Justifying the Empire with the War on Terror

[Adam Reynolds]

Here are a pair of fairly recent articles that are arguing that the Rebel Alliance is a terrorist organization: The first argues that Luke Skywalker was a radicalized terrorist and the second argues that the Empire was justifed in blowing up Alderaan. A final one argues that the Rebel Allaince failed at statebuilding from a two minute trailer.

I was originally going to do a point by point, but I don't really feel like taking the time.

For the first article, I will simply note that Luke in fact disobeyed Yoda and Obi-Wan repeatedly and did the right thing regardless of their teachings. It was because he was able to overcome what he was taught and think for himself that he was victorious. That isn't a very good radical terrorist. I should note that it is Vader rather than Luke who kills the Emperor.

For another point, it also seems to make the same mistake as the American media, that of calling military targets terrorist targets. Jabba's sail barge was a military target as a result of the fact that everyone on it was a willing member of his criminal enterprise. As for the Death Star that was even more of a military target.

As for the Death Star comment, I suppose it should be noted that the boming of Hiroshima and even more so Nagasaki is not in fact moral. The problem was that strategic bombing was simply accepted at that point in time and when it came down to it, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not all that different than a mass bombing raid. But that has little relevance to the question of the Death Star's necessity as a means of defeating the Empire.

As for the war criminal, Curtis Lemay absolutely was. He was simply fortunate to be on the winning side. Had he been German and committed the same actions, he would have likely been executed at Nuremberg.

Even from a practical standpoint, the Tarkin Doctrine backfired horribly. It caused the Rebel Alliance to have the ultimate propaganda victory. Had the Empire instead used restraint, they could have actually destroyed the Rebel Alliance instead and likely captured the missing Death Star plans on Alderaan.

In any case, I suspect that these are being used as rhetorical devices in all of these in an attempt to point out the problems with current American foreign policy.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just going to say that it is laughable to say that everyone on Jabba's barge was their willingly, since we know at least one person their was a slave (Leia), and quite possibly others were as well.

That said, treating the Rebel Alliance as comparable to something like Al Qaeda or IS is asinine at best. I can't speak for everything in the EU, but I'd challenge them to name one time in the films the Rebellion deliberately targeted innocent civilians (as opposed to their being "collateral damage" to a strike). Also, the regime they were fighting was unquestionably tyrannical by any reasonable measure.

[Anacronian]

Making the comparison between Hiroshima and Alderaan is kinda weird - Hiroshima was a city located and held by a known enemy to the US while Alderaan was not a planet know to harbor any kind of enemy to the empire - the best intelligence the empire had at that time pointed to their enemies being on Dantooine.

What the empire does is more like if the US dropped a nuke on Stockholm in order to show the Japanese what they could do rather than what actually happens.

[Captain Seafort]

What the empire does is more like if the US dropped a nuke on Stockholm in order to show the Japanese what they could do rather than what actually happens.

More like nuking Tripoli in response to Lockerbie, or Tehran in response to one of the Beirut bombs. They had proof that a senior Alderaani diplomat and member of the royal house had been using an Alderaani diplomatic transport as a courier for a terrorist group, and that said individual had received classified data on a major military facility, presumably as part of a plan to attack said facility. Therefore, while blowing up the planet was disproportionate, it was certainly harbouring (and almost certainly being run by) members of an anti-Imperial terrorist group.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you really fucking stretch the definition of "terrorist", yes.

[Adam Reynolds]

I'm just going to say that it is laughable to say that everyone on Jabba's barge was their willingly, since we know at least one person their was a slave (Leia), and quite possibly others were as well.

Apart from Leia, is there any indication anyone else wasn't there willingly? Jabba's entourage were all happily laughing as Luke and company were to be put to death. That was likely a reason Luke drew them out to the sail barge, it would limit collateral damage.

There is also the point that Luke repeatedly attempted to bargain before relying on force.

That said, treating the Rebel Alliance as comparable to something like Al Qaeda or IS is asinine at best. I can't speak for everything in the EU, but I'd challenge them to name one time in the films the Rebellion deliberately targeted innocent civilians (as opposed to their being "collateral damage" to a strike). Also, the regime they were fighting was unquestionably tyrannical by any reasonable measure.

Did we even see any indication of civilian deaths as a result of Rebel action?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm not saying Luke was in the wrong to use force, or that he didn't try to negotiate. Just that we can't say their were no innocent people aboard.

To the second issue, nothing definitive in the films, unless you count fucking Palpatine as a civilian, which seems to be stretching it.

[Gandalf]

Maybe the civilian contractors building the second Death Star?

[Captain Seafort]

If you really fucking stretch the definition of "terrorist", yes.

A non-state group that uses violence to influence the government? Sounds like the rebellion to me.

[The Romulan Republic]

By that definition, every revolt in history automatically qualifies as terrorism, regardless of the tactics the rebels used or the reasons for their revolt.

