Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (3 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   3 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Chattanooga Shootings: Can Attacking Military Sites of a Nation at War be "Terrorism"?

By       Message Glenn Greenwald     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 6   Well Said 5   Supported 4  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H1 7/17/15

Author 4807
Become a Fan
  (138 fans)
- Advertisement -
From twitter.com/TheGospelHerald/status/622149780408406017/photo/1: Chattanooga Shootings
Chattanooga Shootings
(image by Twitter User DianneSteiner)
  License   DMCA

A gunman yesterday attacked two military sites in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four U.S Marines. Before anything was known about the suspect other than his name -- Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez -- it was instantly and widely declared by the U.S. media to be "terrorism." An FBI official announced at a press briefing: "We will treat this as a terrorism investigation until it can be determined it was not."

That "terrorism" in U.S. political and media discourse means little beyond "violence by Muslims against the West" is now too self-evident to debate (in this case, just the name of the suspect seemed to suffice to trigger application of the label). I've documented that point at length many times -- most recently, a couple of weeks ago when the term was steadfastly not applied to the white shooter who attacked a black church in Charleston despite his clear political and ideological motives -- and I don't want to rehash those points here. Instead, I want to focus on a narrow question about this term: Can it apply to violent attacks that target military sites and soldiers of a nation at war, rather than civilians?

In common usage (as opposed to legal definitions), "terrorism" typically connotes, if not denotes, "violence against civilians." If you ask most people why they regard the 9/11 attack as so singularly atrocious, you will likely hear that it was because the violence was aimed indiscriminately at civilians and at civilian targets. If you ask them to distinguish why they regard civilian-killing U.S. violence as legitimate and justified but regard the violence aimed at the U.S. as the opposite ("terrorism"), they'll likely claim that the U.S. only kills civilians by accident, not on purpose. Whether one is targeting civilian versus military sites is a central aspect to how we talk about the justifiability of violence and what is and is not "terrorism."

But increasingly in the West, violent attacks are aimed at purely military targets, yet are still being called "terrorism." To this day, many people are indignant that Nidal Hasan was not formally charged with "terrorism" for his attack on the U.S. military base in Fort Hood, Texas (though he was widely called a "terrorist" by U.S. media reports). Last October in Canada -- weeks after the government announced it would bomb Iraq against ISIS -- a Muslim man waited for hours in his car in a parking lot until he saw two Canadian soldiers in uniform, and then ran them over, killing one; that was universally denounced as "terrorism" despite his obvious targeting of soldiers. Omar Khadr was sent to Guantanamo as a teenager and branded a "terrorist" for killing a U.S. soldier fighting the war in Afghanistan, during a firefight. One of the most notorious "terrorism" prosecutions in the U.S. -- just brilliantly dissected by my colleague Murtaza Hussain -- involved an alleged plot to attack the military base at Fort Dix. Trumpeted terror arrests in the U.S. now often involve plots against military rather than civilian targets. The 9/11 attack itself targeted the Pentagon in addition to the World Trade Center.

Click Here to Read Whole Article

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

 

- Advertisement -

Must Read 6   Well Said 5   Supported 4  
View Ratings | Rate It

Glenn Greenwald is one of three co-founding editors of The Intercept. He is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law. His most recent book, No Place (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

HSBC, too big to jail, is the new poster child for US two-tiered justice system

US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for "communicating with the enemy"

Prosecution of Anonymous activists highlights war for Internet control

The myth of Obama's "blunders" and "weakness"

The Remarkable, Unfathomable Ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Are All Telephone Calls Recorded And Accessible To The US Government?