MADDOW: If a religious extremist in a foreign country was under surveillance by U.S. intelligence, what would you call someone who tipped off that extremist, who told that person that U.S. intelligence was watching them, and specifically, that their E-mail was compromised, that intelligence agents were reading every word of their E-mails?

What would you call the person who completely blew that intelligence effort? Blew that surveillance target? Blew that lead that U.S. intelligence was following to fight terrorism?

In this case, you’d call that person congressman - Congressman Pete Hoekstra, the highest-ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee.

As we talked about on this show last night, Congressman Hoekstra took it upon himself yesterday to disclose to “The Washington Post” that the alleged shooter in the Ft. Hood massacre, Maj. Nidal Hasan, not only had sent E-mails to a radical cleric living in Yemen. He had received two E-mails from that cleric as well. That’s news, right?

No law enforcement agency or intelligence agency has released that information. No one from the U.S. government or anywhere else had gone on record or even leaked anonymously to the press that there were E-mails from that radical cleric to Maj. Hasan.

It’s just Pete Hoekstra who said that to “The Washington Post,” thereby broadcasting to the world the previously undisclosed fact that U.S. intelligence was reading that cleric’s E-mail.

Republicans, always looking out for national security. Or as we like to call them, gigantic a**hats.

ABC News - “Many ties to Jihad web sites”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hasan-multiple-mail-accounts-officials/story?id=9065692&nwltr=blotter_featureMore

We have no plenty of evidence for the political/jihadist motivations.
we know now of Hasan’s strange and angry outbursts to others in the military, his contacts and conversations with Al Qaeda members (!) and radical Imams, etc.

As for the ‘civilian’ caveat, it’s invalid -

MR REYNOLDS: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE 9/11 ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON WAS NOT TERRORISM?!?
After all, every person killed there was military.

#27 “I am just saying that it is disengenuous to eliminate the possibility of terrorism just because the victims were military.”

Absolutely correct. This domestic Army base required members of the military (except MPs) to be unarmed. They are certainly ‘non-combatants’ when it comes to their relationship with a *fellow officer*. There was zero expectation of any ‘enemy’.

And if 9/11 attack on Pentagon was terrorism, what’s the difference with Major Hasan in terms of targets? ? If Major Hasan flew a Piper cub into the Fort Hood cafeteria, killing 12, instead of shooting at people, killing 12, shouting the same words the 9/11 hijackers used in their final moments, would Mr Reynolds admit it was terrorism?

Done Dare Call it Terrorism:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/11/none-dare-call-it-terrorism.html

Terrorism is a specific form of violence that harms innocents in order to attack our wider society and to advance a political agenda. Major Hasan’s murderous rampage is an apparent act of terrorism, based on the evidence we have seen so far.

I prefer the draft Wretchard produced:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/11/11/a-writing-exercise/

There is a speech which respects duty and responsibility, which history has looked upon with favor.

And according to Wikipedia, “A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.”

The General Assembly resolution 49/60 titled “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” adopted on December 9, 1994, contains a provision describing terrorism without mention of combatant status: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”

But On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Maybe another way to differentiate would be the actions of the victims, especially if they are military. Are they in a combat zone? Are their actions consistent with combatant status? Or are they targets for terror, regardless of their status?

I am just saying that it is disengenuous to eliminate the possibility of terrorism just because the victims were military. Maybe a better characterization is whether the victims of the act were innocents. But that could very well start another discussion.

Your placing a futher caviot in the definition for non-combatants is your own addition.

No, it’s an element in many scholarly definitions of terrorism.

The definition of terrorism is controversial because some want to exclude national liberation movements and some want to include them. The definitional fight is typically over the Maquis, the IRA and the Palestinians.

I prefer a rigorous interpretation that allows us to use different terms to define national liberation or legitimate resistance movements.

Some examples:

Tamar Meisels (2008): advocates a consistent and strict definition of terrorism, which she defines as “the intentional random murder of defenseless non-combatants, with the intent of instilling fear of mortal danger amidst a civilian population as a strategy designed to advance political ends.”

Daniel D. Novotny (2007): “An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence.

You were wrong to make that assumption. My interest in political rhetoric is historical in nature, having to do with studying how the spoken word has played a role in our history.

ed.

I examined the speech from the standpoint of history and political rhetoric. I made no judgment regarding Obama’s leadership abilities which, if you read this blog on a regular basis, you would know I find wanting.

I make it plain right at the top how I am examining the speech. Did you miss that part?

ed.

Your placing a futher caviot in the definition for non-combatants is your own addition.”

Some sort of caveat is necessary because otherwise the repeated threats of force against Iraq, and indeed, the use of force in both Gulf Wars would fit the above definition and could therefore be described as terrorism.

I’d say that an addition of two definitions, (1) For non-state actors engaging in violence for political ends, and (2) Non-state actors enacting violence against a civilian population not of that state for political pourpose at the behest of a state.