Selective terrorists ?

[AAAhmed46]

Alot of the terrorists are educated men.

So why do they commit acts of terrorism?

Well, they are immegrants who travel overseas to work, often having heavy educational knowledge but little islamic knowledge. So they end up going to the mosque because they yearn for other arabs/pakistani's/ muslims. Since they had a hard time in the states/canada, they blame the country. Then a terrorist organization gets a hold of him, often making him feel accepted and thus, you have a terrorist bomber.

This is terrorism in north america. The rest of the world i think is more complicated.

Im against the war in iraq.

But thats a different topic for a different time. The thing is that believe it or not, but many iraqi christians fought on saddam's side. Saddam wasn't much of a muslims fundmentalist, hell he had his own harem.

But the thing is, why are the insurgents REALLY fighting? They talk of taking iraq back, but we all know that many of them are from syria.

Here is my question. Why is syria against an american occupation in iraq?? I know bush would not want to bomb syria, hell it's capital is Damascus, a holy city to both christains and muslims. So why?

[Chuck Leonard]

Alot of interesting posts here, especially on the selected topic. I finished a course in Global Terrorism from American Military University and one distinguishing fact that was brought out is that there is no Internationally agreed upon definition of Terrorism. Think about it, what is one man's terror (and I include both sexes in that statement), is another man's freedom fighter, etc etc.

To say that the Cole incident was not an act of Terror because it was against American Servicemen is ludacris. Are civilian lives more important than those of the military? I'm in the Military and find that when servicemen and women die, the general public seems to ignore it or even treat it with a passing interest. When asked most believe that we are paid to do so. How can you pay a dead man?!? Because I chose to serve my Country does that make my life less important than anyone else?

The incident with the "Rainbow Warrior" is tragic and deplorable but Terrorism? I don't know, I would more likely say Criminal.

Very Respectfully,
Chuck

[MikeK]

To say that the Cole incident was not an act of Terror because it was against American Servicemen is ludacris. Are civilian lives more important than those of the military? I'm in the Military and find that when servicemen and women die, the general public seems to ignore it or even treat it with a passing interest.

No offense meant to you or any servicemen Chuck and I'm not trying to argue a point but I want to be clear on where I come from.
From the U.S. Code

(d) Definitions As used in this section—
(1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents; and
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism.

To declare the Cole as terrorism opens up many cans full of worms since it could put us into the same category for certain operations or support of certain groups. Also declaring attacks like this terrorism makes it sound more random than they are, after all this exact type of operation was tried on the USS Sullivans in January of 2000 but failed. We had enemies that were waging unconventional war on us and people in charge ignored it, maybe it made certain diplomatic policies look bad. The fact remains that if these enemies fail the first time they will try again as the Cole and WTC attacks show. I also don't think what we call terrorists are trying to scare us, I think their goal is actual damage and ruin of the US.

I also remember what happened everytime I pass under the Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter-USS Cole Memorial Bridge on the way to my parents. So many of us do value the lives of our servicemen. So Chuck, my sincere apologies if I offended you or anybody else.
Mike

[Stryke]

The incident with the "Rainbow Warrior" is tragic and deplorable but Terrorism? I don't know, I would more likely say Criminal.

the fact it was political , and meant to cause fear , as well as criminal is what defines it as terrorisim .

to use any other label is just Sophistry .

It`s not conveniant to admit that world powers have at times resorted to terrorisim .

[Chuck Leonard]

Hey Mike, no worries after all it is a debate and that is what makes freedom great....differing opinions. I read your reference to U.S. code and thought it interesting so I did some digging since I did say "no Internationally agreed upon definition of Terrorism". So here is what I found:

The U.S. Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan at:

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/conplan/conplan.pdf

Which defines Terror as:

"Terrorism - Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment
thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

The DoD defines Terrorism as:

"the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

http://www.terrorism.com/modules.php?op ... e&sid=5671


It is nice that you brought up U.S. Code but seeing as the Departments of State, Defense, and Justice can' seem to agree exactly on what Terrorism is it is kind of a moot point and back to my initial statement, no one can agree.

You said that "To declare the Cole as terrorism opens up many cans full of worms since it could put us into the same category for certain operations or support of certain groups."

What category for what operations of what groups? As I said in my first post, terrorism is too nebuluous to be black and white since every person's perception of it is different. Many different acts qualify but who decides? After all the same guy doing the same thing could be called a Freedom Fighter, Soldier, Mass Murderer, Criminal, or Terrorist.


You further stated that "declaring attacks like this terrorism makes it sound more random than they are, after all this exact type of operation was tried on the USS Sullivans in January of 2000 but failed. We had enemies that were waging unconventional war on us and people in charge ignored it."

