# Is the United States government, by pure definition, a terrorist organistation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2002, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289 "2002-04-07T06:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/21 "2002-04-08T03:16:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ruadh \* > International law? Hell, the US was breaking its _own_ laws in that one. No, US citizens were breaking the laws. The Iran Contra affair had no sanction from the US government (and by “government”, I mean the US use). Colinito67 > [@](#): > > But tens of thousands were killed because of the withdrawl of Red Cross Aid once Americans started bombing. So the Taliban is such a poor government that its citizens can’t survive without outside aid, they defy the US, causing bombings, and **we’re** the bad guys? Do we have some sort of moral obligation to help out our enemies? ---
**Author:** ![stankow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@stankow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stankow)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/22 "2002-04-08T03:38:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > **I still don’t see how you can consider this war self-defense, however. Yes, we were attacked. Killing civilians is reprehensible. And while the attacks were cunningly and patiently planned, and ultimately successful. But I highly doubt the US government ever thought that the Al Qaeda was/is equipped enough to disable the government. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be attacked, no doubt.** Do you swat mosquitoes? Are they powerful enough to kill you? > [@](#): > > **The Al-Qaeda is not the Taliban. The people living in Afghanistan are not necessarily the Taliban.** The Taliban were sheltering al-Qaeda. They refused to stop doing so or hand over the persons who were responsible for the attacks of September 11th. Not only that, but they threatened further attacks. Throw in the whole “unrepentantly evil motherfuckers” thing, and I’d say the world is a better place for them being gone. > [@](#): > > **Just the same in Iraq (this was touched on lightly in the movie “Three Kings”), we try to get back at Saddam (definitely a ruthless dictator) but instead of doing anything effective to get him out of office, we end up killing people who want Saddam out of office as much as we do.** I’m a little lost on your thesis here, Mr. Pacifist. Should we topple Saddam militarily (the only way that will reliably work), or not? > [@](#): > > **But although we waited a few weeks to attack, I don’t think there was ever any serious alternative to the US government other than military retribution.** I’m sure that airdropping fluffy bunnies and chocolate chip cookies was discussed. Got any other ideas? > [@](#): > > **our embargoes and our interventions are much worse than the WTC bombings…I’d put them on par with the Holocaust.** You are clueless. The Holocaust was an attempt to eradicate multiple ethnic groups from the face of the Earth. U.S. sanctions against Iraq are in place because of a megalomaniacal dictator who refuses to comply with U.N. directives and wages genocidal war on his own people. They do not, as you may have been told, keep medicines or food from entering Iraq. Nor do they keep such things from being distributed to the people who need that. The Iraqi government is doing that. U.S. interventions have _ **NOT** _ been done because we wanted to destroy entire ethnic groups. Does that enter into your moral equation, or does the “U.S. is bad” part cancel all that out? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/23 "2002-04-08T05:56:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > I’m a pacifist, so I will instinctively look for alternatives to war. They are always there, but admittedly often times more difficult. Then please tell us exactly what your alternative is. “There is one, but I can’t think of it now” is not an acceptable answer. > [@](#): > > As to how it pertains to “self defense.” I realize the fault in my analogy now: say a man breaks into your house and hits you. before self defense (in murder) can be morally justified, I think there must be meditation on the full extent of the situation. In the case I mentioned, it is more or less instantaneous. You think either; ‘this guy has a gun or is really big or seems to have intentions to kill me.’ Your life must be threatened, in other words. Or you think, ‘while this guy was able to get into my house and hit me while I was off guard, he doesn’t seem to be a threat to my life. I simply need to detain him until authorities arrive.’ This is monumentally stupid. Repeat after me: “Three Thousand People are dead.” Say that about a dozen times until it sinks in. This is not a punch in the nose. This is a war. They want to kill us. They want to kill you. Who do you think the fucking authorities are? The UN? The World Court? There is nobody else. We ARE the the only authority that can handle this. > [@](#): > > I don’t see how anyone with a good grasp of recent history (from a world perspective rather than simply an american perspective) can say that we aren’t terrorists of the world. In fact it is safe to say that we are bigger terrorists than any other country in the world (not organization, mind you- there are some screwjobs out there). our embargoes and our interventions are much worse than the WTC bombings…I’d put them on par with the Holocaust. My god. This is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever heard. No, my freind, it is you who do not have a world perspective. You have the perspective of someone who swallows a lot of shit pumped out by the college-Marxist crowd, and has no real experience in life. I’d start a BBQ thread on this tripe, but frankly, you aren’t worth another instant of my time. