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.
