US and terrorism

[Doug Millison]

A little history lesson for "Morris" -- the article focuses on the
difficulty of arriving at an agreed-upon definition of terrorism, well
worth reading.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cryan1.html

"[...] Since international consensus has been so difficult to reach, for
the purposes of this brief discussion of terrorism and "harboring" I'll use
the U.S. FBI's definition: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or
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." How does such a definition line up with
the goals and strategies of the emerging "War on Terrorism"?
A brief review of some U.S. political and military interventions over the
last few decades reveals just how far we are - sadly, tragically - as a
nation from having the kind of virtue and integrity required to wage such a
war with a clear conscience and certainty of purpose. Following the FBI
definition, our government has repeatedly, in country after country, used
"force or violence" "unlawfully," "to intimidate or coerce a government,
[a] civilian population, or [a] segment thereof," in order to achieve
"political or social objectives." I will mention only a few examples.

Terrorism and "harboring" of terrorists by the U.S.

U.S. intervention in Nicaragua provides an astounding, but by no means
extraordinary, example. First, some background: by 1934, when the
authoritarian Somoza regime was established, the U.S. had already occupied
the country militarily on at least four different occasions, established
training schools for right-wing militia, dismantled two liberal
governments, and helped to orchestrate fake elections. In 1981, the CIA
began to organize the "Contras" - many of whom had already received
training from the U.S. military as members of the Somozas' National
Guardsmen - to overthrow the progressive Sandanista government. In other
words: the CIA "harbored," recruited, armed and trained the Contras, in
order to "coerce" and overthrow a government, and terrorize a people,
through violent means ("in furtherance of political [and] social
objectives"). U.S. intervention went well beyond "harboring," however, in
this case. In 1984, the CIA mined three Nicaraguan harbors. When Nicaragua
took this action to the World Court, an $18 billion judgment was brought
against the U.S. The U.S. response was to simply refuse to acknowledge the
Court's jurisdiction.

Another striking example of U.S. terrorist activity was the bombing of a
suburban Beirut neighborhood in March 1985. This attack - which killed 80
people and wounded 200 others, making it the single largest bombing attack
against a civilian target in the modern history of the Middle East - was
ordered by the director of the CIA (William Casey) and authorized by
President Reagan. Another U.S. attack on civilians, the 1986 bombing of
Libya, is listed by the UN's Committee on the Legal Definition of Terrorism
as a "classic case" of terrorism - on a short list that includes the
bombing of PAN AM 103, the first attempt made on the World Trade Center,
and the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

Other instances of U.S. support for, or direct engagement in, terrorist
acts include:

*	overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile
in 1973--leading to widespread torture, rape, and murder by the military
regime, and the termination of civil liberties
*	extensive support for a right-wing junta in El Salvador that ended
up being responsible for 35,000 civilian deaths between 1978 and 1981
*	assassination attempts, exploded boats, industrial sabotage, and
the burning of sugar fields in Cuba
*	the training of thousands of Latin American military personnel in
torture methods at the School of the Americas
*	providing huge quantities of arms--far more than any other nation--
to various combatants in the Middle East and West Asia
*	and massive support, in funds and arms, for Israeli attacks on
Palestinian civilians. [...]


"Morris" -- in case you're worried about "disinformation" because I've
included only excerpts and not the entire the article (just following your
advice, Mom), please feel free to click on the url and read it yourself.
It might do you a world of good and help you to understand that critics
like Chomsky aren't making this stuff up -- it's history.  You'll find an
interesting article for follow-up and pointers to many more resources at
http://foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol3/v3n38terr_body.html

Terrance, if you think this all has nothing to do with Pynchon, that's too
bad. It's a good thing you're not moderating the list, in my opinion -- I
suggest you apply yourself instead to managing the discussion in your
classroom, where I guess your students accept that kind of thing.

I respectfully beg to differ with my friend cfalbert who said "No-one ever
sat down and determined how to deal with terrorists who deliberately target
civilians."  Actually, quite a few people have done just that, in areas of
the world plauged with what was thought to be intractable violence -- by
applying time-tested principles and practices of reconciliation, mediation,
consensus-building, and other non-violent means to resolve disputes, in
addition to police investigations, arrests, and imprisonment as necessary
to protect the community.  Often, such efforts and their leaders are
recognized by awards such as the Nobel Peace Prize; more more often, they
don't get that much attention. Baby steps, with many a stumble and
set-back, but progress all the same that demonstrates, every day, that
people can do this without war.