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/24 "2002-04-08T06:35:03Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > No, US citizens were breaking the laws. The Iran Contra affair had no sanction from the US government (and by “government”, I mean the US use)._\* It seems to me you’ve created a negative tautology here. The U.S. wasn’t acting officially, therefore it wasn’t breaking the law. But the reason it wasn’t acting officially was because to do so would have broken the law. Ollie and pals were clearly acting as agents of the U.S. government, not as private citizens, so I will continue to regard this as a _de facto_ government action. ---
**Author:** ![Beastal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a183cd/32.png) [@Beastal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beastal)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/25 "2002-04-08T07:47:30Z")
The UN is merely an advisory body? I was debating with a pro-Palestinian Muslim the other night who told me that the UN charter, which must be signed by all member nations, dictates that when the UN says “jump”, we are ordered to say “How high?” I also remember watching a few news bulletins during the Balkans War where analysts were claiming that the US bombings were illegal because they didn’t seek UN approval. Were the Belgrade bombings in “self-defence”? ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/26 "2002-04-08T08:15:38Z")
**Alessan** , the UN is not merely an “advisory body.” The US has voluntarily signed the UN Charter and numerous UN treaties. All treaties are considered the “supreme law of the land” according to Article VI of the US Constitution. **Northern Piper** , I’m confused by your post. Colinito does not buy the self-defense argument, but it appears that his analysis of Article 51 is correct. You disagree on what constitutes “self-defense” under international law. The [United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/3314.htm) can help here. Note Article 3(g): “The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.” Significantly, this Article was interpreted in _U.S. v. Nicaragua_ (sorry I can’t find a link): "But the Court does not believe that the concept of “armed attack’ includes… assistance to rebels in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support.” I haven’t seen any evidence that Afghanistan was directly involved in the WTC attack. **ruadh** makes a good point. **The Ryan** , if you don’t think Iran-Contra is a good example, how about the overthrow of Allende in Chile? ---
**Author:** ![Protesilaus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Protesilaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Protesilaus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/27 "2002-04-08T09:33:12Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Colinito67 \* > \*\* > I still don’t see how you can consider this war self-defense, however. Yes, we were attacked. Killing civilians is reprehensible. And while the attacks were cunningly and patiently planned, and ultimately successful. But I highly doubt the US government ever thought that the Al Qaeda was/is equipped enough to disable the government._\* It doesn’t matter if Al-Qaeda can topple the government. We know that they are equipped to kill thousands of Americans in a single attack. We know they have the will to make such an attack. There’s no reason to believe they won’t ever attack us again. Now, I’d consider killing thousands of American civilians to be something that should be prevented from happening again. Since we can say that Al-Qaeda will almost certainly attempt another such attack, we should get rid of them before they have a chance to do so. After all, one of the main purposes of governments is to protect its citizens from those that would do them harm. > [@](#): > > \*\*I see a fault in logic when we begin a war because our civilians were attacked and ultimately do the same thing. \*\* We are **NOT** doing the same thing. Al-Qaeda purposely targeted civilians. The U.S. and Allied forces attacked military targets of a hostile government sheltering Al-Qaeda leaders. Yes, some civilians died. Yes, it is a tragedy that they died. No, it is not the same thing, because we were not trying to kill them. > [@](#): > > **I think the US purposefully never thought, "hey I can detain this guy."** I imagine this would be a surprise to the dozens of Al-Qaeda and Taliban members that are currently being detained at Guantanamo Bay. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/28 "2002-04-08T09:45:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > No, US citizens were breaking the laws. The Iran Contra affair had no sanction from the US government (and by “government”, I mean the US use). > \*\* Um, so, the National Security Council isn’t a part of the government? The Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA aren’t part of the government? The president wasn’t a part of the government? :rolleyes: Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/29 "2002-04-08T13:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beastal \* > \*\*The UN is merely an advisory body? > > I was debating with a pro-Palestinian Muslim the other night who told me that the UN charter, which must be signed by all member nations, dictates that when the UN says “jump”, we are ordered to say “How high?” > > I also remember watching a few news bulletins during the Balkans War where analysts were claiming that the US bombings were illegal because they didn’t seek UN approval. Were the Belgrade bombings in “self-defence”? \*\* Your freind is clueless. Refer him to the [UN Charter](http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) and ask him to find the part where nations surrender ther sovereignty. Which “analyst” are you referring to? I can find an “analyst” to say that we should nuke our way to a better world. And CNN would put them on TV. Which specific law did he say was being violated? ---