I completely agree but what can we call them? They are not traditional nation-states with armies or signatories on the Geneva Convention. Terrorism has been happening consistently since the 70's internationally, and people seem to forget the WTC attack in 1993. Foreign Policy does matter, I just can't decipher it.


" I also don't think what we call terrorists are trying to scare us, I think their goal is actual damage and ruination of the US."

Usama Bin Laden has called his campaign a new Crusade. I think his goal is the subjugation of all of Western Culture personally but then again it is only an opinion.

I appreciate the debate and do not think that all civilians take military lives for granted, I have met a few and make generalizations where I shouldn't.

[MikeK]

We're cool Chuck.

I completely agree but what can we call them? They are not traditional nation-states with armies or signatories on the Geneva Convention. Terrorism has been happening consistently since the 70's internationally, and people seem to forget the WTC attack in 1993. Foreign Policy does matter, I just can't decipher it.

People forget so many things that happened. Just look at what people are arguing about now in regards to the 9/11 NY site, you get the feeling that they forgot how that real estate became available.
I don't think AQ are terrorists in the traditional IRA/ETA/Red Brigade mold. While the towers got most of the notice people forget about the attacks on the Pentagon and the thwarted attempt on the White House or Capital. These thugs weren't sending a message they were attacking non-trivial targets with a goal. I'm sure they were happy with the body count but I think they were after something bigger. They're also pretty systematic in how they do things, that's why I'm starting to think that the London attack may have also been a test run or fact finding mission for something else.

[Bill Glasheen]

While the towers got most of the notice people forget about the attacks on the Pentagon and the thwarted attempt on the White House or Capital. These thugs weren't sending a message they were attacking non-trivial targets with a goal.

WTC = Symbol and center of International Commerce. Remember that it shut the stock exchange down for about a week. Also remember that those who perpetrated the acts invested before the event to profit on its aftermath.

Pentagon attack = Command and control of the US Military.

Failed 4th plane downed by the civilian passengers was going to attack either the White House or the Capitiol. That would have been a direct hit on the center of US Government.

Anthrax envelopes brought the US Postal Service to its knees. And most of the targets were the media, including the nightly news reporter for the number 1 news station in the country (at that time). That was a direct attack on US Freedom of the Press. It was an attempt to intimidate the media against negative reporting of their causes.

And the totality of it all temporarily overwhelmed basic services such as Police, Fire, Medical, etc.

Let's see now, what institutions in this country have we missed?

No, this wasn't a shot across the bow. And no, I haven't forgotten, but not in the way they would like me to remember. All we need is a few happy, civilized people in this country who have these sleeping SOBs within.

No apologies.

- Bill

[Akil Todd Harvey]

We Americans Have our Selective Memory placed on high most of the time, which wouldn't be so bad if history didnt have a tendency to repeat itself.

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printer_f ... -26-1.html

Fanatic Terrorism from the Past

Our current war against terrorism is not the first time that western civilization has faced a widespread terrorist threat.

A century ago, there were bombings and assassinations all over Europe and America. Followers of a radical, utopian ideology (and the wackos who used that ideology as an excuse for murder) murdered a Tsar of Russia, a President of the United States, a President of France, a Premier of Spain, an Empress of Austria, a King of Italy, and various lesser officials.

What they preached was a doctrine of assassination and disruption. And that message -- that the powerful and rich deserved to die for their crimes against the working people -- could not be retracted easily.

After all, the terrorists were not converted to the writers, but to the ideas themselves. And the fact that the writers later repudiated the extremism of their early works only told their followers that the evil rulers of the world had co-opted them.

Fighting the Anarchists was devilishly hard. Why? Because by their very ideology, they refused to organize. Organization was the evil they fought against. So unlike the Communists, who organized for revolution, or the socialists, who organized to try to win political power within the existing system, the Anarchists simply did not organize at all.

Therefore each bomber and each knife- or gun-wielding assassin acted completely alone. Most told no one in advance what they planned to do. When they were arrested, they couldn't inform on any other Anarchist terrorists because they didn't know any.

So the whole organization consisted of:

People who published Anarchist books and pamphlets calling (in semi-veiled terms) for assassination and terrorism in order to trigger worldwide revolt, and ...

People who became true believers in Anarchist ideas and did what they suggested.

How does a government fight a "conspiracy" like that? How do ordinary decent people respond to it?

Anyone starting to see history repeating itself?????!?!??!?!??!?!?

who is saying that this string of terrorist bombings is without precedent (it happened before or not?)?

In Spain, hundreds of "enemies of the state" were arrested -- some of them actual anarchists -- and many were tortured to the point where they confessed anything. Even advocating Anarchism through speeches, pictures, or publications could get you a life sentence.