[Adam Reynolds]

By that definition, every revolt in history automatically qualifies as terrorism, regardless of the tactics the rebels used or the reasons for their revolt.

I actually think that is the point these articles are making. At least I hope it is. The only real alternative is that they are making a serious argument in favor of this idea.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't get me wrong- under the vast majority of circumstances, I'm as critical of violent revolt as anyone.

But their is such a thing as defining something too broadly, or so broadly it becomes virtually meaningless.

[Grumman]

By that definition, every revolt in history automatically qualifies as terrorism, regardless of the tactics the rebels used or the reasons for their revolt.

I actually think that is the point these articles are making. At least I hope it is. The only real alternative is that they are making a serious argument in favor of this idea.

I'll go with option 3: the author is a whore who will say anything for the ad revenue.

[Adam Reynolds]

Don't get me wrong- under the vast majority of circumstances, I'm as critical of violent revolt as anyone.

But their is such a thing as defining something too broadly, or so broadly it becomes virtually meaningless.

I probably need to stop posting and go to sleep. I actually manged to say the opposite of what I meant. What I meant was that I think they are using this as a rhetorical device to point out that the US is in the position of the Empire. Not that the Rebel Alliance wasn't justified. They are using the terminology of the War on Terror in odd ways, like referring to Owen and Beru as collateral damage from drone strikes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

Of course, I think US=Empire is an idiotic comparison too.

[Captain Seafort]

By that definition, every revolt in history automatically qualifies as terrorism, regardless of the tactics the rebels used or the reasons for their revolt.

Correct, and rightly so.

[Adam Reynolds]

By that definition, every revolt in history automatically qualifies as terrorism, regardless of the tactics the rebels used or the reasons for their revolt.

Correct, and rightly so.

Would you consider it moral for states to use violence against civilians? Based on your previous post I suspect your answer to be yes. In that case, how is it moral for nations but not their own populations?

[Rogue 9]

By that definition, every revolt in history automatically qualifies as terrorism, regardless of the tactics the rebels used or the reasons for their revolt.

Correct, and rightly so.

Wow, you're a fucking idiot. Terrorism is specifically the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians to frighten people to achieve a political goal. Striking at military targets is specifically excluded. So your definition is wrong; please learn the English language.

[Simon_Jester]

What the empire does is more like if the US dropped a nuke on Stockholm in order to show the Japanese what they could do rather than what actually happens.

More like nuking Tripoli in response to Lockerbie, or Tehran in response to one of the Beirut bombs. They had proof that a senior Alderaani diplomat and member of the royal house had been using an Alderaani diplomatic transport as a courier for a terrorist group, and that said individual had received classified data on a major military facility, presumably as part of a plan to attack said facility. Therefore, while blowing up the planet was disproportionate, it was certainly harbouring (and almost certainly being run by) members of an anti-Imperial terrorist group.

How would it be terrorism to blow up a secret weapon platform? The Death Star's existence is so secret that people like Han and Luke have no idea what it is. I could believe Obi-Wan not knowing because he's been living as a hermit for 15-20 years, but Luke was studying to enter the Imperial military, and Han is a professional pilot with (depending on EU canonicity) a military background.

But they don't even recognize it, have never heard of it. This suggests that the existence of the first Death Star, like that of the second, is classified information, and that most Imperial citizens, including those who would probably know a fair amount of casual knowledge about the Imperial military, haven't got a clue about it.

In which case blowing it up cannot achieve political effect through terrorizing the civilian population, because the civilian population doesn't know it exists. You can't scare people by destroying something they don't know about.

Therefore, not terrorism.

If you're going to use 'terrorist' as a criticism, you have to make sure that 'terrorist' actually refers to people who do bad things, and not use it for people who don't do those specific bad things. Sort of like 'murderer.' Calling someone who never killed anybody a 'murderer' undermines the validity of the term and reduces its impact.

[Captain Seafort]

Would you consider it moral for states to use violence against civilians? Based on your previous post I suspect your answer to be yes. In that case, how is it moral for nations but not their own populations?

Because of the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. As an exemplar, if an armed robber posed an immediate threat to the life of an armed policeman, or nearby civilians, it would be legal for the cop to shoot him. It would not be legal for the robber to shoot the policeman.

Wow, you're a fucking idiot. Terrorism is specifically the use of indiscriminate violence against civilians to frighten people to achieve a political goal. Striking at military targets is specifically excluded. So your definition is wrong; please learn the English language.

In which case blowing it up cannot achieve political effect through terrorizing the civilian population, because the civilian population doesn't know it exists. You can't scare people by destroying something they don't know about.

No, it isn't. Terrorism is defined as follows:

Terrorism: interpretation.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a)the action falls within subsection (2),

(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a)involves serious violence against a person,

(b)involves serious damage to property,

(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—

(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,

(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,

(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and

(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

Note that intimidating the public is not a requirement, provided that the intention is to influence the government. Note also that attacks on military targets are specifically not excluded. This latter point was confirmed by the Supreme Court in R vs Gul, where the key question was:

“Does the definition of terrorism in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 operate so as to include within its scope any or all military attacks by a non-state armed group against any or all state or inter-governmental organisation armed forces in the context of a non-international armed conflict?”