**Author:** ![Demosthenesian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Demosthenesian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demosthenesian)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/30 "2002-04-08T16:06:00Z")
furt: nations retain their sovereignty, but the U.N. (as opposed to the General Assembly) is more than just an “advisory body”. Most members of the U.N. have signed various treaties and agreements and such and as sovereign nations they are expected to keep them. There’s no military force saying they have to, but breaking those rules without a damned good reason earns one little credibility on the world stage and makes others think that nation is untrustworthy. On the other hand, if a state has near-hegemonic power they can get away with rather a lot before the rest of the world cries “hold, enough!” Thus we get the upcoming war on Iraq, which I seriously doubt the U.N. will sanction unless there’s a relevant section buried in their constitution I’m not aware of. Barring proof of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11, self defense does not apply. ---
**Author:** ![dal\_timgar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a88e57/32.png) [@dal\_timgar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dal_timgar)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/31 "2002-04-08T18:49:50Z")
ask the indians, oops Native Americans, and the Vietnamese. Dal Timgar ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2002, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/32 "2002-04-08T20:03:21Z")
While I don’t doubt that Uncle Sam has stuck his proverbial nose in places where it may be best unstuck, I wonder where the distinction is drawn between “terrorism” and “warmongering”. If one were to ask me, I’d say that the majority of U.S. involvement (where it is not strictly political) might be more readily classified as the latter (or, at the very least, as “combat action-mongering”). “War” and “terrorism” are not synonymous. As far as I’m concerned, if I see uniformed combat troops, I’m more inclined to believe it’s an instance of the former. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/33 "2002-04-09T03:31:46Z")
It’s often seemed like the line between war and terrorism are often blurred, and some times the two seem to pass eachother. People destroy a US Marine baracks with a truck bomb, and it’s terrorism. US destroys an enemy baracks with a laser-guided bomb, and it’s a successfull and legitimate millitary action. They’re slightly different, but they’re also quite similar. Pinning down exactly where the line is between the two seems rather hard… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/34 "2002-04-09T04:20:13Z")
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/35 "2002-04-09T04:21:18Z")
I think the point of division between a terrorist and an act of war is accountability. A terrorist action has no accountability, whereas a nation is held accountable for it’s actions. Therefore the United States is not a terrorist, it may be an oppressor, however it is not a terrorist entity. The United States has a legitimate government that the world can take their grievances too, and that can be bombed if need be. A terrorist organization like Al Qaeda is a criminal organization that uses high profile violence to further a political cause. It’s very similar to the problem with Israel and Hamas. The PA can claim that they have no authority over Hamas, thus Israel has no legitimate authority against which to vent it’s grievances, therefore it must go after the organization itself, which is unfortunately operating from within the midst of a civilian population, with or without the consent of that civilian population, as it is not an established authority in regards to that civilian population. If Syria were to attack Israel, there would not be too many people in the world that would denounce Israel for bombing Syria. However now they are acting against a non-legitimate authority at the expense of a civilian population, and that is where people bring issue. I don’t mean to hijack this into a thread about Israel, it’s just that I felt it was an appropriate analogy. As far as all this Iran Contra nonsense goes. The US did not sanction the Iran-Contra actions, even though it was perpetrated by members in high level positions within our government. The US held trials to see what would happen in relation to this scandal. However it was not an action of the US government, it was a few individuals within the government acting on their own for their own agendas. Now if you want to argue that the trial was a farse, that’s another thread. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/36 "2002-04-09T04:46:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. \*\* Then one could argue that the United States is merely fighting for its freedom (based on the assumption that someone, somewhere, feels the U.S. is, indeed, a “terrorist organisation”). ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/37 "2002-04-09T05:09:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Demosthenesian \* > \*\*furt: nations retain their sovereignty, but the U.N. (as opposed to the General Assembly) is more than just an “advisory body”. > \*\* Demo: You might find it useful to match up people’s names with their words. See, the trick is, if you want to critique somebody’s argument, you have to critique _their_ argument. Assuming that because X and Y are broadly on the same side of an issue one can safely assign the words of one to the other is not going to cut it. Unless you would like me to put **Beastal** and **Colinito**'s words in your mouth. > [@](#): > > **Most members of the U.N. have signed various treaties and agreements and such and as sovereign nations they…** To repeat something I _did_ say, which law or treaty was broken in the Balkan conflict? > [@](#): > > \*\*On the other hand, if a state has near-hegemonic power they can get away with rather a lot before the rest of the