Responses to previous forms of terrorism were about as effective as they are today. Torure works good if you are lucky enough to get the right guy in the first place, if not, you might as well kill em since you may have just trained yourself a new terrorist.

This didn't stop the Anarchists. In fact, that was when the Spanish Premier who had initiated the harsh anti-Anarchist measures was assassinated ... by an Anarchist.

When U.S. President McKinley was assassinated by an Anarchist, it brought into office Theodore Roosevelt, who declared, "Anarchism is a crime against the whole human race and all mankind should band against the Anarchist."

We have had waves of terror before, in this country, we are just too ignorant to remember (or we conveniently forget).

The problem with history is those ignorant of it often get to relive it.

In some ways, the Anarchists were easier to deal with than today's organized terrorists. After all, there's a limit to what one person can do alone. Even the suicide bombers in Israel don't have to study bomb-making -- there are organizations that provide them with their deadly but concealable weapons.

So the immediate damage Anarchist terrorists could do was relatively small -- though their ability to get close enough to important or highly visible world leaders to kill them was uncanny.

But the public didn't care that the damage was, in the long run, relatively minor. There was widespread fury that bordered on mob rage, and fear that sometimes came close to panic.

At the same time, civil libertarians and the supporters of nonviolent (or less violent) labor movements were horrified at the actions governments took to fight Anarchism.

hysteria is a wonderful thing, isnt it?

Govt overreaction? No way!

In Russia, where Anarchist assassinations came in the midst of a war with Japan, the government used the time-honored tactic of blaming the Jews, leading to pogroms: murders and beatings of Jews who had nothing whatever to do with Anarchism. (Who, after all, is more committed to the rule of law than orthodox Jews?)

There is a need to blame some one, some group, why not the Muslims, right? Last century it was the Jews, so it must be the Muslims turn this time? right?

[MikeK]

Exactly Bill. These thugs aren't phoning in warnings before a bomb goes off hoping to influence world opinion about their plight. These guys aren't hostage takers or content with killing a cripple on a cruise ship.
One terrorist expert noted that the London bombs were done by rookies since they exploded in the tunnels where damage would be less. Possible but I'm not feeling good with that assesment, these guys are too professional to make a mistake like that on 3 trains.

[Akil Todd Harvey]

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/laqueur.htm

As the nineteenth century ended, it seemed no one was safe from terrorist attack.
In 1894 an Italian anarchist assassinated French President Sadi Carnot.
In 1897 anarchists fatally stabbed Empress Elizabeth of Austria and killed Antonio C novas, the Spanish prime minister.
In 1900 Umberto I, the Italian king, fell in yet another anarchist
attack;
in 1901 an American anarchist killed William McKinley, president of the United States.

Terrorism became the leading preoccupation of politicians, police chiefs,
journalists, and writers from Dostoevsky to Henry James. If in the year 1900 the leaders of the main industrial powers had assembled, most of them would have insisted on giving terrorism top priority on their agenda, as President Clinton did at the Group of Seven meeting after the June bombing of the U.S. military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Can we keep pretending this is some new thing?

The greatest change in recent decades is that terrorism is by no means militants' only strategy. The many-branched Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian Hamas, the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Kurdish extremists in Turkey and Iraq, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, the Basque Homeland and Liberty (ETA) movement in Spain, and many other groups that have sprung up in this century have had political as well as terrorist
wings from the beginning. The political arm provides social services and education, runs businesses, and contests elections, while the "military wing" engages in ambushes and assassinations. Such division of labor has advantages: the political leadership can publicly disassociate itself when the terrorists commit a particularly outrageous act or something goes wrong. The claimed lack of control can be quite real because the armed wing tends to become independent; the men and women with the guns and bombs often lose sight of the movement's wider aims and may end up doing more harm than good.

The belief has gained ground that terrorist missions by volunteers bent on committing suicide constitute a radical new departure, dangerous because they are impossible to prevent. But that is a myth, like the many others in which terrorism has always been shrouded. The bomber willing and indeed eager to blow himself up has appeared in all eras and cultural traditions, espousing politics ranging from the leftism of the aader-Meinhof Gang in 1970s Germany to rightist extremism. When the Japanese military wanted kamikaze pilots at the end of World War II, thousands of volunteers rushed to offer themselves. The young Arab bombers on Jerusalem buses looking to be rewarded by the virgins in Paradise are a link in an old chain.

