“The absence of a terrorism definition seriously hinders any effort to coordinate an international response to terrorism. Without a common definition countries remain free to interpret their own obligations and define for themselves which groups are terrorists and which are “freedom fighters.” Saudi Arabia uses this distinction, for example, to get away with funding Hamas, while Iran and Syria use it to provide funds and support to Hezbollah. But, many other countries have also used it to avoid taking steps to freeze funds or take other civil or criminal action against those individuals or groups which they support.”

David’s post is a good one and brings up the issue of anti-terrorism regulations in Sri Lanka, with no mention of the LTTE in it, perhaps with a view to curtail any and all “terrorist” activities that are seen to be detrimental to “national security” and “territorial integrity”. As David hints, this brings up the question on how to deal with a State that also uses terrorism (state sponsored terrorism is old news in Sri Lanka, and continues to this day). As Sittingnut points out, it’s often self-interest that propels the creation and enactment of anti-terrorism laws, and we see that in the US / UK / India / Australia and other countries that after 9/11 have enacted such laws, human rights have really taken a battering.

How much of this is inevitable? For sure, the primary target of terrorism is a way of life that they seek to subvert. By bringing in anxiety, fear and raising the fear of fellow citizens (EVERYBODY is a suspect, EVERYONE is a potential enemy, NO-ONE can be trusted) terrorism’s usual response from the State is the creation of an Orwellian blanket that smothers all dissent.

in other words if one accepts moral relativism one has to accept a free for all. ‘justifications’, ‘laws’ ‘good’, ‘bad’ etc do not have any meaning then. ppl will do what they can to get/preserve their interests. relative self interest without any regard to others’ interest will be the only criteria by which they will evaluate their actions.

so if anyone thinks that is how terrorism should be considered, do not complain if some ppl decide the answer to above question by uniting and enacting laws aimed at furthering their self interest ( including draconian anti terror laws ) and do not care what will happen to others as a result. what else can you expect?

–
on the other hand if human rights etc are absolute ( non relative) universal values it stands to reason that there be laws to prevent violations. in that case acts of terrorism will also be considered violations of human rights. in fact terror will be defined by the acts involved not by the who does it for what reason, and where. and anti terrorism laws will be judged not by whether they will prevent us from using terror tactics in future or whether they facilitate furthering of our individual interests, but on how far they violate or preserve those absolute human rights.
–
curiously in both cases one would probably end up with anti terror laws of some kind. difference will be in their severity.
–
personally i believe that ppl should be free to act as they wish as long as they allow others to act as they wish. if some interfere with others freedom ( as terrorists do ) i would accept restrictions to be places on those ( including the application of violence if needs be) as sanctioned by democratically expressed will of the public.