Was Malcom X a "terrorist"? Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"? Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"?
"He tried to beat up an old man in a restaurant"? Really? When was that? Because the closest I know of was the David Irving incident, where he protested the speaking event of a holocaust denier at a restaurant, and one person in the group (not Hammond) accidentally hit an unrelated patron with a bottle. They never tried to "beat up" anyone. And "he's threatened many people with physical harm"? Again, where are you getting these ridiculous statements from?
Your claim that he's "been to prison multiple times" is particularly laughable. He's been arrested multiple times. So had Martin Luther King Jr. and pretty much every civil rights activist I know of, along with plenty of the anti-war protesters in the 2000s, Occupy protesters in the 2010s, and hell, members of congress and mayors I know of. Are they all "terrorists"? Hammond has only been to prison for the hacking charges. Not every arrest means you land in prison, and assuming that it does is insanely presumptuous.
"And he's involved with the hacking and leaking of private and public information, basically to cause damage to the federal government, capitalistic entities and individuals." He leaked information he thought should be public. It was illegal, and a lot of people (most?) agree that it should be. But how was this significantly different than blacks doing illegal sit-ins at segregated restaurants during the civil rights movement, other than the former offending your personal values this time? Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise.
[correction: He's actually been to prison once before this, for another hacking incident.]
Almost assuredly yes, though the Black Panther Party would be a better example.
>Are the looters in the Ferguson riots "terrorists"?
Yes.
>Are the countless people who are in prison all "terrorists"?
Many, yes. Prison can be very radicalizing, especially since gangs form along ethnic lines, which suggest political outlooks.
> Just because something is criminal and political doesn't make it "terrorism," as much as law enforcement and prosecutors would like you to believe otherwise.
I don't see how you can make this assertion. Breaking the law means you are rejecting the fundamental foundation upon which society is based. If you reject that, you are open to all possible outcomes. Any act of breaking the law is a rejection of all law and with it all order, stability, and moral uprightness.
Are you not afraid of that outcome? Does it not strike fear into your heart? Or did you watch The Purge and think it was some sort of comedy?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics were appropriate for his time, but today we live in a different time, and they would be considered terrorism. Anti-war protesters are frequently terroristic. The Occupy movement was overtly terrorist, as it intended to cause economic harm for political ends.
It's important to always remember that while people might advocate for causes we agree to in principle, we live in a society of laws and rules, and we all must stay within those rules. There is a beautifully documented, perfectly effective mechanism in our society for effecting change: liberal democracy. If the change you wish to make is true, right, and just, it will inevitably take place without any requirement for lawbreaking. All you need to do is call your representative, and vote. Problem solved.
However, if you go outside of this, you are a terrorist and you deserve to be targeted, hunted, and eliminated by the state, in order that our society be protected, and that we all be able to continue to live in prosperity and peace.
It sounds like you're conflating "terrorist" with "criminal". A criminal is, by definition, a person who breaks the law. A terrorist has a different definition--back in the day it meant something along the lines of committing acts of mass violence for a political/ideological motive. Unabomber, plane hijackers in the 70's and 80's, McVeigh, etc. Putting Ferguson looters in the same class as the Unabomber shows precisely how dangerous such a conflation can be. According to you, missing a payment on your cable bill--i.e. breaking the law--is an act of terrorism. What a terrifying world it is, the one you seem to live in.
I downvoted you because you seem to be conflating breaking the law (even unjust ones, and you cite MLK Jr. and presumably others in the tradition including Ghandi) with acts of terrorism.
I would like to express my opinion that your sort of thinking is very dangerous and something to be discouraged.
Indeed. But this is the core of the matter. Black people defending themselves with guns in the 60s would probably make them "terrorists" (even if the white people throwing fire-bombs, shooting and lynching would be "terrorists" too). Now this need to be connected to what "terrorist" means today: it means being on a watch-list (questionable, but ok -- the whole reason for a clandestine police force is to monitor those that might be willing and capable to attack civilian infrastructure -- for whatever reasons) -- and also placing them on kill lists. The latter is not ok, by any standard. Could we imagine calling in a drone strike on a black panther activist, because he was in a "part of town sympathetic to his cause" and the number of non-adult-male people in the kill zone constituted "acceptable collateral damage"? I think not.
>Could we imagine calling in a drone strike on a black panther activist, because he was in a "part of town sympathetic to his cause" and the number of non-adult-male people in the kill zone constituted "acceptable collateral damage"? I think not.
This is essentially what happened to Fred Hampton. People don't like to admit it, but freedom is protected by blood, and in order to maintain the society we have, we have to continually suppress the people who would seek to destroy what we've worked so hard to achieve.