The past few decades have witnessed the birth of
dozens of aggressive movements espousing varieties of nationalism, religious fundamentalism, fascism, and apocalyptic millenarianism, from Hindu nationalists in India to neofascists in Europe and the developing world to the Branch Davidian cult of Waco, Texas. The earlier fascists believed in military aggression and engaged in a huge military buildup, but such a strategy has become too expensive even for superpowers. Now, mail-order catalogs tempt militants with readily available, far cheaper,
unconventional as well as conventional weapons -- the poor man's nuclear bomb, Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani called them

Terrorist groups traditionally contain strong quasi-religious, fanatical elements, for only total certainty of belief (or total moral relativism) provides justification for taking lives. That element was strong among the prerevolutionary Russian terrorists and the Romanian fascists of the Iron Guard in the 1930s, as it is among today's Tamil Tigers. Fanatical Muslims consider the killing of the enemies of God a religious commandment, and believe that the secularists at home as well as the State of Israel will be annihilated because it is Allah's will. Aum Shinrikyo doctrine held that murder could help both victim and murderer to salvation. Sectarian fanaticism has surged during the past decade, and in general, the smaller the group, the more fanatical.

Extremist millenarians would like to give history a push, helping create world-ending havoc replete with universal war, famine, pestilence, and other scourges. It is possible that members of certain Christian and Jewish sects that believe in Armageddon or Gog and Magog or the Muslims and Buddhists who harbor related extreme beliefs could attempt to play out a doomsday scenario. A small group of Israeli extremists, for instance, firmly believes that blowing up Temple Mount in Jerusalem would bring about a final (religious) war and the beginning of redemption with the coming of the Kingdom of God. The visions of Shoko Asahara, the charismatic leader of Aum Shinrikyo, grew increasingly apocalyptic, and David Koresh proclaimed the Last Day's arrival in the Branch Davidians' 1994 confrontation with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
agents.

Those who subscribe to such beliefs number in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions. They have their own subcultures, produce books and CDs by the thousands, and build temples and communities of whose existence most of their contemporaries are unaware. They have substantial financial means at their disposal. Although the more extreme apocalyptic groups are potentially terrorist, intelligence services have generally overlooked their activities; hence the shock over the subway attack in Tokyo and Rabin's assassination, to name but two recent events.

Apocalyptic elements crop up in contemporary intellectual fashions and extremist politics as well. For instance, extreme environmentalists, particularly the so-called restoration ecologists, believe that environmental disasters will destroy civilization as we know it -- no loss, in their view -- and regard the vast majority of human beings as expendable. From such beliefs and values it is not a large step to engaging in acts of terrorism to expedite the process. If the eradication of smallpox upset ecosystems, why not restore the balance by bringing back the virus? The motto of Chaos International, one of many journals in this field, is a quotation from Hassan I Sabbah, the master of the Assassins, a medieval sect whose members killed Crusaders and others in a "religious" ecstasy; everything is permitted, the master says. The premodern world and postmodernism meet at this point.

Scanning the contemporary scene, one encounters a bewildering multiplicity of terrorist and potentially terrorist groups and sects. The practitioners of terrorism as we have known it to this point were nationalists and anarchists, extremists of the left and the right. But the new age has brought new inspiration for the users of violence along with the old.

In the past, terrorism was almost always the province of groups of militants that had the backing of political forces like the Irish and Russian social revolutionary movements of 1900. In the future, terrorists will be individuals or like-minded people working in very small groups, on the pattern of the technology-hating Unabomber, who apparently worked alone sending out parcel bombs over two decades, or the perpetrators of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. An individual may possess the
technical competence to steal, buy, or manufacture the weapons he or she needs for a terrorist purpose; he or she may or may not require help from one or two others in delivering these weapons to the designated target. The ideologies such individuals and mini-groups espouse are likely to be even more aberrant than those of larger groups. And terrorists working alone or in very small groups will be more difficult to detect unless they make a major mistake or are discovered by accident.

Thus at one end of the scale, the lone terrorist has appeared, and at the other, state-sponsored terrorism is quietly flourishing in these days when wars of aggression have become too expensive and too risky. As the century draws to a close, terrorism is becoming the substitute for the great wars of the 1800s and early 1900s.

[MikeK]

In the future, terrorists will be individuals or like-minded people working in very small groups, on the pattern of the technology-hating Unabomber, who apparently worked alone sending out parcel bombs over two decades, or the perpetrators of the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City.

So far this hasn't happened very much. Most of these acts that we call "terrorism" have excellent support structures. Follow the chain and you almost always end up with the usual suspects.

Also the article seems to lump separatists nuts like the Davidians, with nuts seeking revenge like McVie with actual terrrorists. Not every nut that has a shoot out with the ATF or blows something up is a actual terrorist.

[Akil Todd Harvey]

http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/459150.php
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2002/feb/10anarch.htm

while we are busy forgetting about the past, anarchist terrorism, it appears to be in the rise again.........

