible to limit certain expressions of speech, by 'the press', well within the boundaries of the First Amendment.
(1) Defamation (2) Causing panic (3) Fighting words (4) Incitement to crime (5) Sedition (6) Obscenity
I don't know what leads to you posit that the congressman doesn't know about the First Amendment. It's very well possible to limit certain expressions of speech, by 'the press', well within the boundaries of the First Amendment.
National Security vs. The First Amendment: The Ultimate Showdown
They of course react totally wrong to WikiLeaks. Should they close the site down, arrest Assange or something similar, the same will happen, as with any BitTorrent-site take down: Two new ones will appear tomorrow.
I don't think Assange will be arrested or wikileaks shut down because they're afraid of how much damaging material could be in a 1.4G encrypted torrent.
Should the government ever be allowed to have secrets? To what level should government correspondence be public? Some situations (e.g. the Manhattan Project) necessitate secrecy. What exactly is wrong with that, at least in some situations, and why are we so willing to assume WikiLeaks/Assange knows what should (or shouldn't) be leaked?
Just trying to understand as it appears the overall thought process here is, "leak everything - the end."
Just trying to understand as it appears the overall thought process here is, "leak everything - the end."
When Dick Cheney/Karl Rove/Scooter Libby "outed" Valerie Plame, they gave away a dummy corporation used by the CIA for agents like Valerie who (mostly) did not operate under a cover identity but gathered intelligence. It is estimated that by blowing her cover, over 70 other intelligence-friendly agents or sources were captured, imprisoned, or killed.
I would think that the US armed forces would get proactive and start securing their transmissions from end to end. Back when we had the cold war and Russia got a hold of some top secret document, you didn't hear whiney congress dolts saying they were a terrorist organization.. oh wait
By that definition, they should add every lobby group and the senate to the same list.
That might be a good thing, actually.
That might be a good thing, actually.
This is a truly horrifying prospect.
"Terrorism" implies that a group exists to cause fear.
Wikileaks releases secret documents produced by the government of United States (et al).
If Wikileaks is a terrorist organization, then secret documents produced by the government of the United States must cause fear.
Is that really what King intends to say?