Comment by RodericDay | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RodericDay | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, [my working group was asked] to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress [passed] U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331 ... the US definition of terrorism. […] one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. […] And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.[62]

- Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq (under Jimmy Carter) and former ambassador to Mauritania

For what it's worth, I'm not american (canadian), but your post reads like pure unadulterated american propaganda to me. Stuff like putting "communist revolutionaries" in quotes, repeating the unsourced myth that american patriot soldiers suffer with suicidal ideation because they feel remorse, etc.

It's like we're from two different worlds.

It's worth keeping in mind that the profession of a diplomat in large part involves, indeed above all requires, the ability to see the matter from the other fellow's point of view. We've had perennial problems with our own diplomats being so skilled at it that they forget which country commands their allegiance.

Here, Mr. Peck's partial citation is carefully circumscribed in a fashion that seems impossible to read as other than tendentious. The first term set out in 18 USC 2331's definition of the term "international terrorism" [1] is thus:

> As used in this chapter--

> the term “international terrorism” means activities that--

> involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

While I'm happy to concede that the US government has taken a somewhat cavalier line with regard to its own policies on the declaration of war, our legal and judicial systems have yet at this time to find that such conduct is unlawful. Until that changes, there seems no clear argument to be made that that conduct qualifies as "international terrorism" under the definition our law provides.

To claim that the problem of suicide among US soldiers and veterans is mere "unsourced myth" is to say the least remarkable. You may care to examine a recent report [2] on the matter, produced by our Department of Veterans' Affairs - an organization whose misfeasance is legendary among veterans themselves and among other Americans knowledgeable on the matter, so if anything, even the vastly disproportionate rates there described are still likely to be low. Or you may not care to examine it, preferring instead to continue in the comfortable fancy that I'm just making this all up to serve my turn. I don't really care either way which you choose, but the facts are here before you, if you have any interest in them.

As for the rest - I do suppose I can understand how it might seem that way, for all that the difference is purely one of perception and analysis. I don't see any compelling reason at this time to privilege your perception and analysis over mine - and it does seem as though yours is somewhat less universally shared than you may imagine; at any rate, some of the world's most effective snipers are countrymen of yours. Perhaps they come from a world less like yours than like mine.

[1] http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-pro...

[2] https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/2016suicidedatareport.p...

Your deflection of Peck's comments is verbose but insubstantial, you basically say he's being too charitable or losing perspective. Bad form.

And as for the suicide point, I'm not challenging the idea that US forces are depressed or suicidal. I'm challenging the idea that they're depressed and suicidal because they're such compassionate warriors that they feel their victims' pain and suffer for the deaths that they cause or some such nonsense. I think these are much more related to the drudgery and boredom of this new form of warfare.

I'd address the definition point or the Canadian sniper point, but I'm busy. I will check back later and see if I can complete this.

No, I'm saying he is deliberately quoting only part of the US Code definition of the term "international terrorism", with the clear intent that it be taken for the whole. It would not be too strong a statement to say that I regard this as a lie of omission. On his motives for so doing I can only speculate, and indeed I have done so above, but the nature of his statement in its own right seems only too clear to me.

I've had the opportunity to get to know a few veterans. To the extent they've opened up to me on such a sensitive subject, I have never developed the impression that it was drudgery and boredom that tended to inspire soldiers and veterans to consider suicide. This strikes me as quite a remarkable statement on your part, and I would very much like to know more about how you have reached this conclusion. Perhaps you will convince me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com