Europol has produced a Situation and Trends report on terrorist activity in the European Union. As might be expected the report covers ETA in Spain, the Real IRA in Northern Ireland, the National Front for the Liberation of Corsica and "Islamic extremist terrorism" (including Al Qaeda). The report stresses that although the number of incidents was "showing a small decrease" the "importance of the attacks increased dramatically" - this was because after 11 September the "European Union is not only a target for terrorist attacks but also an important area for preparatory and logistic purposes in the widest sense". It further notes that progress is taking place in Northern Ireland, and that ceasefires, both in Northern Ireland and Corsica have "been maintained by the main players".

One new category added in 2001 was "eco-terrorism" on which the report gives no examples. The report simply says in total that: "Radical environmentalists and animal rights movements have maintained a limited campaign. Nevertheless, the material damage they caused was extensive". No definition of "eco-terrorism" is given nor is one planned in the proposed extension of Europol's role (see Statewatch's The activities and development of Europol pamphlet). It is thus hard to see the distinction between activity which might be termed a criminal offence as distinct from a "terrorist" offence.

Another new category which is even more problematic is that of "anarchist terrorism". In February 2001 a Europol seminar on counter-terrorism held in Madrid agreed on a proposal by Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy to set up a joint investigation team on "anarchist terrorism". It appears that after Genoa in July 2001 Europol may have set up an "analysis file" on "anarchist terrorism" which in turn fed through into this Situation report. Interviewed by a German newspaper in August Jurgen Storbeck, Europol's Director, said the so-called "Black Block" of anarchists could be seen as "terrorist or pre-terrorist".

I thought that we were doen with anarchist terrorists........

back to the source......

The following analysis looks at the many questions that arise from the inclusion of "anarchist terrorism" which relies almost totally on examples from Italy and at the attempt to extend terrorism in Spain to legitimate political groups.

Analysis

The report says that "anarchist terrorism" could be a symptom of the possible "resurrection of left wing terrorism" and refers to a series of terrorist attacks "in the southern part of the Union". In fact all the incidents referred to are in Italy, and the report claims that these examples could spark the return of EU-wide "left wing and anarchist terrorism".

This is claimed, by some tortuous logic, to be an EU-wide problem as:

"left wing and anarchist websites in northern European countries cover this [Italian] situation in depth, the possibility of the resurrection of the left wing and anarchist terrorist groups is existent, in which the southern terrorist activity might function as an example"

The report is drawn up by Europol which appears to have rubber-stamped "intelligence" passed to it by member states seeking support for their internal agendas, on the basis of on-going judicial proceedings.

Italy has been investigating numerous anarchists accused of "subversive association" following the G8 summit in Genoa while Spain has been criminalising a number of Basque nationalist groups and left-wing activists by claiming that they are "part of ETA". This led to the inclusion of several Basque groups in the EU list of proscribed organisations and now this situation report.

Italy

Anarchists in Italy have been blamed for a spate of minor bomb attacks over the last few years, with links to groups in Spain, Portugal and Greece alleged by the Italian Interior Ministry. In particular, investigating magistrates have been linking investigations into actions attributed to anarchists to the struggle against the dispersal, isolation and hard prison regime for political prisoners (FIES) in Spain.

After the G8 summit in Genoa, anarchists were blamed by Italian authorities for violent clashes between police and protestors, and a backlash followed against the anarchist movement which led to nation-wide raids involving detentions, searches and a number of persons being placed under investigation.

The threat assessment report expresses concern over the "first signs of the possible resurrection of left wing terrorism", due to episodes of anarchist terrorism "in the second half of 2001". These are attributed to "International Solidarity" (Solidarieta Internazionale), an umbrella name for an organisation carrying out attacks in southern Europe, with examples listed from Italy. The examples provided are inaccurate in a number of respects and the problem has probably been highlighted beyond its actual significance.

Firstly, the document mistakenly states that the sixty alleged Solidarieta Internazionale members detained in September were "allegedly preparing terrorist attacks against Milan's cathedral and other objectives in the same city". The attacks referred to actually ocurred on 26 October 1999 (a carabinieri station), 28 June 2000 (Sant'Ambrogio church) and 18 December 2000 (the Duomo, Milan's cathedral), and were claimed by the group. Sixty people were detained on 18 September for allegedly being members of Solidarieta Internazionale, believed to be involved in attempted bombings in Milan (none of the bombs exploded) (see Statewatch vol 11 no 5). They have been released and are currently under investigation.

