The word “terrorism” is getting less useful
The news is full of reports about the foiled plot to attach Fort Dix. It is being reported widely as a “terrorist” attack. Though many news organizations are being careful about it, the Washington Post called it a terrorist plot, and ABC News called the suspects a “terror cell” on their web site and used the word “terrorist” to describe the plot in their broadcast this morning. The FBI has been helping the media along, calling the suspects “homegrown terrorists”.
There was a time when the word “terrorism” had a clear meaning: killing or threatening to kill innocent civilians to achieve a political goal. Using that definition, the Fort Dix attack would of course not be terroristic, because the alleged targets were soldiers. This is not hairsplitting. Soldiers are capable of defending themselves, unlike civilians who generally can’t confront an armed opponent. They aren’t likely to respond to an attack by being terrified. If you don’t agree with that, then you must think Pearl Harbor was a terrorist attack.
But clarity does not serve the purposes of our government. So they use the word “terrorism” to describe almost any opposition to the U.S. Under the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, free speech activities can be construed as terrorist if the prosecutor chooses to do so. And blowing up innocent civilians? Depends on which side you’re on. Luis Posada Carriles is back on the street with his immigration charges dismissed, and his extradition unlikely. Who knows, maybe he’ll get a pardon and a medal.