Defining a Terrorist

It is fascinating how the Soviet Criminal Code was abused when it came to laws against terrorism. As we see this playing out in the United States, we should realize it isn’t a new tactic. Solzhenitsyn says that “terror” began to be construed broadly not just as an act, like trying to bomb a politician’s carriage, but as punching someone who was a personal enemy.

What mattered most was who the act was against. If the person who was assaulted or offended was a party member, it was considered a terrorist act. If they weren’t a party member it was looked upon lightly. Terrorism also became broadly interpreted to include intent as well action. This, of course, led to the State being the ultimate judge as to what the citizen’s intent was.

Intent in the sense of preparation, to include not only a direct threat against an activist uttered near a beer hall (“Just you wait”) but also the quick-tempered retort of a peasant woman at the market (“Oh, drop dead”). Both qualified as TN – Terrorist Intent – and provided a basis for applying the article in all its severity.

The Patriot Act was put in place after 9/11 and was supposed to be used to battle against global terrorism. It is now being employed more broadly. Now, parents who protest and speak against the government curriculum at school board meetings are put on terrorist watch lists. Political protest by conservative populists is defined as a terrorist threat. While Antifa burning down cities is considered “mostly peaceful protests.” The distinction between who is and who isn’t a terrorist is based on who you support and what party you align with.