Spoilers: V for Vendetta

[Eagle Prince]

I do agree that he very much resembles a terrorist, and cleary not perfect in the never-do-wrong superhero sense.  My point about demolitions and such was only to say that the intention of the action is what I'd judge something on.  If killing is justified or possibly even considered... good?  I will leave that up to God.  But I would not call everyone who killed a murderer without considering the circumstances and why they did it.  Where is why I never thought of V as a terrorist, but I do agree that some of the things he did are similiar to the things terrorists also do.

One of the things that got under my skin from the show was the Doctor's journal, when she was talking about the "test subjects".  She says "I find them pathetic" and I was like, so you kidnap a bunch of innocent people and then subject them to horrible deaths, AND call them pathetic.  Heh, that is just mean.

And you really need no better argument for V being a little off his rocker than the scene where he is cheering about being on fire, lol.

[House of Mustard]

I don't want to get into this discussion, because I haven't seen the movie, but I thought this might be helpful:

Terrorism Definitions:

From the US Code of Federal Regulations:

"..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

From the FBI:

Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

From the European Union:

"include intentional acts, by their nature and context, which may be seriously damaging to a country or to an international organisation, as defined under national law, where committed with the aim of:

(i) seriously intimidating a population, or

(ii) unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or to abstain from performing any act, or

(iii) destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation"

(It shouldn't be too surprising that the EU's definition is the most vague and useless.)

[Skar]

We're obviously defining terrorist differently, which will make this discussion impossible. In my eyes you don't have to kill innocents to be a terrorist--blowing up non-military targets with the intent of causing terror and chaos is enough.

Well, as I said, I see a difference between "snuff terrorists" and people who wreck bulldozers to save the trees.  The problem I have is that I believe firmly in the right, nay the duty, of citizens to overthrow bad governments by armed force (which unavoidably causes terror and chaos).  You can't overthrow bad governments through peaceful means, by definition.  Doing so involves inconveniencing the government by any means possible, which unavoidably scares people and causes chaos.  But you CAN overthrow bad governments without targeting innocents.  But, of course, the line is very hard to draw.  

For example, the government you're trying to overthrow deliberately draws it's military food supplies from the same pool the innocent civilians draw from, or even its medical supplies. Is it OK to blow up those supplies knowing you will also be depriving innocents of essential supplies?  In VietNam the NVA and the VC both took advantage of the fact that the press publicly declared that it was U.S. Military policy not to bomb villages even if they had anti-aircraft emplacements or trucks known to be carrying arms and ammunition parked in the middle of them.  They were brazen.  We still didn't bomb those villages.  And we were right not to.  But it gave them an advantage and cost our soldiers their lives.

So I can't abide people being labeled terrorists merely because their ideology disagrees with mine.  In my world they have to be doing things that are not acceptable, like targeting innocents, to earn that label instead of the label "revolutionary"

[Eagle Prince]

Yes Skar, I agree 100% with you on it being a right and basically a duty to overthrow tyrannical governments.

I am not too knowledgeable on law, especially EU law.  But by U.S. definition anyone fighting government in V would not be a terrorist.  For very brief view, as you can see above it happens to clearly state 'unlawful'.  And as every US citizen should know, it is a 2nd amendment right to fight tyrannical goverments by force of arms.

[Skar]

I find it telling that all the definitions of terrorist/m HoM gave us, (thanks by the way it's always good to toss in some actual references to supplement the pontification) would plainly have labeled the American Revolutionaries as terrorists.  I don't find it surprising though.  It is the nature of a government to preserve its own existence and therefore it's not surprising that these government bodies call anything that would inconvenience or disempower them terrorism.

I explained why I feel the need to differentiate in the above post.

[Fellfrosch]

So you're excusing him because you agree with his motives--that's fine, so do I. It was actually Benjamin Franklin who said that the only difference between a revoultionary and a criminal was how history chose to remember him.

I still think V's a terrorist, by my own definition and by all three definitions quoted by Mustard. Not by your definition, obviously, which again is fine with me.

[Skar]

So you're excusing him because you agree with his motives--that's fine, so do I. It was actually Benjamin Franklin who said that the only difference between a revoultionary and a criminal was how history chose to remember him.