Secondly, investigations into another device that exploded in July 2001 outside the Palazzo di giustizia in Venice after the G8 summit, also included under the heading "anarchist terrorism", are still ongoing. Although anarchists or left-wingers were originally blamed, investigating magistrate Felice Casson ordered the arrest of a 26-year-old right-winger, Cristiano Rifani, in January 2001 and a second suspect is also a right- winger. A number of the cases included in the report are still unresolved, including an explosion in Rome on 11 May 2000 that targeted the Institute for International Affairs and the Council for US-Italian relations. It was claimed by the Nuclei di Iniziativa Proletaria in a 36-page e-mail document. Raul Terilli, Fabrizio Sante Antonini and Roberta Ripaldi, three activists, are under arrest in connection with this and other minor bombing incidents. In a letter from prison to anarchist magazine Croce Nera Anarchica, Fabrizio Sante Antonini claimed that " … on the night between July 15 and 16 2001" numerous searches were carried out in which "nothing was found". He adds that "after over two years of interceptions, surveillance … the normal personal relationships of a person written into police records adquire suspicious and perverse traits, the source for who knows what criminal conspiracy". He called on all activists and organisation to become active to "deconstruct this sandcastle based on falsehood and lies, with the aim of shutting up any voice expressing dissent or struggle".

A device that exploded outside the Northern League's headquarters in Vigonza (Padua) on 24 August 2001 is also included in the list of anarchist terrorist attacks although investigators said in August that it was just as likely that it was planted by ordinary organised crime.

There is an extensive history in Italy of anarchists or "left-wingers" appearing as suspects in the early stages of investigations, being arrested and later being shown to be innocent. In 2000 and 2001 two trials concerning explosions during the so-called "years of lead" originally blamed on anarchists resulted in convictions for right-wingers acting with state collusion (see Statewatch bulletin vol 10 no 2 & vol 11 no 3/4). Three members of Ordine Nuovo, a neo-fascist group with alleged links to Italian and US secret services, received life sentences on 30 June 2001 for planting a bomb in Milan's Banca dell'agricoltura in 1969, killing sixteen people. Two anarchists, Giuseppe Pinelli and Pietro Valpreda, were the original suspects. Pinelli died after falling out of a window when he was being questioned in custody, and Valpreda spent three years in prison. Gianfranco Bertoli was found guilty on 11 March 2000 for a 1973 bombing outside Milan's police station in which four people were killed - despite his claims that he was an anarchist, he was found to have been employed by the Italian secret service, SIFAR, and to have links with far-right groups, particularly Ordine Nuovo.

Massimo Cacciari, the former centre-left mayor of Venice, has criticised attempts by centre-right politicians to assume that bombings are left-wing before investigations are carried out. Alluding to the "years of lead", he claimed that "only in Italy, we pretend that the world hasn't changed", adding that "in the seventies, there was the actual threat of a civil war, there were coups d 'etat . .. there was a risk for democracy", which is no longer the case.

Luca Giannasi, an informer for the Italian military secret service (SISMI) received an eight-month prison sentence on 14 February 2001 for possession of explosives and was acquitted on the more serious charges of organising and carrying out two bombings in Milan. Based on a statement given to the police by Giuseppe Fregosi, an associate who was arrested for arms trafficking, Giannasi was arrested in connection with a bomb that exploded on 22 September 1998 in front of a Guardia di Finanza office and an unexploded device planted in the Bocconi University on 21 April 1999. Fregosi claimed that he provided Giannasi with explosive that the latter said would be used for making explosive devices. This evidence was not allowed in court because Fregosi refused to repeat his allegations in the trial. Giannasi allegedly told SISMI that attacks by anarchists were imminent between June and September 1998 and blamed the attack on the Guardia di Finanza office on Milan anarchists. A leaflet from a quite unknown group, the Nuclei di Guerriglia Antirazzista (Anti-Racist Guerrilla Units) was conveniently found with the device in a university classroom.

The inclusion of "anarchist terrorism", solely on the basis of evidence from Italy, begs the question about the proven role of right-wingers who have caused explosions in Italy. In one case a known right-winger was caught red-handed when he injured himself in an attempt to bomb the Rome headquarters of communist daily newspaper II manifesto on 22 December 2000. Andrea Insabato, a right-winger with links to Forza Nuova leader Roberto Fiore, was arrested after the attack against Il manifesto and received a 12-year prison sentence in February 2001. In recent years a museum on the Resistance movement (against nazism and fascism) and a cinema where a film on nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was being screened were also attacked with explosive devices.

Spain

The Spanish authorities have been conducting an ongoing campaign to criminalise Basque political organisations advocating autonomy, including youth organisations and prisoner support groups, by claiming that they are part of ETA. The inclusion of such groups - which were controversially outlawed in Spain in 2001 - listed in the document as "an ETA support organisation" (Ekin), organisations "closely affiliated with ETA" (Ekin, Haika and prison support group Gestoras pro-amnistia) and "bureau for international relations for ETA" (Xaki) supports this approach. These groups were also included in the EU list of terrorist organisations attached to the "Common position on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism" on the basis of information indicating that a decision by a competent authority regarding these groups in relation to terrorist offences has been taken "irrespective of whether it concerns the instigation of investigations or prosecution". Thus, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is dispensed with, and the fact that numerous arrests in connection with terrorist activities have been overturned on appeal is ignored. Catalan left wing groups have also alleged that arrests have taken place to link grassroots movements to ETA, including a raid in the Netherlands (see Statewatch news online, February) organised by European prosecutions unit pro-Eurojust to arrest Juan Ramirez Rodriguez, a singer in a Catalan political rock band.

