[f_salmon]

> David Miranda Detention Legal Under Terrorism Law

Nowadays, everything is "terrorism". It's funny, because before Bush, nobody knew that word. Nobody ever talked about such a thing. It was something that was talked about maybe once in every 5 years. Nowadays, you can't read the news 1 single day without something being labeled "terrorism". Yesterday, it was the Ukrainian gov't calling the people in the tents "terrorists".

It's become really easy to strike people down.

[hahainternet]

> Nowadays, everything is "terrorism". It's funny, because before Bush, nobody knew that word. Nobody ever talked about such a thing

Are you shitting me? Do you perhaps not realise the UK was bombed by the IRA for many many years? That 5 letter bombs were sent only the other week?

Oh right, Americans didn't talk about terrorism, therefore it didn't exist.

Gotcha.

[gutnor]

Yes sure you had IRA, ETA in Spain. Although they were making regular appearance in the media, that was not a daily drivel.

Suddenly 9/11 and everything any government in the world does not sanctify is labelled terrorism, and adequate action as demonstrated by the US is required. Break a window during protest: terrorism, complain loudly about stuff: suspected terrorist.

You cannot deny that since 9/11 lot of freedom have been given up in the name of fighting terrorism ? How is it that Spain/UK with active terrorist movement did not have those laws before ? How is it that we are dead scarred of this "muslim terrorist leaving in a cave in Afganistan/Syria/Irak/ next target", but we were fine living next-door to our homemade ones ?

Long before 9/11, I travelled with bottle of wine from spain to the uk and bottle of whisky to spain from the uk. Both when the IRA and ETA were active. Nowadays, it is not possible in case some terr'ist muslim (sorry no racism, but that's the current media scapegoat) want to "blow our freedom away".

[rmc]

How is it that Spain/UK with active terrorist movement did not have those laws before ?

They (the UK) did. They had the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in the 1980s. They had interment without trial. They had aggressive police on the streets. They had police shooting at protesters. They had the head of government (Thatcher) saying "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They had secret service spying on people of the wrong ethnicity.

I remember going to Northern Ireland in the 90s and being questioned by military with machine guns at the border. These things did exist.

[peterstjohn]

Let's also remember that for a long time, several political parties were also not allowed to have their voices broadcast, either.

[gsnedders]

On the other hand, a lot of these things only applied in NI, not in the rest of the UK.

[rmc]

The IRA almost killed the UK Prime Minister. It was hardly a trivial matter.

[pbhjpbhj]

... and bombed Manchester (1996); Birmingham; Docklands, London (1996); Omagh (1998) at least.

[d0]

Actually as a resident of the UK, it was a "meh" thing. The word terrorist was still an extreme word used in rare circumstances even back in the height of the bombings.

And no one really actually cared about it that much.

Now it's a label for every crime. "The defendant is a terrorist unit proven otherwise".

[vidarh]

I loved to London in 2000. I just realised today that there were at least 5 bombings and one rocket propelled grenade fired at Mi6 headquarters in the two first years I lived here - I only remember two (the car bomb outside BBC offices and the Ealing bomb where they'd phoned in a misleading warning naming a street that doesn't exist).

The rest apparently got so little media attention that I either didn't notice them or have forgotten all about it.

Of course that was well past the peak of the bombings, but it seems like a good illustration of how much of a "meh" thing it actually was.

[hahainternet]

I'm from Manchester, so you know.

[gadders]

To be fair, though, 9/11 was on a whole different order of magnitude to what the IRA attempted, and the IRA were never suicide bombers which made them easier to deter.

[pjc50]

As pointed out below, there was much less fuss about it, even after the Brighton hotel bombing, and much less restriction of civil liberties in mainland UK. (Civil liberties restrictions and human righs violations in Northern Ireland, on the other hand ...)

It's also worth pointing out that the US not only ignored IRA terrorism but in places actually supported it: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/12/glenn-greenwald-slams-...

[dTal]

"The Libyans!"

Back To The Future is my favorite example of the pre-90s perception of terrorists - gullible, ambitious beyond their means, a comical mix of bloodthirsty and inept, and only really dangerous if you stand still right in front of one with your hands in the air.

I think public perception started to shift well before 9/11, with 1995 being a critical turning point with the one-two punch of Oklahoma City and the capture of the Unabomber.

[k-mcgrady]

>> "Nowadays, everything is "terrorism"."

