Expanding the definition of terrorism
=====================================

John Kiriakou works from a narrow and stable definition, "there's a pretty easy definition of terrorism: it is using violence to put forward a political goal", and objects to designations that reach past it. "There's something recent that bothers me greatly, and that is the government's decision to expand the definition of a terrorist group ... they're adding groups to the terrorism watch list that have never been on the terrorism watch list before."

Elsewhere he gives the fuller version he says was the working definition inside the agency, which adds the element that does the discriminating work, the target. "There's quite a simple definition of terrorism that we used to use at the CIA, and it was any action in support of political change that uses violence to terrorize a civilian population." The test cuts both ways, and he names an example on each side: "So Carlos the Jackal is a terrorist. But some national liberation movement that does not target civilians is not a terrorist group."

Antifa

On the listing of organisations loosely associated with Antifa, his first objection is categorical. "Antifa is not a group. It's an idea. It doesn't have a headquarters, they don't issue membership cards. They're just loosely affiliated people who are anti-fascist. I would posit that every soldier and sailor who participated in D-Day was anti-fascist. They would be Antifa. So that's just silly to me."

The practical objection follows from it: "that's a mistake, because it diverts attention and it diverts finances. We should be focused on the groups that mean us harm, real harm. We should be out there trying to hunt down the people who have taken an oath to kill Americans. So I'm worried that it's too easy now to describe people as terrorists."

The cartels

Kiriakou says he initially read Donald Trump's designation of Latin American narco organisations as a legalistic manoeuvre, "it would serve to free up budgets, and it would also authorise NSA to begin wiretaps or interceptions of the cartels' communications, which is awesome, great", but concluded it was misguided once the designation began authorising the Pentagon "to drone their boats, which may or may not be their boats." See Trump's cartel terrorist designation and the Venezuela boat strikes.

His alternative is prosecution: "I'm more of a civil libertarian in this respect, in that if these people are so dangerous and have committed such terrible crimes against the United States, charge them with a crime. You can't just not like somebody's face, so you fly around the world to kill them. We're a nation of laws and we should abide by those laws."

The precedent he cites

The case Kiriakou uses to show where the logic ends is Anwar al-Awlaki, "the spokesman for al-Qaeda, guy's an American citizen, born and raised in New Mexico, self-radicalises, joins al-Qaeda as their spokesman. We blew him up with a drone. He had never been charged with any crime. If he was as bad as you say he was, you, at the CIA, then have the Justice Department file a charge against him. But you can't just go around the world murdering people whose politics you don't like and still profess to be this beacon of respect for human rights."

See also

- Anwar al-Awlaki
- Trump cartel terrorist designation
- Venezuela Boat Strikes
- John Kiriakou