world cries “hold, enough!” Thus we get the upcoming war on Iraq, which I seriously doubt the U.N. will sanction unless there’s a relevant section buried in their constitution I’m not aware of. Barring proof of Iraq’s involvement in 9/11, self defense does not apply. \*\* What’s the point with having near-hegemonic power if you can’t use it? That was a joke but there is a reality behind it. The US bears special responsibilities and bears special burdens. Please note the excessive hand-wringing in Europe this week that the US wasn’t sufficiently “engaged” in the PLO/Israeli conflict. The assumption is that only the US can mediate. Why not Switzerland? They’re neutral. Why not Germany or France or anybody else? Hell, even the Arabs who think we hate them were begging us to “get involved.” Whether it’s a good idea or not, the rest of the world does expect the US to play policeman. And we go along with it. Everybody talks about our being involved in the Middle east because of oil … but [look it up](http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/geoenergyii.html) and notice how many developed countries are more dependant on Middle East oil than we are (hint: most of them). Not that it matters; the marketplace for oil is global. The point is that the US can and does do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to securing peace – or at least stability – in the world, which benefits everyone. In return, yeah, we get little bit more of a free hand. It seems a pretty fair trade to me. And the idea of needing a UN sanction to attack Iraq is seeing it in a black/white. They may not sanction it, but neither will they stop it. Why? Because Japan and Europe know that Hussein is dangerous to everyone; but they (excluding the UK, and maybe the Ozzies and one or two more) aren’t going to risk their own combat troops (and goodwill among the Arabs) to do it. I’m not playing the “poor US” bit. Just pointing out the rather obvious fact that special responsibilities engender special privleges. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/38 "2002-04-09T05:23:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \* > \*\*They’re slightly different, but they’re also quite similar. Pinning down exactly where the line is between the two seems rather hard… \*\* No, it’s not. **Darwin’s Finch** is exactly right. Terrorism is an attack against civilians. Warfare is an attack against targets for specifically military aims, which may sometimes, unfortunately, result in civilian casualties. Armed US troops in Beirut were legitmate targets; attempts to call it terrorism are propaganda. Unarmed civilians in New York or Tel Aviv are not legitimate targets; attempts to call them “freedom fighters” are similarly ridiculous. I, for one, would have a thousand times more sympathy for the Palestinian cause if they were suicide-bombing the Israeli tanks and troops that are the instruments of their oppression. But they aren’t; they are attacking civilians, including some who support them. And that is the line between fighting for freedom and being a barbarian and murderer. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/39 "2002-04-09T05:56:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by stankow \* > \*\* > Do you swat mosquitoes? Are they powerful enough to kill you? \*\* Are you insinuating that a mosquito’s life is as valuable as that of a human being? ---
**Author:** ![chula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a4c791/32.png) [@chula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chula)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2002, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289/40 "2002-04-09T07:14:12Z")
**mrwas** is getting at the core issue here, though I think the better word would be “legitimacy” instead of “accountability.” Generally, an act is considered terrorist if it is performed by a non-state actor. (See [here](http://www.undcp.org/terrorism_definitions.html) for a UN attempt at defining terrorism.) Max Weber wrote: > [@](#): > > The primary formal characteristics of the modern state are as follows: It possesses an administrative and legal order subject to change by legislation, to which the organized corporate activity of the administrative staff, which is also regulated by legislation, is oriented. This system of order claims bringing authority, not only over the members of the state, the citizens, most of whom have obtained membership by birth, but also to a very large extent, over all action taking place in the area of its jurisdiction. It is thus a compulsory association with a territorial basis. Furthermore, to-day,\*\* the use of force is regarded as legitimate only so far as it is either permitted by the state or prescribed by it\*\*. Thus the right of a father to discipline his children is recognized— a survival of the former independent authority of the head of a household, which in the right to use force has sometimes extended to a power of life and death over children and slaves. The claim of the modern state to monopolize the use of force is as essential to it as its character of compulsory jurisdiction and of continuous organization. So, if you accept that the state should have a monopoly on violence and that the US government is legitimate, then you probably won’t see them as a terrorist organization. In my opinion, the US government is not legitimate because it does not represent the will of the people it purports to represent, because its leaders were not democratically elected, and because it routinely engages in illegal acts (if you don’t buy Iran-Contra, what about the numerous other examples?), among other reasons. And I do not believe that the state monopoly on violence should be complete. I’m not doing this subject justice, but I want to raise these issues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-united-states-government-by-pure-definition-a-terrorist-organistation/102289.md?page=3)