What is Terrorism?
The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
The FBI uses this: "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and 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."
The U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The United Nations produced this definition in 1992; "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets."
The most commonly accepted academic definition starts with the U.N. definition quoted above, and adds two sentences totaling another 77 words on the end; containing such verbose concepts as "message generators" and 'violence based communication processes." Less specific and considerably less verbose, the British Government definition of 1974 is"…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear."
     As you can see, there are many different definitions used to describe terrorists and terrorism. There does however seem to be at least a few common threads in these definitions. There is one that is especially important for the purposes of this web site, and that is the word political. If the supreme court is making decisions based on political reasons, which I dare say is exactly the case, then they fit the definition of terrorists as these un-Constitutional decisions are enabling the federal government to use fear and intimidation to control the People. One could argue that the Constitution is what the supreme court says it is. That is true to some extent, when the rulings are based on interpretation of the exact words, letters, and punctuation of the Constitution, but when the so called interpretation includes a justification that alters even on letter of the Constitution, then it is not a true interpretation, it is an attempt to change what the Constitution says or means to fit a pre-determined political outcome. A perfect example of this is how the phrase "commerce between the several States" became "commerce between the states". They simply changed one letter from a capital to a small letter and presto, unlimited federal power.

 

Home | Overview | What is Terrorism | Obscene Rulings | Links
U.S. Constitution | Peaceful Solutions | Comments | Contact Us

Hall of Fame | Hall of Shame