What is terrorism?

A Register-Guard Editorial

Published: Friday, June 8, 2007

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken's application of a "terrorism
enhancement" to the sentences of numerous defendants in the
Operation Backfire eco-sabotage trial has fueled an
important debate about the definition of terrorism.

Is property damage that causes no physical harm somehow
similar enough to suicide bombings to be labeled terrorism?
The answer to that question depends on whether it's
addressed from a political or a legal perspective.

Aiken correctly applied the law as written. Federal law
includes in its definition of terrorism "acts dangerous to
human life that ... are intended to influence the policy of
a government by intimidation or coercion; or to retaliate
against government conduct."

That leaves little room to argue with Aiken's ruling that
terrorism enhancements could
apply to politically motivated
acts of property destruction regardless of whether those
acts could have caused death or injury.

And yet, precisely as Judge Aiken was crafting her rulings
- which have been, by and large, thoughtful and fair - a
Democratic candidate for president declared during a debate
that the "war on terror" is nothing more than a "bumper
sticker political slogan." John Edwards told the audience
that the "war on terror" has been used by President Bush
"to justify everything he does: the ongoing war in Iraq,
Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."
Despite his regrettable hyperbole, Edwards is right about
the Bush administration's exploitation of public fear to
demonize
dissent and pass laws that erode civil liberties.
That doesn't necessarily mean that an Edwards
administration Justice Department would come to different
conclusions about the Operation Backfire defendants, but it
does suggest a narrowing of Bush's one-size-fits-all
terrorism test: "Either you are with us, or you are with
the terrorists."

The fundamental problem when it comes to defining what
constitutes terrorism is that political differences create
more confusion than consensus. Call it the "one person's
terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" dichotomy.

A case in point: President Reagan actually referred to
Osama bin Laden and his
mujahideen as "freedom fighters"
when they opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Reagan also committed substantial U.S. resources to efforts
by the Contras to overthrow the democratically elected
government of Nicaragua. Contra units were regularly
charged by human rights groups with war crimes and
terrorism, charges the Reagan administration dismissed as
communist propaganda.

The shifting profile of who is a terrorist is at the heart
of the debate unfolding in Eugene. It's a debate that's
difficult to sustain, because it involves asking hard
questions, including why terrorism is always defined as
something done to "us" by "them" without provocation.
Fortunately, Eugene isn't afraid of tackling tough issues,
and the debate has spawned an excellent forum on a
Register-Guard Internet blog, "Eco-sabotage: Terrorism or
activism?"
(www.registerguard.com/talk).