Terrorism Is a Term that Requires Consistency
By FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
April 8, 2002

A group called Minnesotans Against Terrorism (MAT)-- which includes Gov. Jesse Ventura, Sen. Paul Wellstone and other prominent political figures-- has condemned the Minneapolis Star Tribune for what it calls a "double standard" on the use of the word "terrorism." But in fact, neither the newspaper nor the organization applies the term "terrorism" in a consistent way-- a problem that is widespread throughout U.S. media.

The organization's grievance against the Star Tribune is that the paper says it avoids using the term "terrorist" in its reports on the Mideast conflict. As the paper's assistant managing editor, Roger Buoen, explained in a comment to the paper's ombudsman (2/3/02):

"Our practice is to stay away from characterizing the subjects of news articles but instead describe their actions, background and identity as fully as possible, allowing readers to come to their own judgments about individuals and organizations.

"In the case of the term 'terrorist,' other words-- 'gunman,' 'separatist' and 'rebel,' for example-- may be more precise and less likely to be viewed as judgmental. Because of that we often prefer these more specific words.

"We also take extra care to avoid the term 'terrorist' in articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because of the emotional and heated nature of that dispute."

This policy of avoiding the term "terrorism" in favor of more specific descriptions is a defensible policy-- so long as it is applied consistently. But Buoen went on to acknowledge that the paper does make exceptions:

"However, in some circumstances in which non-governmental groups carry out attacks on civilians, the term is permitted. For example, Al Qaeda is frequently referred to by the Star Tribune and other news organizations as a 'terrorist network,' in part because its members have been convicted of terrorist acts and because it has been identified by the United States and other countries as a terrorist organization."

Here the paper is making distinctions that are not defensible. First, to limit "terrorism" to "nongovernmental groups" is an illogical restriction. Does a plane being blown up stop being terrorism if it turns out that some nation's intelligence agency secretly ordered its destruction? To make such an arbitrary distinction over the use of a word with such powerful connotations certainly doesn't sound like "allowing readers to come to their own judgments." (The Star Tribune's ombudsman noted that the Associated Press also reserves the word "terrorist" for non-governmental groups.)

Similarly, to decide that it is all right to label Al Qaeda as a "terrorist network," not because its specific actions fit a definition of terrorism, but because the U.S. government has used that label in public statements or in legal actions, is not allowing readers to make up their minds but letting the state make up their minds for them.

Furthermore, the September 11 attacks are certainly an "emotional and heated" subject-- probably more so than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for most of the Star Tribune's readers. Since the reasons the paper cites for calling Al Qaeda "terrorist" also apply to the Palestinian organization Hamas, one can't help but wonder if the Star Tribune's different treatment of these groups has to do with the greater degree of outrage its readers would feel if the paper declined to use the term in Al Qaeda's case.

So MAT has a point when it charges the paper with a double standard. But the organization itself has a similar double standard when it comes to its definition of terrorism. "Calling the targeted killing of innocent civilians anything but terrorism is completely unconscionable," says Marc Grossfield, the group's co-founder, in a press release (4/2/02). But do they really mean it?

FAIR asked Grossfield if his organization would refer to the bombing of Hiroshima as a terrorist act. "No, we would not," he responded. Yet it would seem to fit MAT's definition precisely: Hiroshima was targeted precisely because the city, lacking significant military targets, had escaped previous bombing damage, so its destruction by a single bomb would send the starkest possible message to Japan about the price the nation would pay if it refused to surrender. So why isn't that targeting of civilians, who died on a scale undreamed of by any suicide bomber, considered to be terrorism?

"The use of weapons of mass destruction in WWII against an evil force who had engaged in genocide is not something that this organization is willing to judge," was MAT's official response.

So targeting civilians stops being terrorism when it's done to combat an "evil force." Of course, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who targeted civilians anywhere who did not consider the force they were fighting to be "evil." This is a definition of terrorism that hinges on whether or not one agrees with the reasons for killing civilians.

In fact, the only consistent definition of terrorism is based on the deliberate killing of civilians to achieve political goals-- not on whether the killers are backed by a state or not, and certainly not on the methods they choose to use to kill their victims. A consistent definition, however, is one that virtually no news organization would be willing to use.

They would have to refer to the "terrorist" bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to U.S. support for "terrorist" governments in Central America that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, to the U.S.'s "terrorist" attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iraq and Yugoslavia. (The attacks on water treatment facilities in Iraq alone have certainly-- and deliberately-- killed more civilians than any Palestinian group; see The Progressive, 9/01.)

And they would have to use the word "terrorism" to describe actions by both sides in the Israeli-Palestian conflict. Consider a May 1996 report from Human Rights Watch on Israel's tactics in Lebanon earlier that year:

"In significant areas in southern Lebanon whole populations-- indeed anyone who failed to flee by a certain time-- were targeted as if they were combatants.... The intention of the warnings that were broadcast and subsequent shelling is likely to have been to cause terror among the civilian population.... The IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] also executed what appear to have been calculated direct attacks on purely civilian targets.... The IDF at times hindered and even attacked ambulances and vehicles of relief organizations, and carried out a number of attacks on persons attempting to flee the area."

