Ayers 'R Us

My buddy Don over at PathKeepers.net has a post up deconstructing the Republicans use of Bill Ayers' Weatherman history as a campaign tactic against Barack Obama. He's generally more right than wrong on this post so go read it.

But one point of contention (and probably semantics) is this jewel. In arguing for defining the Weathermen as terrorists, he writes...

Terrorist or Not?

It’s pretty clear to me that the Weather Underground was a terrorist group. The loss of their comrades (from their own incompetence) in Greenwich Village caused the Weathermen to shift tactics. From that point on, they always announced their targets and warned people to stay away before they set off their bombs. In fact, Bill Ayers used this to deny that the Weathermen were terrorists:

We were very careful from the moment of the townhouse on to be sure we weren't going to hurt anybody, and we never did hurt anybody. Whenever we put a bomb in a public space, we had figured out all kinds of ways to put checks and balances on the thing and also to get people away from it, and we were remarkably successful.

But, they still bombed. That’s the mark of terrorists, isn’t it? They set bombs against specific targets, but so do Al Qai’da. So did the Provisional Irish Republican Army and their Protestant counterparts.

This strikes me as a surprisingly simplistic definition. Yes, bombing might be one feature of terrorism, but hell, the U.S. military bombs lots of folks--and yes, they do it to 'affect behavior' and to 'terrorize' (remember shock and awe? Folks on the ground were screaming in terror at our wonderful 'shock and awe'--and we managed to kill quite a few more civilians than the Weathermen ever did) so pray tell, what exactly separates these two entities? Is it because one entity is 'state run' and the other is 'ad hoc' or because one is fighting a unilaterally 'declared' war and the other...oh, that's right, fighting a 'unilaterally declared' war? In short, the only thing separating terrorists who bomb military targets from a military that bombs military targets is the power and the authority of the state. But if the state acts without international authority--as is the case with the preemptive war in Iraq--it's a distinction without a difference. Throw in the fact that the US routinely kills more innocent civilians in their bombing runs in either Iraq OR Afghanistan than the Weathermen have in their entire history and the argument approaches the ludicrous. Unless, of course, your moral principles devolve to 'might makes right'. At bottom that's hardly an ethical principle to balance such a damning certainty on.

The problem isn't with defining terrorism, per se, the problem as Noam Chomsky put it, "lies in the unwillingness to recognise that your own terrorism is terrorism."

Unless Don's open to a discussion on what constitutes 'terrorism' generally, I suggest taking Ayers at his word is as valid, or more valid, than taking the Pentagon and Pentagon apologists at their word. Certainly whether 'bombs' are used or not can be a determining factor in that definition, but if that's the case let's use the definition in all instances. In other words, according to Don's definition, the U.S. military is a terrorist organization.


Don't agree? Fine. Come up with a better definition for terrorism. For the record, I'd be open to calling Ayers activity 'terrorism' if we could have a bit more honesty in what the hell our various covert and overt military operations amount to. Maybe we could begin with our support of terrorism (the Contras) in our attempt to illegally overthrow the Sandisnista government in Nicaragua during the Reagan administration?

Included in the indictment by the World Court of the United States behavior was some detailed information on our own explicitly terroristic behavior:

As a part of its training program for the contras, the CIA prepared and distributed a manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. This manual included instructions in the "use of implicit and explicit terror", and in the "selective use of violence for propaganda effects". Commander Carrion explained that the manual was given to the Contras, "All of these terrorist instructions have the main purpose of alienating the population from the Government through creating a climate of terror and fear, so that nobody would dare support the Government". The manual calls for the "neutralization" (i.e. assassination) of Sandinista local government officials, judges, etc. for purposes of intimidation. It was openly admitted by the President Reagan in a press conference that the manual had been prepared by a CIA contract employee.

In testimony before the court, Professor Glennon of the International Human Rights Law Group, and the Washington Office on Latin America summarized his fact finding mission as follows:

"We found that there is substantial credible evidence that the contras were engaged with some frequency in acts of terroristic violence directed at Nicaraguan civilians. These are individuals who have no connection with the war effort-persons with no economic, political or military significance. These are Individuals who are not caught in the cross-fire between Government and contra forces, but rather individuals who are deliberately targeted by the contras for acts of terror.

That last sentence strikes me as a pretty good definition for what terrorism really is: Innocent non-combatants who are deliberately targeted by the either side to influence a community's behavior through fear.

Sticking to this definition, you could argue that Ayers intentions, at least initially, were generally terroristic AND you'd also be forced to admit that an awful lot of activity by our own military and our spook operatives is terroristic--in the extreme. But that bit of honesty is no reason not to adopt it.