The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative.

See The Terrorism Act 2000 and The Terrorism Acts in 2013, s4.5-4.7

[Rogue 9]

That's the law, not the dictionary. The immediately post-9/11 terrorism laws' entire problem is that they're overbroad; in fact, that's the fucking point.

[FaxModem1]

Going to wade in here, because we're about to go down a long, much argued road. Terrorism has multiple definitions, from multiple organizations, that overlap with revolutionaries, criminals, organized crime, guerilla war, and there is no solid definition of it that satisfies everyone.

A joke we were told in my Terrorism class is that the best way to tell if someone is new to Political Science is if they ask what the legal and academic definition of terrorism is, as there really isn't a consensus on it. It also doesn't help that the definition changes over time, due to the changes in technology, public attitudes, and new precedents.

Wikipedia notes the many and varied defintions of terrorism: link

The UN, in fact, has no stated definition of terrorism: link

4. Defining terrorism
157. The United Nations ability to develop a comprehensive strategy has been constrained by the inability of Member States to agree on an anti -terrorism convention including a definition of terrorism. This prevents the United Nations
from exerting its moral authority and from sending an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes.


158. Since 1945, an ever stronger set of norms and laws — including the Charter of the United Nations, the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court — has regulated and constrained States’ decisions to use force and their conduct in war — for example in the requirement to distinguish between combatants and civilians, to use force proportionally and to live up to basic humanitarian principles. Violations of these obligations should continue to be met with widespread condemnation and war crimes should be prosecuted.


159. The norms governing the use of force by non -State actors have not kept pace with those pertaining to States. This is not so much a legal question as a political one. Legally, virtually all forms of terrorism are prohibited by one of 12
international counter-terrorism conventions, international customary law, the Geneva Conventions or the Rome Statutes. Legal scholars know this, but there is a clear difference between this scattered list of conventions and little -known
provisions of other treaties and the compelling normative framework, understood by all, that should surround the question of terrorism. The United Nations must achieve the same degree of normative strength concerning non -State use of force as it has concerning State use of force. Lack of agreement on a clear and well-known definition undermines the normative and moral stance against terrorism and has stained the United Nations image. Achieving a comprehensive convention on
terrorism, including a clear definition, is a political imperative.


160. The search for an agreed definition usually stumbles on two issues. The first is the argument that any definition should include States’ use of armed forces against civilians. We believe that the legal and normative framework against State violations is far stronger than in the case of non-State actors and we do not find this objection to be compelling. The second objection is that peoples under foreign occupation have a right to resistance and a definition of terrorism should not override this right. The right to resistance is contested by some. But it is not the central point: the central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians.

Interpol's defines it as thus: http://www.interpol.int/Crime-areas/Terrorism/Terrorism

The umbrella term 'CBRNE' refers to terrorist incidents carried out with chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives materials. Clearly, an attack of this nature would constitute a major threat to public safety and security, both nationally and internationally.

Here's the FBI's: link

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

Here's Dictionary.com's: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Here's Webster's: link

terrorism
noun ter·ror·ism \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\
: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

Historically, terrorism goes back millenia to the Thuggee, the zealots, and the Hassassin. But their methods wouldn't fall under some of these definitions, as it would seem more similar to political revolution, or organized crime.

Note how these conflict with each other, and leave plenty of wiggle room. There is no standard legal or academic definition, and so its hard to define whether something is terrorism or not.

[Captain Seafort]

That's the law, not the dictionary.

Ergo, a better source, because it has to be shaped to deal with reality, not just theory.

The immediately post-9/11 terrorism laws' entire problem is that they're overbroad; in fact, that's the fucking point.

Look at the date on it - the Terrorism Act 2000. It wasn't designed to deal with al-Qa'ida, it was designed to deal with the IRA and their offshoots, and therefore drew on over thirty years experience of what constitutes terrorism.

[Rogue 9]

That's the law, not the dictionary.

Ergo, a better source, because it has to be shaped to deal with reality, not just theory.

Reality is that tyrannical governments deserve to be overthrown. The idea that the Empire was in any way in the right to destroy Alderaan (an entire planet full of civilians) or that the Rebellion was wrong to destroy the Death Star (a military installation) simply because the Empire happened to be in power at the time is asinine.

[Thanas]

Everybody has been labelled a terrorist when he goes up against any state. That does not make it in itself morally objectionable. The actions chosen by the alleged terrorist are what labels him as good and/or bad, as is the case for the state they are opposing. In the case of the Rebellion this is pretty much clear-cut. Though the rebels do lot of shitty things that harm civilians - like torping civilian shipping and supporting some terrorist movements - in the end, only one side is blowing up civilian planets. Disproportionate response and all that.