If news organizations are prepared to describe such tactics as terrorism, then they should consistently apply the same term to non-governmental groups that target civilians. If media are unwilling or unable to be consistent, then they should, indeed, avoid the use of the word "terrorism," instead describing specific activities and letting readers make up their own minds what they should be called.

Why pay taxes?
By Geov Parrish, WorkingForChange
March 18, 2002

April 15 approaches. "Tax Day" has become something of an unofficial holiday, thanks largely to retailers and loan sharks trying to cash in on peoples' frustrations. This year, while some folks may feel renewed pride at writing out that check (or, increasingly, transferring funds over the Internet) to Uncle Sam, there will be a lot of renewed ambivalence or resentment, too. For good reasons.

A lot has happened since we wrote those checks last year: the "War On Terrorism," tax cuts overwhelmingly favoring the very wealthy, the blank checks -- drawing on our tax dollars -- being written for military contractors and their high-tech death machines, and a return to massive federal deficits, for starters. As with so many other instances of corporate welfare, corruption, bureaucratic contempt, and state brutality, these issues raise an obvious but seldom-asked question: why do so many of us pay our income taxes?

This is not a rhetorical question. At the local, state, and especially federal level, we now have a political system where low, middle, and even upper middle income people get far less back in services and benefits from the federal government than we pay in. Meanwhile, the extremely wealthy -- the top 1 percent -- get far more. Military spending, non-military corporate welfare, and interest on the national debt alone accounting for more than 60 percent of the discretionary part of the federal budget each year.

The impact is even greater when considering how much money isn't in the budget in the first place because of what the rich don't pay. Corporations and high-income folks getting more tax breaks each year, while already-inadequate social spending continues to be gutted and more and more prisons get built to hold the people who can't cope.

The very rich are getting richer while many of our wages are stagnant or dropping. Governments -- funded largely by the wealthy -- are one of the primary mechanisms for this wealth transfer. The rich get richer, and a relatively tiny portion of their proceeds are then reinvested into purchasing politicians and policies to ensure an even more beneficial tax, legal, and regulatory structure. The ordinary U.S. citizen today has little meaningful choice or input in almost any important public policy issue at the state level, and none at all nationally.

So why do so many of us pay our taxes?

Two hundred twenty or so years ago this was called "taxation without representation" and we threw out the government. Today, we vent our frustration by laughing along with the Tax Day jokes on late-night TV, or going further into debt at the Tax Day sales at our local mall, and "revolutions" are something bad people do.

But what if we refused? The federal government in particular is vulnerable; the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, and the IRS -- though fearsome in its media-assisted reputation -- is essentially a very large, and not even very efficient, collection agency. People laugh off collection agency bills simply because they don't want to (or can't) pay, but quake in terror of the IRS when the money isn't just going to a private business -- it's going, in large quantities, to an institution now dedicated at the highest levels to enriching its patrons even if it means killing you. We are volunteering to buy the bullets for our firing squads.

Why does virtually everybody volunteer?

This isn't a Freemen or Posse Comitatus-type question of the legitimacy of taxation. Quite the opposite; it's specifically because portions of everyone's labor should contribute to the collective well-being of the community (rather than, say, Warren Buffett's net worth) that our current tax system is ethically bankrupt. The issue here is where the money is going, how it's being spent, and how the spending decisions are made. People struggling to pay the rent, who can't afford health care, have no job security or retirement prospects, can't find affordable daycare, college, or anything in between for their kids, and so on, are tithing 30 percent or more of our income to people who often pay little or nothing, reap a disproportionate share of public benefits, and already have enough yachts and private luxury jets to get by.

There are a few folks saying no. War tax resisters, refusing, for reasons of conscientious objection, to fund militarism, have been painfully aware for years of how much of our tax money goes to killing. Others refuse for libertarian reasons. A larger number choose to live under the taxable income, and still more folks, when forced to choose between enough food to feed the family in April and paying the IRS bill, make the eminently political decision to forego hunger. As usual this year, there will be small groups of folks leafletting or protesting at post offices around the country. You'd think there'd be millions.

Resisting taxes has risks. It can be done symbolically, withholding a small amount here or there; it can be done with an expectation of ultimately paying more in interest and penalties, the extra cost of refusing to cooperate willingly; or it can require major life changes to find tax-free employment and become uncollectable. It can be a nuisance, or it can complicate one's life immensely, or it can force a complete reexamination of why we work and where we want our time and labor to go.

Nobody should undertake tax resistance without understanding the risks. But there's also risks involved in passively cooperating with our own fleecing, or our own demise. And it's simply amazing that more of us don't look closely at which risk is greater.

For resources on tax resistance for reasons of conscientious objection to military spending, contact the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee at 1-800-269-7464, or www.nwtrcc.org.