No. I'm excusing him and I agree with his motives, but the relationship is not causal; my agreeing with his motives wouldn't make any difference.  For example, I would not agree with the motives of communist revolutionaries trying to take over any given country.  But, assuming the government they're trying to overthrow doesn't provide any means of peaceful change and that the commies refrain from deliberately murdering innocents, I wouldn't have any problem with them call them terrorists for employing violence against that government and its infrastructure and I would label them revolutionaries rather than terrorists.  For that matter I wouldn't have any problem with the government they were trying to overthrow fighting back either as long as they themselves also refrained from targeting innocents.  I'd probably choose a side but IMO violent revolution is not immoral as long as you have no other recourse and don't do things like deliberately murder innocents.

[Eagle Prince]

I still think V's a terrorist, by my own definition and by all three definitions quoted by Mustard.

If I may--

"..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

You are therefore not a terrorist if using force and violence LAWFULLY, correct?  How exactly is it unlawful for a US Citizen to use weapons to stop tyranny?

Now I quote-

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

sticking points in that argument may indeed be hidden in the well regulated part of the sentance, which indicate an organized National Guard more than a force of hoplite citizen soldiers with itchy trigger fingers.

Plus try shooting people to get your point of view across in this country,... I doubt it will be looked upon well. Force is almost never lawfully correct in our society unless the government is the force behind it.

[Skar]

And, unfortunately, should the government ever get to the point where it needs to be overthrown by shooting, whether or not it's legal to do so will be an academic point at best since the threatened government is also the government that  would be making and enforcing the law.

So, I agree, according to the definitions Mustard cited, V was, in fact, a terrorist.  In my mind that does not make him the moral equivalent to AlQuaeda or Timothy McVeigh though.  And since the makers of the film rather obviously wanted him to be seen as a stand in for AlQuaeda (so we could all realize that they're people too or some such), they failed to do so in any meaningful way.  Semantics do not a moral equivalent make.

[Eagle Prince]

Um excuse me but the Militia is NOT the damned National Guard.  I am part of the militia, you are part of the militia.  Sorry, but you are woefully ignorate on this topic to say that.  Why don't you try reading this report by the Subcommittee on the Constituion (ie Congress).

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Let me quote Orrin Hatch, who called the Second Ammendment the "right most valued by free men."

"Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -- apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Putting hte 2nd Amendment into context: it was both a justification for what they had done in the Revolutionary war (in line with many of the philosophers at the time) as well as a justification for them to rebel again, if necessary. Back then, there *was* no difference between a militia formed of otherwise civilian members and the army. The 2nd Amendment was *not* put in place to allow hunters or shooting range officianados. It was there specifically to permit the government from being capable of controlling citizens because the citizens would be unarmed and therefore less able to resist government oppression.

It's much easier to understand the Constitution when you realize that it was primarily a boundary defining document when it was conceived. Basically the main document was there to say "these are things teh government could do." Many Federalists were against an explicit BIll of Rights because they assumed that because the Constitution didn't specifically grant the government power to restrict those rights, it was unnecessary to specifically grant them. This group was afraid that delimiting the rights citizens would have would make the people think that these were the *only* rights given to the people. Whereas those who objected to the Constitution without a Bill of Rights were afraid that because no rights were specified, it would be interpreted that none were granted. Thus, as conceived, the main body of the Constitution was conceived to specify what the government could do, and then not go any further, and the Bill of Rights was added to say "and they DEFINITELY can't go here."

Looking at historical Constitutional treatment, it appears that anti-Bill of Right Federalists were correct in their fears: Today we treat any right not specifically granted in the Constitution as fair game for removal by the government.

I'm not trying to take a side with the above spiel, but I'm sure some came out. So let me specify:

I believe that the militia and the right to bear arms does not specifically refer to an institutionalized armed force controlled by the state or federal governmnet. It doesn't make sense, since why wouldn't a government have a right to make an army? Plus that ability *is* specifically stated in the main body of the Constitution when it gives power to make war. Thus the second amendment must be granting permission to groups other than the US Army/National Guard/etc

I don't believe the Bill of Rights was a mistake. While those who opposed it were right to fear that we would have rights restricted, I don't thyink the presence of the Bill of Rights is solely responsible for that attitude.

[Fellfrosch]

This conversation is now officially no fun anymore.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

*You're* officially no fun anymore.

[Fellfrosch]

But I have an official "Fellfrosch=Fun" T-shirt and bumper sticker.