Is the US government, by its own definition, a terrorist?

Absolutely.
Go read about the Logan Act and the Bilderberg Group.
And check out www.infowars.com

The Bush Administration meets the definition of terrorists.

The Bush administration was nothing with out congress. We cant just blame his administration.

i have often thought so.

If you’re a respected black preacher from Chicago who says that God would damn and not bless America for the terror it has spread around the world, yes.

If you’re a right wing Faux News watcher who hears those comments taken out of context repeated over and over, no.

@chris6137 Sometimes we can, sometimes we cannot. Some of what he did was through executive orders.

Yes.

To my mind, what the US has perpetrated is a form of terrorism. However, and this is important. One piece of the “definition” of terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets.” i.e. you have to intentionally target civilians. I think the US govt would argue that while civilians have been caught in the crossfire, it’s not terrorism it’s “collateral damage.” So by their own definition I’d say no.

I think that the higher-ups in the Pentagon and the State Department understand very well the psychological effects of “collateral damage,” on the civilian population of a targeted area, and how the subsequent destabilization can be used against political establishments that aren’t playing ball with State. No amount of doublespeak is going to change that.

Yes, I believe elements of our government meet the definition.

What else would you call a nation that tricked and killed the majority of the native people? If you were our government, you might say that giving the American Indians smallpox covered blankets helped liberate them.

Notice the use of the word unlawful in the following phrase: “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence…”. Whether something is lawful or unlawful is determined entirely by government. If you take out that convenient little term, it becomes evident that all governments are terrorist: “The calculated use of violence or threat of violence…”. That’s what holds governments together and preserves their power. Stop paying your taxes if you want to see what I mean.

From Wikipedia: ”The monopoly on the legitimate use of violence (Gewaltmonopol des Staates, also known as monopoly on legitimate violence and monopoly on violence) is the definition of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, and has been predominant in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century.”

chris—we cannot Blame Bush for signing statements, torture, lying us to war—all under a complicit Republican controlled Congress?

yes, President Bush makes the final decisions and the president is responsible. He could have vetoed.

@Jeruba – That’s exactly my point.

Yes, it is terrorist by any definition. Of course, the words “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” are interchangeable.

It all depends on where you’re standing. And isn’t that the beauty of politics? :)

Supporting you, @aidje, not disagreeing. Your comment made me remember the quote, so I looked it up.

@Mizuki @Empress

Executive Orders do not give the President the authority to break the law.

It’s funny that you mention what Bush did during the Republican controlled congress, but fail to mention what the democrats did when they regained Congress. They did NOTHING. This is why it is dangerous that most Americans believe we are a democracy. The founding fathers did not want a democracy. They wanted a constitutional republic. A government of three branches, to check and balance each other, to make sure all are obeying the constitution. If one, or even two branches are not acting appropriately, it is the duty of the other to call it out. It is also the duty of the media to act as a fourth branch of government and check and balance the other. Unfortunately, the corporate takeover of the media put a damper on that.

Mizuki, the torture, the lying to war, the signing statements, they were all part of Dennis Kucinich’s 35 articles of impeachment, which he introduced in front of a democratic house, only to be completely neglected by the media and the house. I have yet to hear Obama say a word about impeaching, which in my eyes, gives his approval that it was all ok.

If Obama fails to address these issues, how am I supposed to have faith that the US will stop being terrorists?
A democratically controlled congress with a democratic president is also a very scary thing. If the trend continues, someone in the middle(not associated with either) can end up losing my rights from the right and the left. I hope Obama didnt take constitutional law so he knows exactly how to change it.

@sbrannon
He is President, not king.

@Jeruba –Sorry if it seemed like I thought you were disagreeing; I didn’t mean to imply anything in either direction. I was just excited that you had found the quote I was thinking of, but whose source I could not remember.

chris—did you know that 60 votes are needed to get anything done in the Senate?

Is the average Fluther IQ plunging? Seems to me…

“The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful 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.”

That describes the Income Redistribution Sinistry to a T. The income tax is voluntary; ergo, all those tax lawyer commercials that threaten you with doom if you don’t pay “your” taxes clearly identify the IRS as committing terrorist acts — coercing and intimidating citizens and the society with the threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear — in pursuit of goals (as above), for not doing something that they are not required to do.

Daschle figured this out. He just didn’t have the cojones to say so.

Are you saying you think the government should provide order and protection and maintain public services without expecting citizens to contribute any money for it?

No. The federal government in and of itself — and remember, there is never supposed to be a standing army inside our borders, for use against citizens — can’t “provide” order without extraordinary measures. I think the level of services and order are the States’ duties, first and foremost. Roads should be paid for out of federal gasoline taxes. And the national defense, yes — those are taxable to individual citizens.

If the government stuck to its duties as delineated in the Constitution and quit trying to trespass where it is forbidden to go under the 10th, New Hampshire probably wouldn’t be declaring many Federal laws null and void. See http://patdollard.com/2009/02/new-hampshire-fires-first-shot-of-civil-war-resolution-immediately-voids-several-federal-laws-threatens-counterstrike-against-breach-of-peace/

And if every member of Congress, most of his or her aides and secretaries, and every Cabinet member and appointee didn’t think that their office entitled them to a limo and staff, perhaps we could afford some of the bailing out this Congress has been debating. I’d say if we cut Congress in half and its staff by 25%, we could save around $8B a year.

Go, New Hampshire!

I have certainly been thinking that if public servants hadn’t had such terrible cases of tax amnesia lately and instead were man enough to pay up all they owe, we might have a whole lot more disposable funds than we do right now.

No. Period. Stop that already.