That moves into the whole "crushed aspirations" or "foiled expectations" mechanism though, BadBird. I suspect we will see an upsurge of terrorism in India as the middle class expands and the friction between Muslims and Hindus and even Sikhs is aggravate. I think what we will see is middle class individuals who have their hopes dashed resort to violence. Demogogues on all sides will wield those disaffected members of the middle class like bludgeons in pursuit of their ideological squabbles.

How do our laws define terrorism, Law, and how can they be applied to foreign nationals? Just asking.

Try doing a google search on "US terrorism laws, definition". Seriously, Liz, I have previously posted the relevant US law defining terrorism and am disinclined to continuously repeat things for those who cannot keep up with the discussions.

As for application to foreign nationals, that is a new question so it deserves consideration. Foreign nationals in the US are subject to US law of course and so there is no need to consider that particular aspect of the issue. On the other hand, foreign nationals capured outside the US are not necessarily subject to US laws. However, international custom and legal tradition treats terrorism much like piracy. In piracy cases, ALL nations are considered to have jurisdiction over pirates who come into their custody regardless of their nationality or the place of their capture. So, terrorism offenses would, in accord with international custom and legal tradition, would be subject to US jurisdiction if the US captured or otherwise obtained custody of the offender.

I'm not so sure that making a simile between terrorism and piracy jurisdictional customs and traditions is valid. Isn't it only true for pirates that are captured in international waters? Would it not follow that treating terrorists similarly to pirates would only apply if they were not captured within any single nation's jurisdiction, but if captured within a nation's jurisdiction they would be subject to that nation's laws?

Yo Ho Ho and a bottle of gas.

Nope, BadBird. International custom allows nations to pursue pirates even into the territorial waters of another nation and to take custody of and jurisdiction over pirates captured extra-territorially. That does not necessarily mean the capturing nation is not violating the sovereignty of the nation where the capture took place. It does mean that such a violation does not confer any right to challenge the legitimacy of the capture or the jurisdiction subsequently exercised.

THe more I think about it, the more I like the idea of treating terrorism more like piracy in the days of yore...It is rather analogous. Its both a legal and a military issue. The use of force, military force, against pirates was explicitly recognized as appropriate. No real effort to capture and try the pirate was required, it was sufficient to attack and destroy upon sighting the pirates.

I don't think the 'hot-pursuit' case really changes my point, unless we were chasing a plane load of terrorists that was heading for, say Iran, and arrested them after landing.

Piracy and international terrorism do have some similarities and you may have a point given the un-national nature of their crimes. I wonder how they treated privateers in days of yore. They were acting under letters of marque that authorized them to seize merchant ships of a particular nation. Were they treated as pirates or enemy combatants?

I did as you suggested, Law. I'm often surprised to see that not everyone realizes I really haven't been around as long as most current members and often haven't read all of the posts. Anyway, I'd say the current pirates operating off the coast of Africa could be called terrorists, if 'terrorist' means someone who inspires great fear in someone else. Our law defines terrorism as committing bodily harm or committing a crime that could put someone in danger of bodily harm. Since the pirates kidnap, are they terrorists?

BadBird, I was not talking strictly about hot pursuit into foreign waters. I was talking about deliberate intrusions into such waters for the specific purpose of capturing a pirate. Those operating under letters of marque were generally treated as pirates if captured by the nation upon whose ships they were preying. If the two involved nations were at war other nations most often left carriers of a letter of marque alone.

Liz, our law DOES NOT define terrorism in such a fashion. I thought you claimed to have done what I suggested...?

The ordinal numbered sections provide definitions. The lettered sections under the ordinal numbers provide elements of proof necessary to meet the definition, ad the lower cased Roman numbers provide subordinate elements of which any or all may be demonstrated to establish the primary element of proof. In other words, domestic terrorism in the United States consists of an act dangerous to human life when said act appears to be intended to do one or more of the following: intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Such an event must take place within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. That defines domestic terrorism.

International terrorism is similar but has a requirement that the offense occur outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or the offense(s) transcend national boundaries eithe in their scope or in their targe audience. It is nt a given that pirates would be terrorists based merely on the act of kidnapping, Liz. The crime itself is not the sole element of proof in a terrorism charge. There exists a requirement for the offense to also be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. Piracy for purely commercial reasons would not rise to terrorism as intent would be absent.

I read it all, Law, and tried to boil it all down into something succinct, such as bodily harm and "appears to be intended."

I did this mainly because, in your reply to BB, you seemed to want to treat terrorists as pirates--just get rid of them without the benefit of a trial.

Today's pirates don't carry letters of marque. The Somali pirates are out for ransom money--and to interfere with oil shipments. But they're still pirates and not terrorists.

BB seems to want to bring a non-confrontational, or non-argumentative, point of view into the forums. He seems to think that rational discourse is of more value than argument, name-calling or ignor-ance.

More power to him!

Indeed they are, Liz. Of course, I never suggested the Somali pirates were anything other than pirates....in point of fact, I refuted your suggestion they were pirates.

You raise an interesting point when you mention getting rid of terrorists without trial. I personally believe we should treat terrorism as a military threat to national security rather than as a law enforcement issue. As a result, I would indeed support no trial for terrorists. The rub is ensuring that those designated terrorists are indeed terrorists. I am not sure how we can do that in a consistent fashion. Perhaps a COngressional declaration of war might be required.