[Marxism] Ny's top court admits how "terrorism" charge stacks the deck against (Muslim/Arab) defendants

Jeff Goodwin jgoodwin.nyu at gmail.com
Wed Dec 19 11:18:05 MST 2012


>
> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
>
> NY’s top court admits charge of “terrorism” stacks the deck against
> (Muslim/Arab) defendants
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/16/court-terrorism-morales-gangs-meaningless
>

Another great piece by Glen Greenwald. But I notice his take on "terrorism"
is quite different from that of Eqbal Ahmad (see
http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Ahmad.htm), Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, and
many others on the left. For these writers, the category "terrorism" is of
course manipulated by officials, mass media, and intellectuals with great
hypocrisy, inconsistency, and a double standard, the effect of which is to
mask the fact that the U.S., Israel, the UK, and other states are the
greatest perpetrators of terrorism. But none rejects the idea that there is
a political strategy that we can call terrorism. (Herman and Chomsky
distinguish between "wholesale" (i.e., state) terrorism and "retail" (i.e.,
oppositional) terrorism.)

Greenwald's view is different: "terrorism . . . means nothing and justifies
everything." Because "terrorism" has no real meaning for Greenwald, it
makes no sense to say, for example, that the U.S. or Israel has employed
terrorism to great effect. Such a claim would be meaningless, since
"terrorism" is a meaningless category.

Personally, I think the Ahmad-Chomsky-Herman view makes more sense.



More information about the Marxism mailing list