This hasn't changed. Mandela was once (stupidly) thought a terrorist by the current British prime minister. People's definition of terrorism constantly changes. I'm sure there are many people in the Middle East that consider the US a terrorist. It's a ridiculous classification as it's far too vague.

Edit: does the person who down voted this feel like explaining why? I don't see how it doesn't add to the conversation.

[adnam]

To be fair, he was the commander of Umkhonto we Sizwe which carried out bombings, torture and killings. By anyone's standards he was no peacenik.

[gadders]

Also, this was at the height of the cold war and the ANC was a communist organisation. Nobody in the west wanted South Africa becoming part of the USSR's sphere of influence. There was a large amoung of realpolitik involved.

[andyjohnson0]

It was Margaret Thatcher that considered Mandela to be a terrorist, not David Cameron. I didn't down-vote you.

[vixen99]

"Mandela was leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe which he co-founded. "he coordinated a sabotage campaign against military and government targets, and made plans for a possible guerrilla war if sabotage failed to end apartheid". If that's not terrorism (systematic use of violence as a means of coercion for political purposes) what is? The morality of this is another discussion.

[wnoise]

> terrorism (systematic use of violence as a means of coercion for political purposes)

All warfare seems to fit under this definition. Commonly explicitly added qualifiers are "against civilians" or "by non-state actors". Another implicit one is "by people the speaker doesn't like".

[lmm]

Right, but we're talking about a non-state actor attacking civilian targets like power stations. Mandela fits any reasonable definition of terrorist.

[wnoise]

Sure, not disputing that, only the definition expressed.

[k-mcgrady]

I understand she was in power at the time. Cameron was linked however to this[1] 'hang Mandela' campaign poster. I'm not positive but I believe he apologised in parliament after Mandela's death.

[1] http://i.stack.imgur.com/TeN0o.jpg

[andyjohnson0]

Cameron apologied on behalf of Conservative party [1], not personally.

The "Hang Nelson Mandela" material was created by a group, which Cameron was not involved with, within the Federation of Conservative Students.

Disclosure: I'm not a Conservative supporter. I dislike what Cameron is currently doing and loathe Thatcher.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-we-wer...

[2] http://www.newstatesman.com/media-mole/2013/12/twitter-fact-...

[SideburnsOfDoom]

I'm pretty sure that they both "considered Mandela to be a terrorist", and most of the rest of the Conservative party at the time did too. But at the time nobody cared what David Cameron thought.

[gadders]

And the Labour governments before Thatcher sold arms to South Africa.

[Zigurd]

Before he was turned into a Nice Older Gentleman Who Wanted Freedom, Nelson Mandela was a real revolutionary. Governments hate to admit it when revolutionaries win.

[TeMPOraL]

Upvoted, I strongly agree. Sure there were many acts of terror committed in the past, but I remember we started using the label terrorist in my country after 9/11. We used to call people like IRA bombers, etc. zamachowiec (Polish for assassin, but covers suicide bombings and similar stuff), guerilla warriors, etc. but everyone suddenly became terrorist after the Towers fell.

[rmc]

The IRA were called "terrorist" by the UK Government at the time. They had the "Prevention of Terrorism Acts"[1], and the then head of Government (Thatcher), said they wouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Acts

[davidw]

> because before Bush, nobody knew that word

There were various terrorist operations in the 80ies that were in the news. I would find it probable that the word is more used/abused these days, but the statement above is factually incorrect.

[ericcumbee]

Marine barracks in Beruit, first World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, Embassies in Africa, the USS Cole. I'm sure i've missed some.

[rmc]

The IRA in the UK?

[davidw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

[asksol]

I seem to remember "anarchist" being used for "someone using violence to further their view", so in that sense the situation is maybe better now.

[rmc]

It's funny, because before Bush, nobody knew that word. Nobody ever talked about such a thing.

Except for the IRA in the UK. You really need to read up on your modern UK history

[jackgavigan]

David Miranda was detained under the Terrorism Act 2000, which was written and voted into law before George W Bush was elected President of the United States.

[alasdair_]

> Nobody ever talked about such a thing. It was something that was talked about maybe once in every 5 years.

Someone else already mentioned it but living in the UK, the IRA (and UDF) was something that was mentioned DAILY.

[serf]

use of the word terrorist: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_e...

bush just happened to make it more trendy. I hate the guy, but let's not contribute a word to his legacy.