In 2000 the Spanish government hardened its anti-terrorist legislation by extending the definition of apologia de terrorismo (defending terrorism) from incitement to commit offences to applauding a crime or praising its author. This was part of a raft of measures that also included treating minors as adults if they are involved in terrorist activity, and the conversion of kale borroka (street struggle/violence) into a terrorist offence. These measures were aimed at the wider Basque nationalist movement, at a time when any criticism of the government's anti-terrorist policy, or any claim for increased Basque sovereignty (even if it is conducted through the democratic system), is interpreted by the government as connivance with ETA - this happens regularly to the mainstream PNV (Basque Nationalist Party).

The Spanish government also wanted to have political party, Batasuna, listed as a terrorist organisation on the EU list - this failed when other EU member states pointed out that it would be a contradiction, as Batasuna is a political party with representatives in Spanish institutions. The ruling PP (Partido Popular) and opposition PSOE (Socialist Workers Party) are planning to resolve this issue, in the framework of an "Anti-terrorist pact" between the two parties, by making parties that "shelter or justify terrorism, xenophobia and racism" illegal, according to justice minister Angel Acebes. The criminalisation of Batasuna would make it difficult for a peace process such as those developing in Corsica and Northern Ireland, whose progress is welcomed in the document, to occur.

With the conversion of public order offences/violence into terrorist crimes if they have a political scope, any violent act motivated by claims for Basque independence may see its perpetrator linked to ETA, regardless of whether a link exists. The crucial issue is the support for a "terrorist goal". If a group opposes Spanish anti-terrorist policy (on human rights or other grounds), they be viewed as entities abusing their legal status to support "terrorists". If this criterion were adopted at a European level, the identification of a left-wing terrorist threat could lead to the description as "terrorist" (by association) of all activists in the EU.

Conclusion

As to the inclusion of "eco-terrorism", no incidents are mentioned other than a "limited campaign" which has caused "extensive" material damage. The case for placing "eco-terrorism" in a terrorist threat assessment document alongside Al Qaida appears highly questionable, and the absence of detail may be linked to possible support by EU citizens for actions carried out by some environmentalists which it would be convenient to construe as terrorism.

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, commented:

"The exclusion of right-wing bombing attacks in Italy - let alone violent and murderous attacks on migrants in several EU countries by racists - suggests that the inclusion of "anarchist terrorism" and "eco-terrorism" in this EU Situation report is aimed at criminalising the radical left and expanding the concept of terrorism"

Situation in the terrorist activity in the European Union: Situation report and trends - September 2000 to September 2001, full-text: 5759/02 (pdf) 5759/1/02 REV 1 (pdf)

Sources: Corriere della Sera 21-22.4.99, 26.4.00, 28.4.00, 18.6.00, 27.12.00, 1.8.01, 29.8.01, 20.9.01, 22.11.01, 15.2.02; Crocenera Anarchica no3, Dec.2001; El Mundo 16.1.02; El Pais 17.11.00, 19-20.2.01, 22.12.01, 27-28.12.01, 21.1.02; Euskalinfo 3.5.01, 15.6.01; Il Manifesto 28.8.01, 7-8.2.02; Il Messaggero 13.6.01; Indymedia 16.1.02; Repubblica 14.12.99, 16.11.00, 11.4.01, 17.7.01, 24.8.01, 26-28.8.01, 19.9.01; Repubblica online 28.8.01, 14.2.02; Spanish Interior Ministry press statements 5.4.01, 3.8.01, 14.9.01, 28.12.01, 4.2.02, 6.2.02; Stampa 26.8.01; Televideo 29.1.00.

amended: 25.2.02

______________________________________________________________________________________________

EU plans to extend the Schengen Information System (SIS) to:

i) create EU database to target "suspected" protestors and bar them from entering a country where a protest is planned

ii) create EU database of all "foreigners" to remove third country nationals who have not left within the "prescribed time frame" (full report as pdf file)

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2001/nov/19sis.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Council of the European Union (the 15 EU governments) are discussing plans to create two new dedicated databases on the Schengen Information System (SIS). The first database would cover public order and protests and lead to:

"Barring potentially dangerous persons from participating in certain events [where the person is] notoriously known by the police forces for having committed recognised facts of public order disturbance"

"Targeted" suspects would be tagged with an "alert" on the SIS and barred from entry the country where the protest or event was taking place.

