Dan Abrams, the BBC and "Terrorism"

There has been something of a flap in recent days over the BBC shying away from the use of the word "terrorist" to describe those who detonated devices (and it seems themselves) on the London transport system last week, killing over 50 innocent people. Apparently the Beeb has even gone so far as to edit contemporaneous news reports replacing "terrorist" with "bomber".

Attempting to doctor the historical record is at best risible, at worst Stalinist, so I won't intend to defend that activity at all.

But I will take issue with something Dan Abrams said on MSNBC last night (Wed July 13) on the Abrams Report in attacking the BBC. (Transcript not yet available).

Attacking the BBC for describing the term "terrorist" as "contentious in some contexts" and carrying "emotional and value judgements", Abrams was quick to scoff that the London bombers, like the 9/11 bombers and suicide bombers in Israel for example were obviously terrorists, because they "purposely targeted civilians" and even children.

Abrams here uses quite a common construction frequently raised when it is argued that the militaries of countries like the US, the UK and Israel using violence for political ends and frequently killing civilians cannot be differentiated under any reasonable definition of terrorism. Supposedly the intention is key. The military intends to kill enemy soldiers, or destroy their installations, even if sometimes their proximity to civilians means it is likely or even inevitable that civilian death will result. Therefore acts like, for example, This page quite succintly sums up the matter as decided in the UK.

Hyam (1975)
where the defendant knows that there is a serious risk that death or grievous bodily harm will ensue from his acts, and commits those acts deliberately and without lawful excuse ... It does not matter in those circumstances whether the defendant desires those consequences to ensue or not, and in none of these cases does it matter that the act and the intention were aimed at a potential victim other than the one who succumbed.

Moloney (1985)
[W]as death or really serious injury ... a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? ... if [the] answer [is] yes to both questions it is a proper inference ... to draw that he intended that consequence.

Simply therefore as Abrams should know, one cannot simply fire a missile into a crowd and claim one intended to kill only one person. If the launcher foresaw the death of a crowd as being "a natural consequence of his act" then the correct inference is that "he intended that consequence", and it makes no difference whether or not they "desire those consequences to ensure".

Thus to say that terrorism has the simple requirement of intending the deaths of innocent civilians, can only mean that in any case where the US or other military carries out an act resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians (e.g. the bombing of Baghdad) where those deaths were natural consequence of the act, then regardless of whether or not those deaths were desired that military has - by Abrams definition - committed "terrorism".

But since that is probably not the kind of thing the BBC wants to be relaying to its viewers every day, maybe it's understandable that they try to restrict their use of the T-word.
- posted by Brian OC @ 10:10 AM
|