Defining Terrorism Stirs Words of Dispute

Defining Terrorism Stirs Words of Dispute
By DAVID G. SAVAGE and GREG MILLER
Times Staff Writers

October 1 2001 - LA Times

WASHINGTON -- One of the hardest issues facing lawmakers who are writing new 
antiterrorism legislation is the one that many might see as the easiest: What 
is "terrorism"? 

All agree that a politically motivated attack that kills innocent civilians, 
such as the destruction of the World Trade Center, is terrorism at its worst. 

But the Justice Department has proposed to define "terrorism" so broadly that 
some lawmakers fear it would include a teenage computer hacker or a protester 
who tosses a rock through the window of a federal building. 

And because the government wants to prosecute all those who "harbor" or 
"conspire" with terrorists, a loose definition could brand thousands of 
protesters as conspirators in a terrorist plot. 

Senate aides and administration lawyers negotiated over the weekend on the 
details of the law, and some progress was reported. 

"We want to limit it [terrorist offenses] to situations where death or 
serious bodily injured is involved. The administration people said they see 
merit in that suggestion," a Senate aide involved in the negotiations said 
Sunday. 

The two sides hope to reach agreement on the legislation early this week. 

Because terrorism is not one crime but many, Justice Department lawyers opted 
for an open-ended definition. Their draft bill defines a "federal terrorism 
offense" by referring to 35 other crimes. They range from destroying an 
aircraft or assassinating the president, to offenses such as "injury to 
government property" or "computer trespass." 

This set off alarms among civil libertarians. 

<SNIP>

The full article is at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-100101legal.story