The second database would be a register of all third country nationals in the EU who will be tagged with an "alert" if they overstay their visa or residence permit - this follows a call by the German government for the creation of a "centralised register".

Both of these new databases are being put forward under the post 11 September "Anti-terrorism roadmap" (item 45 on the version of 15.11.01, to "Improve input of alerts into the SIS").

In its report following the protests in Gothenburg and Genoa on 13 July the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed to the creation of national databases of "trouble-makers" but put off the decision to create a centralised EU-wide database, see: Statewatch report: EU plans the surveillance of protestors

This initiative comes in the context of the debate over the definition of terrorism to be agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 6-7 December. The draft on the table would embrace protests and protestors in the definition of terrorism.

Tony Bunyan, editor of Statewatch, commented:

"After the protests in Gothenburg the EU governments adopted far-reaching plans to put protestors under surveillance. After 11 September the European Commission proposed a definition of terrorism which also extended to protests.

Now under the EU's "Anti-terrorist roadmap" we have the frightening prospect that details of suspected protestors and dissenters will be held by the Schengen Information System on one centralised, computerised EU-wide database and all "foreigners" in the EU held on another - and both are to be the subject of "targeted" action and/or surveillance. Protestors and "foreigners" are to be targeted as representing primary "threats" to the internal security of the EU."

The full Statewatch report with more details on "foreigners" registers and the European Commission's Communication on illegal immigration: Full report - the "enemy within" II (pdf file)

SIS to hold database on protestors



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conclusions of the special Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 July - after Gothenburg but before Genoa - said that:

1. Police and intelligence officers should: "identify persons or groups likely to pose a threat to public order and security"

2. All legal and technical "possibilities" should be used for the: "more structured exchanges of data on violent troublemakers on the basis of national files". At that time the Council (EU governments) were divided 8-7 against the creation of a "European database of troublemakers".

3. All legal possibilities: "should be used to prevents such individuals.. from going to the country hosting the event". The criteria for preventing people attending protests is to be "serious reasons" (in the eyes of police and security agencies) to believe that: "such persons are travelling with the intention of organising, provoking or participating in serious disturbances of public law and order".

The rationale of these Conclusions feed into the post 11-September definition of "terrorism" put forward by the European Commission which extends to protests and demonstrations (see, proposed Framework Decision on combating terrorism).

Now the EU Presidency of the Council of the European Union (Belgium) has put forward (15.10.01) a proposal that the Schengen Information System (SIS) be extended to cover:

"Potentially dangerous persons" who are to be prevented from entering countries for "sports, cultural, political or social events"

Under the plan the scope of the SIS - the EU's police cooperation, internal security and border control database - would be widened to allow for "alerts" to be placed on people:

"known by the police forces for having committed recognised facts of public order disturbance"

Under the proposal, Article 99 of the Schengen Implementing Convention would be extended. It currently allows police forces to enter the names of people on the SIS to be placed under:

"discreet surveillance or specific checks... where there are real indications to suggest that the person concerned intends to commit or is committing numerous and extremely serious offences"

Although Article 99 is currently only available for "extremely serious offences", the proposed extension would allow the inclusion on the SIS of people:

"with the intention of organising, causing, participating or fomenting troubles with the aim of threatening public order or security"

An "alert" on these 'trouble-makers':

"would cause the person to be barred from entering the country during a limited period before and after the event takes place"

'Football hooligans', demonstrators, in fact anyone with a public order misdemeanour to their name, could face bans on entering other EU countries during such periods:

"The specific event could be any sports, cultural, political or social event"

The Belgian presidency's explanatory notes, headed:

"Barring potentially dangerous persons from participating in certain events"

makes clear the intent of the proposal:

"Example: A known violent football fan can be barred from attending a football match, if there are indications that the person might cause disorders before, during or after the game. The measure could be extended to violent demonstrators as well."

The overall purpose would be to:

"Limit the risk of public disorder during a sports, social, cultural or political event by targeting known individuals, resulting in increased internal security in the Schengen territory"

The targeting of "known individuals" will be based on information gathered at national level (by police and security agencies) and passed on to the SIS in Strasbourg. The database of suspected "troublemakers" held on the SIS will then be accessed by police and internal security agencies when there is an assumed "threat" for a particular event in that country. This would deny people the right of free movement in the EU and the right to protest. However, the placing of an "alert" on the SIS that a "targeted" person is a suspected "troublemaker" could be accessed - during a specific event - and used to stop them travelling for other purposes such as visiting friends or to go on holiday - it would constitute a quasi criminal record. Moreover, the construction at national level of a register of "known individuals" means that quite ordinary and everyday political activity of groups and organisations will have to be placed under regular surveillance.

German government calls for EU-wide "foreigners" database