I wasn't familiar with that particular case[1] -- but as I gather, he was assassinated by an FBI/Police kill-squad -- so more similar to how the US trained dictators to operate across the Americas, than to how the US operates in Yemen and Pakistan. I obviously don't support kill-squads as a means to "support democracy" either -- but there's still a difference between going in and killing one man (even if 20+ were expected to be found/killed) -- an dropping a couple of hell-fire missiles on a civilian structure.
So there is something intrinsic about the status quo that is different from the past and that means the rules have changed.
This justifies expanding the definition of terrorism as anything intending to effect change in society that can be deemed harmful or for political ends.
As a representative, is it an act of terrorism if your constituency persuades you to vote in a way that is economically harmful to the country if it benefits your state or ideology?
A man in the desert blows a stop sign in the name of Allah and the NYPD is not around to stop him from resisting, is it an act of terrorism?
Considering there is no true definition of the term "terrorist, I would speculate that it is a term used to label political dissidence with whom those in power wish to cast in a negative light to quell an ignorant population who are too infatuated with their own lives and only listen to headlines to know that they're being manipulated.
But, that's just speculation.
In terms of the use of the words "old man" since you did not cite references so I looked it up, and I am assuming you meant his confrontation protest against a Holocaust denier[1]. It seemed to be politically motivated and therefore a protest, though, in an unconventional manner . But, hey, in this day and age, who can trust anything on the internet.
I would imagine "actual terrorist" is more akin to the Batman character "The Joker" who just "wants to watch the world burn" no motivation, just because.
None of those things you listed, except perhaps for the extremely broad and likely inaccurate "he has encouraged destabilizing the government in all ways possible," is an example of what I would call terrorism.
The problem with your argument is that terrorist now becomes a kind of no true scotsman. If someone is advocating the wholesale and random destruction of infrastructure to scare people, then yes, that's terrorism. The idea that you need to be Islamic to be a terrorist is, frankly, racist. If ISIS was doing this, no one would have an issue with the terrorist label. Hammond pretty much fits the bill.
I think the difference of opinion here is on the definition of "violence", which is a part of the definition of "terrorism".
AKA blowing up a building to scare people is, hacking into stuff (however damaging) isn't. Maybe that line needs to be re-defined in the 21st century, I don't know... but nobody brought Islam into the debate other than you.
>“This raises questions about the US government’s definition of terrorism and whether they have expanded it to including hackers,” said Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Fakhoury said he was curious to know the identity of the “terrorist organisation” mentioned in the documents.
“If it was al-Qaida or Islamic State that would pose no problem for me, but if they were referring to Anonymous that would be a different proposition,” he said.
I'm not sure "to include hackers" is the same as "to include non-violence", though that may well be what he meant.
You can commit a non-violent act of civil disobedience without going near a computer, and you could commit a violent-act through hacking, such as breaking into air traffic control to crash two planes together.
edit: And just realised the connection between HN comments and that quote from the article. Mea culpa on that one.
I think it contributes to add that acts of violence are not required. [1] It is simply enough to aid, fund, train or otherwise support terrorists or terrorist organizations.
So again this goes down a dark path...what if you didn't know they were a terrorist? What constitutes funding or training? ect... This is precisely why we need this to be a legal matter that is out in the open, with formal charges and findings of fact. This would create notice (of what behavior is and is not allowed) as well as legal precedent so we don't have Government employees acting as Judge, Jury and Executioner without consistency.
For example, the instance of some of the 9/11 terrorists being housed by a Saudi family in Florida, the Saudi family fled the US weeks before 9/11 and then the FBI lied to Congress in an attempt to cover this up.[2]
[1]For the purpose of the Order, "terrorism" is defined to be an activity that (1) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and (2) appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking. See: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm
A terrorist is not a mass murderer, it is someone who uses terrorism to further their political or ideological beliefs. He's done so with anonymous, with activist groups and on his own.
More to the point of the terrorism watch list, having this guy near an airport (or buying lots of household chemicals) would make me very nervous if I was law enforcement. He's like the poster child for the watch list.
what is "terrorism" in this instance? Would the French revolutionaries of the 1780's be considered terrorists? I'm sure they would have had they lost the revolution. I suppose by your definition George Washington was a terrorist?
Take a step back and try to be a bit more objective and realize that "terrorist" is not a classification, it is a label. And the use of that label is politically motivated.
All kinds of movements can have terrorists. Some are successful. Some aren't. It's one of those things in life where for the most part a successful movement can retroactively be seen as good. That is, if they fail they are typically forever terrorists. And that's necessarily so. So yes had the American revolutionary or French revolutionaries failed they would have been terrorists. No question really. Sometimes things require a revolution to resolve deep societal issues that affect a good majority... Sometimes a few people want a revolution (using terroristic tactics) where most people don't agree with that. This is why two sets of people can see a given act as acceptable and not --and would invert their opinion if done back to them.
