Definition Of Terrorists
In this definition, the State Security Service defines (MI5) terrorism as “when terrorist groups use violence, threaten violence or publicise their cause as a means of achieving their objectives”. The definition then lists acts that cause harm and are defined as terrorism, including the use of firearms and explosives, which fall under the scope of terrorism, and also counts acts that have happened in the United Kingdom, one of which falls within that definition. The US Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, a civilian population or segment in order to advance a political or social goal” (28 CFR ).
Terrorism is the use or use of force or force against persons or property to the violation of the federal criminal law in the United States for the purpose of intimidation, coercion or ransom. The definition of terrorism is complex and controversial, and because of the cruelty and violence inherent in terrorism, the term has developed an intense stigma in its popular use. The term was coined in the 1790s to refer to the terror used by the revolutionaries of the French Revolution against their opponents.
The Jacobin Party of Maximilien Robespierre ran a reign of terror that included mass executions by guillotine. Terrorism in this form implies acts of violence against the state or its internal enemies, but in the twentieth century the term was popularized and applied to violence against the government in order to influence the politics or to overthrow an existing regime.
The definition of terrorism which is based not only on criminality but also on the fact that the victims of terrorist violence are innocent civilians is flexible and has sometimes been extended to include various other factors, such as whether the act of terrorism was carried out secretly or in secret, or whether it should induce an overwhelming sense of fear.
This is not the only variant of right-wing extremism that is left out of the definition of terrorism. The Department of Defense’s definition of terrorism identifies the religious and ideological objectives of terrorism as its fundamental political objective, but does not take into account the social dimension contained in the FBI’s definition.
We try to define terrorism as the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear, violence or the threat of violence in order to seek political change. Terrorists are violent intellectuals who prepare, use or commit the use of force to achieve terrorist objectives. Although we do not define terrorism, we can distinguish terrorism from other types of violence by identifying the characteristics that distinguish it from political violence and terrorism.
The UN General Assembly Report of the Committee on International Terrorism (28th session, A / 90281973) is an important document in the history of terrorism. Observing Resolution 1972 entitled “Measures to prevent international terrorism that ends or ends innocent human lives or threatens fundamental freedoms” and investigating “the underlying causes and forms of terrorism acts – of violence behind the misery, frustration, resentment and despair that result in people sacrificing human lives including their own in an attempt to bring about radical change — the Committee established three subcommittees to examine the definition, causes and prevention of terrorism (e.g. Seven drafts from different nations have been submitted to the Subcommittee on the Definition of Terrorism.
From this hypothetical starting point, we can return to the US Patriot Act and examine the new government powers exercised on the Vieques Island demonstrators, whose behavior fell under an exaggerated definition of domestic terrorism. This is a significant change that political organisations must be aware of.
The US Patriot Act has expanded government powers to investigate terrorism, but those powers apply only to domestic terrorism. The exaggerated definition of domestic terrorism is so broad that it authorizes the government to confiscate the assets of any person involved in the Vieque Island protests, any organization that supported the protests, or any person who was in any way a member of those organizations. As long as the act took place within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, it cannot be considered international terrorism.