|
The third misconception in the definition of the
crime of terrorism is intimately related to the second. The intended
fear and panic need not be widespread or extraordinary. It is enough
that some fear and panic is created and that this fear and panic is
deliberately or systematically used as a means or weapon to coerce
the government to give in to the demand.
Otherwise, situations would occur
similar to those arising from the second misconception, where the
terrorist would, due to the fact that the fear and panic created is
not widespread and extraordinary, escape punishment for terrorism.
An anarchist who has bombed some shopping malls, for example, would
not be guilty of it, even if the other elements of the crime were to
exist, because his criminal act sowed only some fear and panic.
Fourth, the creation of fear and
panic, and not the criminal act alone, must be availed of by the
terrorist to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.
For, as earlier explained, the sowing of fear and panic is an
essential element of the terrorist’s strategy.
The failure to appreciate the
above point results in the following unintended possibility. A crime
like kidnapping (or another crime enumerated in the definition)
would, in the event that the required amount of fear and panic
results, constitute terrorism when, say, ransom or the release of a
convicted prisoner is demanded. But that would not be terrorism,
only a case of kidnapping.
Fifth, the demand need not be
unlawful. Take the case of a group of military adventurists who
demand military reforms or of Armando Ducat Jr., who held a school
bus full of children hostage with a grenade, for the sake of
educational reform. No matter their methods or the fear and panic
they create or have created, they would not be classified as
terrorists, because the demands they made were not unlawful.
Finally, other entities, and not
just the government, may be coerced to give in to the demand.
Consider a group of disgruntled consumers who engage in the
systematic bombing of the offices of multinational corporations
causing injury or death to innocent employees. The purpose of the
bombings is, say, to stop these corporations from damaging the
environment or from manufacturing harmful or defectively dangerous
products. Wouldn’t their acts constitute terrorism?
With the issue of the
definition’s being ill-conceived out of the way, it only remains
to discuss the definition’s susceptibility to government abuse.
The real fear of the critics of the HSA is that its definition of
terrorism may be used by the government to stifle legitimate forms
of dissent. As the definition stands, I am of the firm belief that,
if the strict letter of the law were to be complied with, the
capacity for mischief by the government would be minimal.
I can imagine one worrisome
situation, however, where an arguably correct interpretation of the
HSA would result in an abuse of power. Assume there to be a legal
and peaceful demonstration, where an illegal act is demanded from
the government. Assume also that one of the demonstrators happens to
possess a weapon or even some ammunition during that peaceful
demonstration. Assume finally that widespread and extraordinary fear
and panic ensues because the demonstration has grown in numbers and
massive police and military forces have gathered in the vicinity.
The law is capable of being plausibly interpreted in such a way as
to arrest and prosecute for terrorism the armed demonstrator
together with other participants in the demonstration such as
members of the political opposition, who will then be charged as
coconspirators.
Truth be told, given the present
political situation, it ultimately would not matter how tightly-knit
or precise the definition of the crime of terrorism is. For a
government intent on stifling legitimate dissent would not hesitate
to use a law on terrorism for that very purpose. In the end, it is
not so much fear of the law but fear of the government’s
implementation of it which has caused so much objection against and
resistance to the HSA.
For comments, email: eqflaw @gmail.com.
|
